(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Communist activities among professional groups in the Los Angeles area. Hearings"

I 



£ 



^nnz 




Given By 

VJ « »J>. ik^ O JT X . v^ J. j^ 



Bl 



f ft, I M' 



3^ 



COMMUNIST ACTIVITIES AMONG PROFESSIONAL 
GROUPS IN THE LOS ANGELES AREA-PART 1 



HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES 
Co. ye,. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES - 

EIGHTY-SECOND CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 



JANUARY 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, AND 26, AND APRIL 9, 1952 



Printed for the use of the Committee on Un-American Activities 




UNITED STATES 
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
95008 WASHINGTON : 1952 



^■7>r 



PUBLIC J 




^ J^^Hs-^ 



U. S. SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS 



COMMITTEE ON UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES 
United States House of Repkesentatives 

JOHN S. WOOD, Georgia, Chairman 

FRANCIS B. WALTER, Pennsylvania HAROLD H. VELDE, Illinois 

MORGAN M. MOULDER, Missouri BERNARD W. KEARNEY, New York 

CLYDE DOYLE, California DONALD L. JACKSON, California 

JAMBS B. FRAZIBR, JR., Tennessee CHARLES E. POTTER, Michigan 

Frank S. Tavenner, Jr., Counsel 

Louis J. RUSSELL, Senior Investigator 

JOHN W. Carringtox, Clerk of Committee 

Raphael I. NixON, Director of Research 

n 



CONTENTS 



Page 
January 21, 1952 : 
Testimony of — 

Max Silver 2437 

Louise Light Silver (Dr. Louise E. Light) 2450 

Charles Daggett 2459 

George Glass 2486 

January 22, 1952, testimony of Louise Light Silver (resumed) 2497 

January 23, 1952 : 
Testimony of — 

David Aaron 2501 

Albert M. Herzig 2528 

January 24, 1952 : 

Testimony of A. Marburg Yerkes 2547 

January 25, 1952 : 
Testimony of — 

Milton S. Tyre 2587 

William A. Wheeler 2606 

Statement of Milton S. Tyre (December 14, 1951) 2606 

William G. Israel 2616 

January 26, 1952, testimony of Charles W. Judson 2631 

April 9, 1952, testimony of Robert J. Silberstein 2653 

Appendix: Aaron Exhibit No. 1, pamphlet entitled "Under Arrest!" pub- 
lished by the International Labor Defense 2691 

III 



COMMUNIST ACTIVITIES AMONG PEOFESSIONAL GROUPS 
IN THE LOS ANGELES AEEA— PART 1 



MONDAY, JANUARY 21, 1952 
United States House of Representatives, 

COMMITI'EE ON Un-AmERICAN ACTIVITIES, 

Washington, D. O. 

PUBLIC HEARING 

The Committee on Un-American Activities met pursuant to ad- 
journment at 10 : 30 a. m., in room 226, Old House Office Building, 
Hon. John S. Wood (chairman) presiding. 

Committee members present : Representatives John S. Wood, Clyde 
Doyle, James B. Frazier, Jr. (appearance noted in record), Bernard 
W. Kearney, and Donald L. Jackson. 

Staff members present: Frank S. Tavenner, Jr., counsel; Thomas 
W. Beale, Sr., assistant counsel ; John W. Carrington, clerk ; Raphael 
I. Nixon, director of research; Louis J. Russell, senior investigator; 
William A, Wheeler and Courtney Owens, investigators; and A. S. 
Poore, editor. 

Mr. Wood. The committee will come to order. 

Let the record show that a quorum is present. 

Mr. Tavenner, what is the name of the first witness ? 

Mr. Tavenner. The first witness this morning is Mr. Max Silver. 

Mr. Wood. Mr. Max Silver. 

Will you please raise your right hand? Will you swear that the 
testimony you are about to give shall be the truth, the whole truth, 
and nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Silver. I do. 

Mr. Wood. Proceed, Mr. Tavenner. 

TESTIMONY OF MAX SILVER 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Silver, will you please state your full name ? 
Mr. Silver. Max Silver. 

Mr. Tavenner. When and where were you born, Mr. Silver ? 
Mr. Silver. I was born in the Province of Vilna, a part of Russia, 
in 1891. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you give the spelling of that name, please ? 

Mr. Silver. Vilna, V-i-1-n-a. 

Mr. Tavenner. When did you come to the United States? 

Mr. Silver. In October 1908. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you a naturalized American citizen ? 

Mr. Silver. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. When and where were you naturalized ? 

2437 



2438 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. Silver. In New Jersey, 1925. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Silver, you appear here under a subpena from 
this committee ? 

Mr. Silver. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long have you been under subpena of this 
committee ? 

Mr. Silver. Probably since May 1951. 

Mr. Tavenner. Since May 1951. At that time, in May 1951, did 
you appear before the chairman of this committee or an investigator 
of this committee in Hollywood ? 

Mr. Silver. I did. I appeared before an investigator of this com- 
mittee and testified. 

Mr. Tavenner. Have you been under supena continually since that 
time ? 

Mr. Silver. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Silver, during the recent hearings in Los An- 
geles, Mr. Leo Townsend, a witness who appeared before the com- 
mittee and testified as to his own Communist Party membership, 
identified you as a member of the Communist Party. Were you a 
member of the Communist Party at any time ? 

Mr. Silver. I was. 

Mr. Tavenner. You were? 

Mr. Silver. Yes. 

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

Mr. Silver. In 1927. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long have you remained a member of the 
Communist Party? 

Mr. Silver. Well, I can't give you the exact date of my breaking 
with the party, because it was a process of drifting away from the 
party. I can tell you more or less the period when my change of 
attitude toward the party began. 

Mr. Tavenner. When was that? 

Mr. Silver. And that was in the spring or May of 1945. 

Mr. Tavenner. What was the reason for your drifting away from 
the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Silver. The reason was the publication of the Duclos letter 
and the discussion that followed. 

Mr. Tavenner. Have you been a paid functionary of the Com- 
munist Party? 

Mr. Silver. I was. 

Mr. Tavenner. Over what period of time? 

Mr. Silver. I would say from 1929 until October 1945. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you devote your entire time and energies to 
the work of the party during that long period of time? 

Mr. Silver. I did. 

Mr. Tavenner. After 1945 when you began, as you stated, to drift 
away from the Communist Party, how were you employed? What 
source of livelihood did you have after these long years of con- 
tinuous work for the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Silver. The first few months — that is, from May to October — 
I was still employed in the party to carry through the work in prep- 
aration for the convention and the reconstitution of the Communist 



CCOMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2439 

Party. In October, after I left the party employment, I went home 
and tried to study and prepare myself to go to school. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you go to school ? 

Mr. Silver. I went to school and took up my course for an X-ray 
technician and I am an X-ray technician now. 

Mr. Tavenner. So, since that time, you have readjusted your en- 
tire way of living and are gainfully employed as a technician? 

Mr. Silver. I was ; yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. I would like to go back, Mr. Silver, to the time when 
you became a member of the Communist Party. 

Will you tell the committee, please, the circumstances under which 
you became a member ? 

Mr. Silver. I joined the party myself. That is, I went up to the 
State office, the district office in Philadelphia, and made out applica- 
tion. There were two reasons why I took that step at that time. One 
was the background. I was very much in sympathy with the Russian 
revolution, and I followed with the discussions within the Socialist 
movement in this country, and the attitude toward the Russian revo- 
lution. And my sympathies were with the left wing of the Socialist 
Party which later organized into the Communist Party. 

The direct reason why I joined the party was at that time I was 
involved in an activity for the building of a children's camp near 
Philadelphia, known as the Pioneer Camp. 

(Representative James B. Frazier, Jr., entered the hearing room 
at this point. ) 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you locate the place of that camp ? 

Mr. Silver. I can't recall. It was about 30 or 35 miles north of 
Philadelphia near the Delaware River. I believe it was near Doyles- 
town. 

Mr. Wood. At Pipersville? 

Mr. Silver. What is that? 

Mr. Wood. At Pipersville ? 

Mr. Silver. I don't believe so. I think it was near Salem, but I 
cannot recall the name of the town. 

Mr. Tavenner. About when was that? 

Mr. Silver. That was in 1927-1926 and 1927. 

Mr. Tavenner. Now, you were instrumental in helping to form 
that camp ? 

Mr. Silver. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. Tell us, was this one of a series of camps, or was it 
just a single project ? 

Mr. Silver. As far as Philadelphia was concerned, it was a single 
project. It was, I would say, led by or initiated by the Communist 
Party in Philadelphia and directed by members of the Young Com- 
munist League. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you a member of the Communist Party at 
that time ? 

Mr. Silver. No, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. How were the counselors at that camp chosen ? 

Mr. Silver. They were designated by the Young Communist League. 

Mr. Tavenner. Just tell us briefly what measure of control the 
Communist Party had over the operation of the camp. 



2440 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. Silver. Well, it had a hundred percent control of the operation 
of the camp insofar as the acceptance of the applicants and insofar 
as the educational work in the camp. 

Mr. Tavenner. Describe generally the nature of the educational 
work. 

Mr. SiL^rBR. The children were taken care of by 

Mr. Tavenner. First, what were the ages of the children at this 
camp ? 

Mr. Silver. I would say between 10 and 15. 

Mr. Tavenner. All right. 

Mr. Silver. The children were taken care of by counselors or former 
Pioneer leaders. The responsibility for youth work, for children's 
work, within the Communist movement was the responsibility of the 
Young Communist movement was the responsibility of the Young 
Communist League. The Young Communist League used to designate 
members of the league to become Pioneer leaders so as to be able to 
take care of the children's movement. 

These very Pioneer leaders would then be responsible to provide 
leadership for the children in the camps. 

Mr. Tavenner. What was the purpose of the Communist Party in 
the establislmient of the summer camps of this character? 

Mr. Silver. Well, in broad sense, it was a question of seeing to it 
that a movement is created around the party, or movements, rather, 
are created around the party, and one of these movements would be 
a children's movement. 

That would not only involve the children but would draw the 
parents of these children closer to the Communist movement. 

Mr. Ta\'enner. I understood you to say at that time you were not 
a member of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Silver. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. What part did the establishment of this Communist 
camp have in bringing you into the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Silver. My working relationship with the members of the 
Young Communist League. There was a joint committee for the 
conduct of the camp composed of members of a parent council, of which 
1 was a member, and the Pioneer leaders, and we had the problem 
of building the camp, and there was a question of a relationship. And 
1 had the feeling that the reason why we were having difficulties was 
that these members of the Young Communist League would always 
come prepared if they were having a session about a question, and we 
would be left alone without being able to come to an understanding. 
They would always have their way. 

We, as adults, felt that we had a more practical approach to the 
problem. It wasn't a political controversy; it was just a question of a 
practical approach of building a children's camp. 

And in view of the fact that I was sympathetic to the movement, I 
finally decided, well, I might as well, in view oi the fact that I am 
active, I might as well go and join the organization and get in the 
middle of it instead of being at the fringe. 

Mr. Tavenner. Then what did you do about it ? 

Mr. Silver. I made application to join the party. 

Mr. Tavenner. Where did you make your application ? 

Mr. Silver. In Philadelphia, in the district office. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2441 

Mr. Tavenner. From that time on, you became a member of the 
•party ? 

Mr. Silver. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Where was the office to which you applied to be- 
'Come a member? 

Mr. Silver. On Fifth Street near Spring Garden. 

Mr. Tavenner. In Philadelphia ? 

Mr. Silver. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you give the name of the street, again? 

Mr. Silver. Yes. 

Mr. Silver. Fifth Street near Spring Garden. I cannot recall the 
inumber — the address. 

Mr. Tavenner. Wliat was your first assignment after becoming a 
member of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Sil\t:r. For about a year or so, I really had no assignment. The 
party was engaged in a fractional fight, the Foster-Lovestone factions. 
Two factions were fighting for leadership which culminated finally in 
the expulsion of Lovestone from the party. I played a very minor 
role in view of the fact that I refused to join either one of the factions. 

Mr. Tavenner. When you referred to Lovestone, you are referring 
to Jay Lovestone? 

Mr. Silver. Jay Lovestone; yes. 

Later on, in fact I recall in 1929, I was approached by the district 
organizer of the then known as district 3, Philadelphia. It was then 
I was approached by the district organizer to assume the responsi- 
I)ility for the work of the Daily Worker in the Philadelphia district. 
And in spite of the fact tliat I was very reluctant, because I had a well- 
paid job, and the Daily Worker originally guaranteed $10 a week and 
■commission, I was persuaded to accept that work. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you accept it at a financial sacrifice? 

Mr. Silver. I would say "Yes." 

Mr. Tavenner. Did that mean full-time employment? 

Mr. Silver. That is right. 

Mr. Tavenner. What character of work did you do for the Daily 
W^orker at that time? 

Mr. Silver. Well, we had the responsibility of seeing to it that 
subscriptions are sold, renewed, bundle orders ordered by the district 
■or the various branches, that our district participates properly in the 
financial drive of the Daily W^orker, and, to some extent, that local 
correspondents are active in bringing Philadelphia within the columns 
of the Daily Worker. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did your work in that capacity lead to your being 
solicited for other and more important assignments? 

Mr. Silver. That is right. In 1930, the district of Philadelphia 
party wanted me to take over the responsibility as the local manager 
of the Morning Freiheit, a Jewish Communist newspaper. 

Mr. Tavenner. What position on the Morning Freiheit was it that 
you were asked to take? 

Mr. Silver. A local manager. 

Mr. Tavenner. Local manager, where? 

Mr. Silver. In Philadelphia. 

Mr. Tavtenner. Did you take over that work ? 

Mr. Silver. I did. 



2442 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. Tavenner. "VMiat were your duties? 

Mr. Silver. Well, there were two : one was the responsibility of the 
financial end of the Morning Freiheit, again seeing to it that the paper 
is being distributed, subscriptions sold, but in addition to this, there 
was a political responsibility connected with it, and that was the 
responsibility of the well-being of the work of the Communist Party 
and the movement around it. 

The work was the responsibility of a commission designated by the 
party known as the Jewish bureau. 

Mr. Tavenner. The Communist Party formed a commission known 
as the Jewish bureau? 

Mr. Silver. May I explain that a party function is on the basis of 
designating committees or commissions to be responsible for various 
activities. The party has had a trade-union commission, or may have 
had a cultural commission at one time or another, and has had national 
group commissions or language commissions who had the responsi- 
bility of carrying on the work among those particular groups. 

Nationally, the party has had a commission known as the Jewish 
bureau of the national committee. 

Mr. Tavenner. The Jewish bureau of the national committee? 

Mr. Silver. National committee. 

Mr. Tavenner, Who were the members of that bureau at that 
time ? 

Mr. Silver. I can name a few. J. Sulton. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you spell that ? 

Mr. Silver. S-u-1-t-o-n. 

William Weiner, W-e-i-n-e-r. Max Steinberg, S-t-e-i-n-b-e-r-g. 
I am sorry, at this moment I cannot recall any more. 

Mr. Tavenner. That is all right. 

How long did you serve as a member of the Jewish bureau of the 
national committee, or commission, was it ? 

Mr. Silver. Committee. I was not a member of the Jewish bureau 
of the national committee, I am sorry, I did not make myself under- 
stood. I tried to explain that the national committee had set up a 
commission on a national scale known as the Jewish bureau of the 
national committee. This same was duplicated in the various districts 
wherever there were lodged Jewish communities. I was a member, or 
rather, the head of, the secretary of the Jewish bureau in the Philadel- 
phia district, and these bureaus were under the joint supervision of 
the national bureau as well as the district of the party, 

Mr. Tavenner. How long did you remain on the assignments that 
you had in Philadelphia, both on the Morning Freiheit and this special 
work in connection with the committee that you have just talked about ? 

Mr. Silver. Until 1932. 

Mr. Tavenner. From there where were you sent ? 

Mr. Silver. Then I was assigned by the national bureau on the man- 
agement of the Morning Freiheit to Chicago to take over the very 
same work. 

Mr. Tavenner. And from there where were you assigned ? 

Mr. Silver, From there I was assigned to Los Angeles. 

Mr. Tavenner. When did you go to Los Angeles ? 

Mr. Silver. In 1934. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2443 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell us more in detail how you were as- 
signed there, the circumstances under which you were assigned, and 
the persons who took part in making that assignment ? 

Mr. Silver. I would say that in the first place, that the members 
of the national committee of the Jewish bureau were the ones that 
were making the shifts, and the district had to approve the transfer. 
Mr. Tavenner. By "district," what do you mean? 
Mr. Silver. The district of the party. When I was transferred, or 
was to be transferred from district 3 into Illinois, the district leader- 
ship opposed it. This was finally settled in the national office of the 
party. 

Wherever there is a controversy between two commissions or be- 
tween a commission and a district leadership, the party leadership 
settles the problem. And this was how I was transferred from Phila- 
delphia to Chicago. 

And when I was informed in Chicago in 1934 that the Los Angeles 
office was vacant and they wanted me to go there and take it over, the 
Chicago district issued a transfer. 

Mr. Tavenner. Upon arriving in California, were you directed to 
report to any particular individual in the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Silver. Oh, I wouldn't say I was directed. It was natural for 
me when I arrived in a new city to report to the party office of that 
city. And I assumed that a national officer of the Jewish bureau 
informed the party office of Los Angeles of my arrival. 

I reported to Lawrence Ross, who was at that time the organiza- 
tional secretary of the Los Angeles section. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you continue in the same type of work there 
that you had been engaged in in Philadelphia and Chicago ? 
Mr. Silver. I did. 

Mr. Tavenner. And that was, briefly, what? 

Mr. Silver. That was the manager of the Morning Freiheit and 
the secretary of the Jewish bureau of Los Angeles. 

Mr. Tavenner. In addition to the performance of those duties, 
were you assigned to any particular branch or group of the Commu- 
nist Party? 

Mr. Silver. Well, every member of the party is assigned to a branch 
or group. 

Mr. Tavenner. To what branch or group were you assigned after 
arriving in California ? 

Mr. Silver. I can't recall the name of the branch. It was a branch 
on the east side of town where the Morning Freiheit office was. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you take part in the organization of any group 
or branch soon after your arrival ? 

Mr. Silver. At a later period we organized a Jewish-speaking 
branch of the party but that was because there was a more or less new 
orientation developing in the party as to the work among the various 
groups. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did that group have a name ? 

Mr. Silver. Yes. The name of that branch was the Olgin branch. 
He was then editor of the Morning Freiheit. 

Mr. Tavenner. What other work did you become engaged in in Los 
Angeles in response to the directions of the Communist Party ? 



2444 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. Silver. The most important activity of the party at that period, 
that is, after 1934, was the formation of broad movements in the strug-' 
gle against naziism. And in the Jewish field in particular this ques- 
tion was very acute. And there were efforts made in every part of the 
country to organize the Jewish people in the struggle against naziism 
in a broad united front. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know whether or not the same type of or- 
ganizational work was done in Hollywood under the direction of the 
Communist Party ? 

Mr. Silver. Hollywood had a very broad and active Hollywood 
anti-Nazi organization. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was there any relationship between the movement 
in which you were engaged as a member of the party in Los Angeles 
and the carrying on of the same work by other groups in Hollywood ? 

Mr. Silver. There was not. And there was a very specific reason 
why there wasn't. 

At that time, whatever organization the party had in Hollywood, it 
had very little to do with the party organization in Los Angeles. It 
wasn't a part and parcel. It wasn't a question of a possibility of Los 
Angeles Communists meeting Communists who were active in Holly- 
wood. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you endeavor to do anything about that in con- 
nection with your anti-Nazi work? 

Mr. Silver. I did. I felt that our movement — which was, by the 
way, very successful. There was an activity established in Los An- 
geles, joined by the Socialists, Communists, and various other organi- 
zations. In the struggle against naziism we had a lot of successful 
meetings. And I felt that our movement would still benefit more if 
we would be in contact with Hollywood and be able to utilize some of 
their activities, their names, et cetera. 

I made an effort, through the section leadership of the party at that 
time to discuss this problem. I met V. J. Jerome in Los Angeles and 
raised this question with him, and while he didn't give me a "no" 
answer, he wasn't positive about it. He was very reluctant in connect- 
ing up the activities of the two anti-Nazi organizations. 

I finally succeeded in getting a meeting between myself and a small 
group of Hollywood people, members of the party, to discuss this 
question, at least to enable us to have joint fraction meetings, or joint 
meetings of party members active in the Hollywood anti-Nazi move- 
ment, from this side of town, so that we can plan our work properly. 

That meeting was held in the home of Frank Tuttle. He was not 
there. Mrs. Tuttle was there. Beatrice Buchman was there. I can- 
not recall the names of the others. And they voted against any joint 
participation. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know what the basis for their refusal to 
act jointly in the matter was? 

Mr. Silver. Well, there were two : In the first place, they had very 
little regard and confidence in the local party, because of the general 
attitude that Hollywood is a cultural center who are dealing with 
people who are specialists in their field and it requires special leader- 
ship that can be given only by leaders of the national committee. 

So, therefore, as a result of this attitude, there was no confidence 
developed on the part of the Hollywood people toward the ability of 
the local party to work with them. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2445 

And, second, there was a question of security, protection for the 
people and the movement. And they were very rehictant of having 
outside people, outside of Hollywood, to come into their meetings. 

Mr. Tavenner. In other words, the members of the Communist 
Party in Hollywood were not willing to run the risk of having their 
names disclosed by association with members of the Communist Party 
generally in Los Angeles ? 

Mr. Silver. That is so. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you elevated to higher positions in the Com- 
munist Party in Hollywood or in Los Angeles ? 

Mr. Silver. In 1938, 1 was assigned as the organizational secretary 
of the Los Angeles County, and terminated my work with the Morn- 
ing Freiheit. 

Mr Tavenner. How long were you county organizer for Los 
Angeles County? 

Mr. Silver. County organizational secretary. 

Mr. Tavenner. I mean county organizational secretary. 

Mr. Silver. Organizer is the first man and organizational secretary 
is the second. 

I was, until October 1945. 

Mr. Tavenner. You have spoken of having been active in the for- 
mation of a community branch of the Communist Party dealing with 
the Jewish-speaking persons in that area. 

Was the organizational work of the party extended to the nationals 
of various nations as separate projects of the Communist Party? 

Mr. Silver. Well, it requires a little explanation. Prior to my 
coming into the party from books I read, the party originally in the 
United States was organized as a federation. There was a Slovak 
section and this was an inheritance from the Socialist movement, 
where various national groups had their own organizations, and 
then they were together federated, centralized into what is known as 
the Communist Party. That was in the early twenties. And the party 
finally has clone away with this system and broken up the federa- 
tion, centralized the party, and gave special attention, or more em- 
phasis to the work in the American field instead of the field of the 
various languages. 

Now, this was quite a struggle on the part of the central leader- 
ship. Because the membership had contact with the national group 
leaders, had confidence in them, they were quite successful in some 
cases. There were a number of national group papers, language 
papers, there were some centers established, and they were very re- 
luctant to take second place in the work of the party. 

However, the struggle against federationism, or the remnants of 
federationism, was very sharp. And by the end of the twenties, very 
few people talked about the good old days "when we were running 
our own work," as far as the national group is concerned. 

However, in the late thirties, the situation had changed under the 
leadership of Browder. He kept emphasizing that if we wanted to 
effect the work we would have to make that work specific as adjusted 
to the various people among whom we are working. As Browder 
stated, I believe it is a correct quotation, he said : 

The majority of the American people come from special groups. They are 
not just one mass of Americans, they are women, youth, students, professionals. 



2446 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

national groups, and therefore we have to adjust our work to those people and 
take up the issues that they are confronted with. 

As a result of that, some organizational steps were taken in order 
to demonstrate politically what Browder meant. One of these steps 
was the organization of national group branches. And in a large 
Jewish center as Los Angeles, a large Conununist movement among 
the Jewish people, we organized a branch under the name of Olgin, 
who, was editor of the Freiheit, gave these people a greater feeling of 
expression, and tried to create a forum in that particular community 
for the Communists. 

Mr. Tavenner. Now, what other national groups were organized 
while you were organizational secretary which you can now recall? 

Mr. Silver. We had a Mexican organization. In that case, the 
need for it was probably more language difficulty than just political 
orientation. We had a Japanese branch, and there it was a question 
of both language and political orientation because they required 
different types of discussion, training, et cetera. 

I believe, in Los Angeles, that is about as much 

Mr. Tavenner. In addition to organizing this special work in the 
fields that you have mentioned, such as the various fields representing 
the nationalities of the different countries represented in that area, 
was this special work extended also to the various trades and pro- 
fessions ? 

Mr. Silver. May I make a correction? I believe we had a 
misunderstanding. 

The Olgin branch was not organized while I was organizational 
secretary. That was prior to my becoming organizational secretary. 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes, I understood that. 

Mr. Silver. Yes, we have organized a number of professional 
branches. Insofar as industrial branches were concerned, the party 
also had emphasized the need of organizing and concentrating on 
industry and there you will have an industrial branch. 

But we also organized a number of professional branches, and we 
combined these branches into a special professional section. 

Mr. Tavenner. Wlien you say you organized the professions, tell 
us a little more in detail as to what professions were organized, and 
what the set-up was for the work. 

Mr. Silver. If I can recall, we had a medical branch. 

Mr. Tavenner. Does that mean that there was a Communist branch 
organization within the medical profession ? 

Mr. Silver. That is right. That is, we had a Communist organiza- 
tion composed of doctors and nurses. We had a branch of teachers. 
We had a number of lawyers organized into a branch. 

I believe we also had a branch of social workers. 

Now, these branches held a conference and, under the supervision 
of the county organization, elected leadership. And we had a profes- 
sional section. 

Mr. Tavenner. Is the newspaper field covered by the professional- 
group organizations or not ? 

Mr. Silver. No ; they were part of the industrial section. 

They were a very important organization in Los Angeles. The 
newspaper people are members of the union, and they were too im- 
portant for the professional section. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2447 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee what the plan of gen- 
eral organization was of the Communist Party in Los Angeles during 
the period you were the organizational secretary 'i That is, how the 
work was divided among different sections, and what the committee 
set-up was. 

Mr. Silver. The party organization had gone through quite a 
change during the thirties. Originally, on a national scale, the party 
was broken up into districts or regional sections, such as this district 
1 took in New England, district 2 was New York and part of New 
Jersey, the northern part of New Jersey, and district 3 was comprised 
of eastern Pennsylvania, southern New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, 
and Washington, et cetera. 

And then these districts were broken up into sections on the basis of 
party strength. Wherever there was a good party organization, a 
section was organized there, and that section was broken uj) into 
branches. 

Later on, however, the party changed its organization structure to 
conform with the political subdivisions of the country, and these 
districts, in the main, were with very few exceptions broken up. And 
we had State organizations . 

Originally, Los Angeles was part of district 13, with San Francisco 
as the center. And that took in, well, almost the entire west coast 
and part of the Rockies. 

We organized later into a California State organization. And 
while the California State on the top had some supervision and cooper- 
ation with the other small organizations, such as Arizona, it did not 
have direct organization responsibility for it. 

And then down the line the State was broken up into county organi- 
zations, and each congressional district broke up the organization into 
assembly districts. 

In the main, that wasn't exactly so in every case. It depended, of 
course, a lot on the strength of the organization. 

In one assembly district, you may have had 2 or 3 large branches, 
while in another case two or three assembly districts had to be com- 
bined for one organization. 

Mr. Tavenner. Then your own county — that is, Los Angeles 
County — was divided principally according to congressional districts ? 

Mr. Silver. Yes. We had as many sections as congressional dis- 
tricts, in addition to an industrial and professional section. 

Mr. Tavenner. Now, how were the projects of the Communist Party 
supervised from the main office of the Communist Party in the county? 

Mr. Silver. In the main, we dealt — at least, I dealt — with the sec- 
tion leadership, and through them with the assembly or branch lead- 
ership. 

Mr. Tavenner. Referring again to the regional division of your 
tei-ritory according to congressional districts, can you advise the com- 
mittee of the general character of work performed by your organiza- 
tion in those various districts or sections, having in mind the type 
of Communist organizations that were in the particular districts? 

Mr. Silver. You mean the tasks of these organizations, or the form 
in which we worked with them ? 

I am sorry ; I did not quite get the question. 

Mr. Tavenner. I meant particularly to tell us the type of work 
that was being done in each of the districts. 



2448 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. Silver. Well, there is, in the first place, general work that 
applies to all, and this is the education of the membership, the build- 
ing of the organization, keeping tab that members participate in 
activity, the building of the press, the distribution and sale of litera- 
ture, and then depending on the political situation at that particular 
time, whatever American campaigns the party was engaged in. Of 
course, the party organization was supposed to see to it that a mem- 
ber or its members participate properly in their particular fields of 
work in everyday life, such as trade-unions, fraternal organizations, 
social clubs, et cetera. But this was the most neglected part of the 
party organization. But the immediate work of the party was to keep 
the organization together, to keep it growing, get the education dis- 
cussions within the organization. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were there some of these districts in which the 
problems were entirely different from others, such as, say, the Holly- 
wood area and certain congressional areas in which there was industry 
which required different types of set-up in your work ? 

Mr. Silver. That is right. That is why we had, in the first place,, 
an industrial section, where the special attention was given by the 
county organization, by the county head, the county president, to the 
political orientation of that section, and special attention given to the 
various people who worked in important trade-unions or in important 
shops. 

Mr. Tavenner. Can you take each of the sections represented by 
congressional districts and tell us the type of organizational work in 
the particular district starting with the eleventh ? 

Mr. Silver. I may be a bit confusing, because there was a reorgani- 
zation change in the congressional set-up in the country prior to the 
present one. We then had 11 through 18, I believe, or 17. Now we 
have 12 through 20. 

But, if I remember correctly, at that time, the eleventh district 
comprised the San Fernando Valley, taking in Biirbank, Glendale, 
North Hollywood, and I believe part of Pasadena. The bulk of the 
organization was around Van Nuys, and the bulk of the membership 
were a carry-over from the unemployment days, members of the 
Workers Alliance. 

There was a small professional branch in Pasadena, as I recall, at 
that time, with whom I never came in contact. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you give us the territory covered by the other 
congressional districts ? 

Mr. Silver. The twelfth district took in Pomona into Los Angeles, 
the various towns, and City Terrace, which is an adjunct of Los An- 
geles but was part of the Twelfth Congressional District. There 
you had two different problems. The organization in City Terrace 
was different, or they were in an active community, and their members 
were mostly members of the various organizations ; while in Pomona 
and San (xabriel Valley, et cetera, there were just small groups of 
people with very little activity. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you give us the same information relating to 
each of the congressional districts? 

Mr. Silver. The thirteenth district took in part of the Boyle Heights 
territory, and, I would say roughly, the section in town north of 
Sunset and east of Vermont. This was a strong section with quite 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2449 

a number of brandies and people active in the community proper, 
and a place where the membership could ^o out on a Sunday for 
solicitation for the People's World or the sale of literature and come 
back with good results. 

The Fourteenth Congressional District took in the downtown area 
and the Central Avenue section. That is the Negro community. The 
party always paid attention to the work among the Negro people, 
and we always made an effort to help them, for instance, in working, 
going out for a distribution of literature or sale of literature, and we 
would get people from other branches to help the members in the 
sixty-second assembly district to carry out the work. Or, if there 
would be some affairs arranged by the sixty-second assembly district, 
it was expected that other sections of the party would partake in that. 

The major concentration of that section, of the fourteenth, was in 
the sixty-second assembly district in the Negro community. 

The fifteenth district took in Hollywood, and the central part of 
the town as far south as Slauson or east of La Brea, I believe. That 
was, in the main, a composition of middle-class people or higher-skilled 
laborers or workers, rather. 

The party was quite active, especially in the fifty-seventh assembly 
district, which was in the Hollywood territory. 

In the sixteenth district, which is in the western part of the town 
and went through as far as, I believe, Beverly Hills, Santa Monica, 
Venice, and the Adams territory, we had a few very active spots. In 
the West Adams territory as well as in the fifty-ninth assembly dis- 
trict we had a very large branch, and some organization in Santa 
Monica and Venice. 

Mr. Wood. What is the maximum number of Communists that you 
had in Los Angeles at any time ? 

Mr. Silver. I believe around four thousand. 

Mr. Wood. That was the maximum ? 

Mr. Silver. Yes. 

Mr. Wood. Have you any idea what the membership is now? 

Mr. Silver. No. I am sure that this committee is much better 
informed than I am. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Silver, have you completed with the districts ? 

Mr. SiL\'ER. No. 

Then we had the Seventeenth Congressional District which took in 
the harbor area, and part of the southern part of Los Angeles. There 
the concentration was, in the main, in San Pedro, where there were 
a few industrial branches, such as longshoremen, fishermen, seamen ; 
and in addition to San Pedro, the Watts territory, which is, again, 
a Negro territory, we had a branch there. 

The Eighteenth Congressional District centered around Long Beach 
and Compton and the towns around there. We had some organiza- 
tion in Compton and a large branch in Long Beach, and a small 
branch of oil workers in Long Beach. 

Mr. DoYLE. I did not hear that last answer. 

Mr. Silver. A small branch of oil workers. 

That covers it insofar as the old break-up is concerned. 

The newer break-up is different, but I think it would be confusing 
if I should repeat now the nineteenth, which I have covered through 
the other sections. 



95008— 52— pt. 1- 



2450 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Silver, I hand you a pamphlet entitled 
"Twenty Years of Growth and Progress of the Communist Party in 
U. S. A."' published September 1939. 

I would like you to look at it and identify it if you can. 

Mr. Silver. Yes ; I recall this publication. 

It was quite an achieven[ient. We considered it quite an achieve- 
ment at that time to be able to publicly come out and demonstrate 
before the city that we have a party wuth large organization ; we are 
not afraid; we are publicly accepted, we state our address and tele- 
phone and the names of our officers not only on a country scale, but 
as well on a congressional assembly basis. 

The purpose of this was in order to create a greater amount of con- 
fidence among our membership that we were a justified, accepted part, 
a necessary part, of the political life of the country, and to create that 
feeling among the people around the party this was distributed to 
the party membership and mailed out, if I remember correctly, to 
leading people in the area, trade-union officers, officers of organiza- 
tions, and probably some legislative officials. 

Mr. Tavenner. Does it show on the frontispiece the names of those 
who were known as the principal officers of the Communist Party i 

Mr. Silver. That is right. 

Mr. Tavenner. In Los Angeles County? 

Mr. SIL^^:R. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. I will nam^ them: Pettis Perry, chairman; Paul 
Cline, executive secretary; Max Silver, organization director — that 
is you; is it not^ 

Mr. Silver. That is right. 

Mr. Tavenner. Matt Pelman, educational director; Al Bryan, 
legislative director ; Helen Gardner, membership director. 

I desire to ofl^er this pamphlet in evidence and ask that it be marked 
"Silver Exhibit No. 1." 

Mr. Wood. It may be marked and it will be received. 

(The pamphlet referred to, marked "Silver Exhibit No. 1," is filed 
herewith.) 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Chairman, I would like the balance of the ques- 
tioning of Mr. Silver to be in closed session. 

Mr. W^ooD. Very well. 

Will the witness just step aside and the committee will continue the 
public hearing with another witness at this time. 

Who is your next witness, Mr. Tavenner? 

Mr. Tavenner. Dr. Light. 

Mr. Wood. Will you raise your right hand, please ? 

Will you swear that the testimony you are about to give will be 
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Dr. Light. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF LOUISE LIGHT SILVEK (DR. LOUISE E. LIGHT) 

Mr. Tavenner. What is your full name, please ? 
Dr. Ltght. My legal name is Louise Light Silver; my professional 
name is Louise E. Light. 

Mr. Tavenner. What is your profession ? 

Dr. Light. I am a physician, an osteopathic physician. 

Mr. Tavenner. When and where were you born? 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2451 

Dr. Light. I was born in New York on October 8, 1908. 

Mr. Tavenner. You are the wife of Mr. Max Silver ^ 

Dr. Light, That is riglit. 

Mr. Tavenner. AVhen were you married ? 

Dr. Light. 1942. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you give the committee, please, a brief state- 
ment of your educational background and training ? 

Dr. Light. Yes. I had the usual high-school and premedical re- 
quirements, and then entered the College of Osteopathic Physicians 
and Surgeons in 1933. 

Mr. Wood. Will you keep your voice up, please? 

Mr. Tavenner. Speak louder, please. 

Dr. Light. I am a little deaf, so I speak low, 

I finished the usual high school and premedical requirements and 
entered the College of Osteopathic Physicians and Surgeons in 1933. 

I finislied with my medical training and my county internship in 
1939 and entered the practice of medicine the end of 1939. 

Mr. Tavenner. Dr. Light, the committee, in the course of its investi- 
gation concerning communism in the professional section of the Com- 
munist Party in Los Angeles has received information that you were 
one of the members of that group. Is that true ? 

Dr, Light, That is true. 

Mr, Tavenner. When did you become a member of the Communist 
Party? 

Dr. Light. I joined the Communist Party at the end of 1939, around 
October or November of 1939. 

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

Dr. Light. No ; I am not. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long did you remain a member ? 

Dr. Light. I was an active member until 1945, and then gradually, 
in the course of the next 2 or 3 years, drifted out and left the party. 

Mr. Tavenner. What was the occasion for your leaving the party ? 

Dr. Light. Actually, it was the turn of the party's activities that 
occasioned my loss of interest that occurred with the appearance of 
the Duclos letter, and the change of the party line. That was in 
1945 ; April or May of 1945. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you recall who brought you into the Communist 
Party? 

Dr. Light. I did. 

Mr. Tavenner. You came into it voluntarily? 

Dr, Light, That is right. 

After I got through with my internship at the county hospital, I 
had, for a number of years, been interested in social betterment and 
welfare, and the year at the county hospital decided me that when I 
got through and I had a little time I would join the party and help. 
And so when I got through with my internship and started my prac- 
tice, usually the first 2 or 3 years for a new doctor's practice is a little 
on the slow side, and I felt I would have time to do things for social 
improvement. And so I looked around to find someone who could 
introduce me into the party, 

Mr, Tavenner, Did you find someone ? 

Dr, Light, Yes, We had a friend, a lawyer, Mr. Frankel, J, Allen 
Frankel, 

Mr, Tavenner. J. Allen Frankel. Will you spell that ? 



2452 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Dr. Light. F-r-a-n-k-e-L 

Mr. Tavenner. How do you spell Allen ? 

Dr. Light. A-1-l-e-n. J is just the initial. J. Allen. 

And through him, I met one of the doctors who was active in the 
professional, the medical, section of the Communist Party. And I 
met the man and told him I wanted to join the party. 

Mr. Tax'enner. Well, now, was the individual, Mr. Frankel, a mem- 
ber of the Communist Party ? 

Dr. Light. As I understand it, he was a member of the Communist 
Party, or he would not have been able to introduce me to other members 
of the party, 

Mr. Tavenner. When you went to him with this matter, what ad- 
vice did he give you ? That is, Mr. Frankel. 

Dr. Light. There was no particular advice. I just went to him 
because I knew^ that he had been active, and he knew a lot of people, 
and I told him that I was interested in becoming a member of the 
medical section of the Communist Part3^ And he had gone to a 
party one evening and he introduced me to a Dr. Leo Bigelman. 

Mr. TA^^NNER. Dr. Leo Bigelman ? 

Dr. Light. Yes; who was at that time one of the leaders of the 
small medical branch of the party. 

Mr. Tavenner. Then were your conferences about party member- 
ship confined to Dr. Leo Bigelman, or were other people interviewed 
in regard to it? 

Dr. Light. No; there were no other interviews. I met with him 
a couple of times. I don't remember when I signed the card. 

The card I signed was under my own name, and I was taken into 
the group. 

Mr. Tavenner. So it was through Dr. Leo Bigelman that you 
actually became a member of the party ? 

Dr. Light. That is right. 

Mr. Tavenner. Of the professional cell of the Communist Party ? 

Dr. Light. That is right. 

Mr. Tavenner. In Los Angeles ? 

Dr. Light. In Los Angeles. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee, please, what influence 
the Communist Party exerted or endeavored to exert over the doctors 
who were members of your particular group ? 

Dr. Light. Well, they suggested various ways in which we could 
improve the Communist movement, and in which we could try to 
improve the general social welfare. We had problems there that 
the doctors wanted to work things their own way, or do things their 
own way. But it was usually on the basis of what would improve 
the general Communist movement. 

We were told that there were various activities that were neces- 
sary, let us say, in public welfare or in socialized-medical trends that 
had to be done. And we would get together and discuss various ways 
and means of improving or sponsoring or disseminating the informa- 
tion that had to do with these things. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were any directions given by the Communist Party 
as to preference in employment of nurses or employees, office em- 
ployees of the doctors ? 

Dr. Light. Yes. I had an experience myself where I had employed 
a girl, and she had been in my office perhaps a week and a half or 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2453 

SO, who was a previous party member who had dropped out of the 
party because of lack of interest. They came to me and told me 
that— they didn't ask me — they told me would I discharge this girl 
because of the fact that she was no longer a party person, she was 
under suspicion. They had no specific proof because I knew this 
girl very well. And that they could supply someone in my office 
who would be much more suitable. Of course, I disagreed with them 
very strongly. 

Mr. Tavenner. Who was the person employed by you? 

Dr. Light. The name was Emily Gordon. 

Mr, Tavenner. Emily Gordon ? 

Dr. Light. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. You said they came to you ? 

Dr. Light. Well, a committee of two of the professional section. 
The one who did the talking with me was a Dr. Max Schoen, a dentist. 

Mr. Tavenner. Dr. Max Schoen ? 

Dr. Light. Schoen; that is right. I think he spells his name 
S-c-h-o-e-n. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know whether he is the same Dr. Schoen 
who appeared before the Committee on Un-American Activities in 
Hollywood? 

Dr. Light. That is the same doctor. 

Mr. Tavenner. And refused to testify regarding alleged Com- 
munist Party membei'ship? 

Dr. Light. That is right ; that is the same one. 

Mr. Ta\^nner. What was it that Dr. Schoen directed you to do? 

Dr. Light. He directed me to discharge the girl that I had in the 
office on the basis that she was, as he called it, an enemy of the people. 
She was no longer in the party, and therefore was either a Trotskyite 
or Fascist. 

When you are no longer interested in the party you are either one 
or the other, as far as the party members are concerned. Therefore, 
you are no longer to have anything to do with them. 

Anyone who is the least bit interested in progressive things would 
feel the same way about it, as far as they are concerned, and I was 
directed to discharge the girl and take someone who would be more 
suitable, that is, would be more interested in the Communist move- 
ment and would be willing to work with the Communist movement. 

Mr. Tavenner. Who was the other person, or was there more than 
one other person beside Dr. Schoen ? 

Dr. Light. Dr. Schoen came with another man, a lawyer, whose 
name is Victor Kaplan. 

Mr. Tavenner. Victor Kaplan ? 

Dr. Light. That is right. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you spell Kaplan ? 

Dr. Light. K-a-p-1-a-n. 

Mr. Ta%trnner. He accompanied Dr. Schoen ? 

Dr. Light. That is right. 

They were apparently a committee of two sent by the professional 
section. That was, I am sure, taken up in the Center, that is, in the 
party center before they came. They don't do things on their own. 
It is usually a meeting that occurs where two or three people are 
selected as delegates. 



2454 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELfcS PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

(Representative John S. Wood left the hearing room at this point.) 

Mr. Jackson. May I ask a question at this point? 

Mr. Ta^-enner. Surely. 

Mr. Jackson, Is Dr. Leo Bigelman one who also was a witness 
before the committee during the course of the Los Angeles hearings? 

Dr. Light. I think he was. That is the same Dr. Bicrelman. 

Mr. Jackson. Who refused to testify and claimed the privilege of 
the fifth amendment ? 

Dr. Ltght. That is right. 

Mr. Jackson. That is all. 

Mr. Tavenner. About when did this occur? 

Dr. Light. This occurred about 8I/2 years ago. That was my last 
contact witli anything that had to do with the party. I think that 
was the final breaking point. 

I, to say the least, was quite furious about that. I had always had 
qualms about breaking with a movement that you have been with for 
many years, and things that you thought were correct, but when it 
comes to the point of running your own personal life and your way of 
doing things, there were other factors that had come up one after an- 
other, and this was the final breaking point. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you discharge your emploj^ee? 

Dr. Light. I did not. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know whether Dr. Schoen was active in 
other ways in connection with the Communist Party ? Do you know 
of any special activity of his? 

Dr. Light. Well, I think he is active in the Arts, Sciences, and Pro- 
fessions Council. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you recall an incident at the time of the com- 
mittee's arrival in California, or about that time, when Dr. Schoen 
addressed a letter to a person ? 

Dr. Light. I have a copy of that letter, if I may show it to you. 

Mr. Tavi:nner. I would be very glad to see it. 

Dr. Light. This was a letter given to me by one of my patients. 
I tore her name out. It was a patient also of Dr. Schoen, and she 
brought the letter to me because she had known about this other in- 
cident that happened in my office. It is a letter discussing 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Chairman, I believe I would like to read this 
letter in evidence. This is a letter over the purported signature of 
Max H. Schoen, dated September 1, 1951, on his own letterhead. 

I am writing you this letter — a most unusual step — because something im- 
portant has happened to me ; so important thai I feel I should tell you about it. 
I have received a subpena requesting my presence at a House Un-American Ac- 
tivities Committee hearing to take place here in Los Angeles on September 17. 

I am and always have been a loyal and patriotic American citizen and think 
my life's history proves this. I have been outspoken in my beliefs and have 
fought for what I believed was right. I feel that this committee intends to try 
to intimidate me just as it has succeeded in intimidating writers, directors, pro- 
ducers, and actors in the motion-picture industry. Ever since they started having 
Hollywood hearings, pictures have been getting worse and worse. Not just be- 
cause some people were fired, but also because others are now afraid to even 
think, for fear of being labeled "communistic." 

People have been smeared before this committee with no real opportunity to 
defend themselves. This may happen to me. And why? Because I believe in 
working against discrimination — not just in theory but in practice. Because I 
believe that lasting peace and an end to the Korean war is in the best interests 
of the American people and all people. Because I believe that committees like 
this one are trying to create a fear and hysteria that might destroy our cher- 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2455- 

ished liberties. The constitutional right of all individuals to hold these or any 
other beliefs is sacred to me. It is this right that the committee is out to take 
away — although, of course, they won't say so. And the weapons they use to fur- 
ther this aim are the weapons of inquisition, intimidation, smearing of 
reputation. 

This right, the right to tliink and speak freely, guaranteed by the First 
Amendment, is also protected by the Fiftli Amendment. The Fifth Amendment 
was originally placed in the Constitution to protect the people from persecution 
and prosecution on the basis of their beliefs and associations ; in that they 
could not be forced to testify against themselves in an atmosphere where these 
beliefs and associations might leave them open to attack. For instance, I might 
be asked if I am a member of the ASP Medical Division, one of many organi- 
zations listed as "subversive." I belong to the ASP and am proud of my 
membership. However, in the atmosphere of hysteria and political persecution 
prevailing at such hearings, an answer to this question might leave me open to 
attack and force me to place my friends in the same position. In addition, even 
if one were to answer honestly this question in the negative, it might open the 
door to a perjury charge on the basis of someone's false or irresponsible 
testimony. 

I have always tried to be a good, conscientious dentist, and intend to con- 
tinue being one. I have never tried to ram my beliefs down anyone's throat 
(easy for a dentist). I think, therefore, that the committee is invading my 
rights as a citizen, and possibly yours — yours to choose your own dentist on the 
basis of his ability, regardless of his politics. 

This is why I have written this letter — to acquaint you with the situation 
so you will have an opportunity to appraise these new hearings in their true 
light and recognize this committee for what it is— a real subverter of the^ 
Constitution. 

It is obvious that an effective fight to expose the danger that the committee's 
action hold for all of us cannot be waged by a single individual. Therefore, 
your cooperation and support will be wholeheartedly appreciated. 

Do you know whether similar letters were sent to other patients? 

Dr. Light. I understand that he sent this letter to his patient list, 
and I am sure that a "ood many of them got the letter. 

Mr. Tav'enner, I desire to offer the letter in evidence and ask that 
it be marked "Light Exhibit No. 1." 

Mr. Doyle (presiding). It will be received and so marked. 

(The letter referred to, marked "Light Exhibit No. 1" is filed 
herewith.) 

Mr. Tavenner. It is noticed that the doctor places considerable 
emphasis on the question of discrimination against him. The doctor 
did not say anything about his discrimination when he asked you to 
fire your employee ^ 

Dr. Light. No. 

. Mr. Tavenner. Without cause. 

Dr. Light. That is right. Well, political cause. But he doesn't 
think that that is a very good thing, does he ? 

Mr. Tavenner. He would cause you and other doctors to discharge 
your employees for so-called political reasons. 

Dr. Light. That is right, that was the intent. 

Mr. Tavenner. But he is above being questioned 

Dr. Light. That is correct. 

Mr. Tavenner. Regarding his own participation. 

Dr. Light. That is right. It is rather a fantastic occurrence, a 
letter like that following on the heels of the session that we had. 

(Representative John S. Wood returned to the hearing room at 
this point.) 

Mr. Tavenner. Was Dr. Schoen a member of the same group or 
branch of the Communist Party to which you belonged? 



2456 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Dr. Light. That is right, he was. He came in somewhat later than 
I did after he had gotten out of the service. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know whether he held any position within 
the group or cell ? 

Dr. Light. I think that in the later 2 years or so that I was still 
associated, let us say, from about 1943 to about 1945, I think he held 
the position of sort of president or organizer, or something of that 
sort. 

The last 2 years of my active membership were rather lackadaisical 
years. I was just doing small things. I am not sure just what posi- 
tion it was that he had. He was active and one of the leaders. 

Mr. Tavenner. Can you tell the committee of any occasions when 
members of the Communist Party endeavored to raise particular 
issues as the result of Communist Party direction ? 

Dr. Light. Yes ; I can. I can remember one evening at a meeting 
when we apparently were not getting an awful lot of material done, 
and one of our members arose and he said, "Well, we have got to have 
an issue. Let us raise the issue of the Negro problem in the hospitals." 
Being that it was associated with our professional work that would be 
just the right issue to pick up. And he made quite a point of it. 

Well, one of the reasons that I joined the party originally was that 
I felt a lot of these problems that were coming up in hospitals and in 
schools we could do something about on an educational basis. But 
I didn't intend for them to become propaganda issues. And when 
it was put on the basis of an issue for propaganda purposes, it didn't 
sit the right way. 

Mr. Tavenner. Dr. Light, during the course of our hearings in 
California, Dr. Kreiger testified. Dr. Mendell Morton Kreiger testi- 
fied in an executive session.^ 

Are you acquainted with Dr. Kreiger? 

Dr. Light. No ; I am not familiar with Dr. Kreiger. 

Mr. Tavenner. During the course of his testimony, Dr. Kreiger 
identified a Dr. Murray Abowitz as a member of one of the profes- 
sional cells of the Communist Party in the field of medicine. Are 
you acquainted with Dr. Murray Abowitz ? 

Dr. Light. Yes; I am acquainted with Dr. Murray Abowitz. As 
a matter of fact, he was the doctor who decided we should make an 
issue of the Negro problems of the hospital. 

Mr. Tavenner. And was Dr. Murray Abowitz a member of the same 
cell you were a member of ? 

Dr. Light. That is right. The cell, we never used that word in 
practice, we used either branch or club or group. 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes. You refer to them as branches or groups. 

Dr. Light. Branches, that is right. 

Mr. Tavenner. What was the result of this suggestion by Dr. 
Murray Abowitz that they have an issue or they find an issue ? 

Dr. Light. Well, actually nothing really came of it at the time. 
It brought about a lot of discussion and several more meetings on the 
same issue, and that as as far as it went at that time. It is not always 
easy to pick up an issue and do something with it. 

Mr. Jackson. May I ask a question at that point ? 



1 Executive testimony of Dr. Mendell Morton Kreiger was released and printed under title, 
"Communist Infiltration of Hollywood Motion-Picture Industry — Part 6, p. 2098." 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2457 

Did Dr. Murray Abowitz appear before the committee hearings in 
Los Angeles ? 

Dr. Light. He did. 

Mr. Jackson. And he refused to testify on the grounds of the 
fifth amendment ? 

Dr. Light. That is right. 

Mr. Tavenner. Dr. Light, a doctor by the name of Samuel Keznick 
appeared and testified before the committee in executive session while 
the committee was represented in California. 

The testimony has not been released to the public, but I have per- 
mission of the committee to release at this time so much of it as may 
be necessary in interrogating you, and I think that the entire testi- 
mony will be released very soon. 

In the course of Dr. Keznick's testimony he said that Dr. Leo Bigel- 
man was a member of the same Communist Party cell. You have 
already identified him. 

Dr. Light. That is right. 

Mr. Tavenner. Dr. Reznick testified that he had been a member 
of the Communist Party prior to the time of the formation of this 
particular professional' cell, and that he had withdrawn from the 
party in 1939. Whether that was an exact date of withdrawal from 
the party, I do not understand. 

Were you acquainted with Dr. Reznick ? 

Dr. Light. Yes. I met Dr. Keznick in some of our meetings. 

Of course, I joined at the end of 1939. And I think, I don't know 
how long afterward it was that he left, but there were a number of 
meetings where I had met him. 

Mr. Wood. What kind of meetings? 

Dr. .Light. Party meetings. 

Mr. Wood. Communist Party meetings ? 

Dr. Light. That is right. 

Mr. Tavenner. Dr. Eeznick, in the course of his testimony, identi- 
fied a Dr. Morris Fedder as a member of this particular cell of the 
Communist Party. 

Dr. Light. That is true. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you acquainted with Dr. Fedder ? 

Dr. Light. I was. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was he a member of this particular group ? 

Dr. Light. He was a member of the medical branch of the Com- 
munist Party at that time ; that is right. 

Mr. Tavenner. Dr. Reznick also identified a Dr. Joseph Hittleman, 
H-i-t-t-1-e-m-a-n, as a member of the professional branch of the Com- 
munist Party. 

Dr. Light. That is correct. I knew him. He was a member of our 
branch. 

Mr. Tavenner. He was a member of your branch ? 

Dr. Light. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. Dr. Reznick further identified Dr. Simpson Marcus 
as a member of the same branch. 

Dr. Light. That is correct. He was a member of our branch. 

Mr. Tavenner. Dr. Reznick also identified Dr. Fred Reynolds as a 
member of the same branch. 

Dr. Light. He was also a member of our branch. 



2458 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. Tavenner. Dr. Reziiick also identified Dr. Oscar Elkins, E-1- 
k-i-n-s, as a member of the same branch. 

Dr. Light. That is correct 

Mr. Tavenner. Of the Communist Party. 

Dr. Light. He was a member of our branch. 

Dr. Elkins, shortly after I joined the party, left. I think he was in 
the service. And I have never seen or heard of him since. I somehow 
had heard that he had died overseas, but I am not sure of that. 

Mr. Tavenner. Dr. Reznick also identified Dr. Alexander Riskin, 
R-i-s-k-i-n, as a member of the same branch of the party. Were you 
acquainted with Dr. Riskin ? 

Dr. Light. Yes ; I was acquainted with Dr. Riskin. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was he a member of your branch ? 

Dr. Light. He was a member of our branch. 

Mr. Tavenner. He also identified Dr. Sam Sperling as a member 
of this branch. 

Dr. Light. That is right ; he was. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you acquainted with him ? 

Dr. Light. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was he a member of this branch ? 

Dr. Light. He was. 

Mr. Tavenner. Dr. Reznick also identified Dr. Jack Druckman, 
D-r-u-c-k-m-a-n, as a member of this branch of the Communist Party. 

Dr. Light. That is correct ; he was a member of our branch of the 
party. 

However, there are a number of facts here. Most of these doctors 
were in when I joined. A good many of them in tlie next 2 or 3 or 4 
years were in the service. Some came back and some didn't come back 
to the party. They may or may not be in the party at this time. I 
don't know what happened to some of the others. But at that time, 
the first few years of my membership, they were all members of the 
party. 

Mr. Tavenner. How many doctors were in this group or branch of 
the Communist Party, the professional branch of the Communist Party 
while you were a member ? 

Dr. Light. Well, as I remember, there might have been doctors and 
some of their wives were members, somewhat around 25 or 30 all 
together. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Chairman, that is all I had planned to ask Dr. 
Light in open session. I would like to interrogate her further in 
closed session when it is convenient to the committee. 

Mr. Wood. All right, counsel informs me that there will be other 
witnesses called at 2 o'clock, and it will be an open meeting. 

(Whereupon, at 12 : 13 p. m., the hearing was recessed until 2 p. m., 
this same day.) 

afternoon session 

(The hearing reconvened at 2 p. m.. Representatives Francis E. 
Walter, Morgan M. Moulder, Clyde Doyle, and Donald L. Jackson, 
and Bernard W. Kearney (appearance noted in record) , being present, 
Mr. Walter presiding.) 

Mr. Wali'er. The committee will be in order. 

Mr. Tavenner, who is the witness? 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Charles Daggett. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2459 

Mr. Walter. Do you swear the testimony you are about to give 
will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help 
you God? 

Mr. Daggett. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF CHARLES DAGGETT 

Mr. Walter. State your name for the record. 

Mr. Daggett. Charles Daggett. 

Mr. Tavenner. You are Mr. Charles Daggett? 

Mr. Daggeit. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Daggett, you appeared before the Committee 
on Un-American Activities on September 17, 1951, in Los Angeles, 
did you not ? 

Mr. Daggett. Yes, sir; I did. 

Mr. Tavenner. At that time, Mr. Daggett, you were asked various 
questions by counsel and by members of the committee regarding your 
alleged Communist Party membership and activity. 

Mr. Daggett. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. In particular, you were asked by Mr. Jackson, a 
member of the committee: 

Are you at present a member of the Communist Party? 

To which you answered: 

I am not a member of the Communist Party. 

Mr. Daggett. Yes, sir; that is correct. 

(Representative Bernard W. Kearney entered the hearing room 
at this point.) 

Mr. Tavenner. Then you were asked questions to elicit information 
as to whether or not you had at any time been a member of the Com- 
munist Party, and you refused to answer questions relating to that 
matter, on the ground that to do so might tend to incriminate you. 

Mr. Daggett. That is correct. 

Mr. Tavenner. I believe it was on November 19, 1951, after the 
conclusion of these hearings, that you got in touch with this com- 
mittee through an investigator of the committee, indicating a desire 
on your part to appear before the committee and testify fully regard- 
ing your Communist Party connections and affiliations. 

Mr. Daggett. Yes; that is correct. I think it was about the 19th. 

Mr. Tavenner. At the time you appeared before the committee 
jou were represented by counsel, a Mr. Robert W. Kenny ? 

Mr. Daggett. Yes, sir. 
. Mr. Tavenner. Do you have counsel with you today ? 

Mr. Daggett. I do not. 

However, I have had the advice of counsel before coming here. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you desire counsel to be present while you ap- 
pear on this occasion ? 

Ml*. Daggett. No, sir. 

Mr. Walter. Before the witness testifies, I would like the record 
to show that a quorum of the committee is present. 

Mr. Daggett. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. Of course, you know that you are entitled to coun- 
sel, if you desire ? 

Mr. Daggett. Yes, sir. 



2460 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL OROUPS 

Mr. Tavenner. If it is your desire to come back before the com- 
mittee and explain your answers, the committee will hear what you 
have to say. 

Mr. Daggett. All right. 

Well, to begin with, may I make just one small statement about the 
attitude that I took at the previous hearing of the committee ? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Daggett. At that time, I naively believed that by saying that 
I was not a Communist, that this would make it quite clear that I was 
not a Communist and that my own personal record would be straight 
in the community in which I live and work. 

This, as I say, was a rather naive position to take, but I did be- 
lieve that. 

No. 2, I also felt that I did not want to name or involve any other 
persons in any activity of mine, because the whole business of naming 
and involving anybody else was repugnant, and still is, may I say, 
to me. 

But I was unable, by taking the position that I took at that time, 
I was unable to make my own personal position clear, and so I asked^ 
if I might, to come back this time before the committee and make my 
own personal position clear. And during this time I shall have to 
mention the names of other people with w^hom I was associated. 

And as to answering the questions, Mr. Tavenner : As I remember^ 
one of the questions that you asked me at that last hearing was did 
I live at Eosemead and did I sign a petition to put the Communist 
Party on the ballot in 1942 or 1932, or both, as I remember. 

The record shows. I did not, that I can recall, at all. And I be- 
lieve that somewhere along the line there is a case of mistaken identity 
there. 

Mr, Tavenner. Do you mean the use of your name without your 
permission ? 

Mr. Daggett. Either that, or perhaps someone else named Charles 
Dasfffett, who did live in E-osemead at that time, because I did not 
live there and I do not recall ever signing such petition. 

Mr. Tavenner. And you did not at any time reside at Rosemead? 

Mr. Daggett. That is correct. I did not, ever. 

As to the other questions I was asked, I believe I was asked if I 
knew Mr. Harold Ashe, who testified that I had attended meetings 
either in 1935 or 1936 at his home. At that time I refused to answer^ 
on the fifth amendment grounds. 

I can state now that I did know Mr. Harold Ashe ; that I did at- 
tend meetings at his home at that time. 

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

Mr. Daggett. This is very difficult for me to say. I would say in 
a legal sense I was a member of the Communist Party for about 8 
or 10 weeks in 1945. 

Mr. Tavenner. Explain what you mean by stating that in a' legal 
sense you were a member for only that period of time. 

Mr. Daggett. All right, then I will have to sketch in some detail 
of mv associations with the Communist Party. 

Whichever the proper date is, 1935 or 1936, that Mr. Ashe testified 
to — and I would like to say that I think his testimonyis approxi- 
mately correct in relation to me — I did attend some meetings. I was 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2461 

asked to attend these meetings by one Morgan Hull, who is now de- 
ceased and who was a newspaperman in Los Angeles at that time. 
I did go to these meetings. 

They were very dull and uninteresting kind of meetings, and I went 
to maybe 10 or a dozen of these meetings. 

I believe that Mr. Ashe testified at the time, September 17, that he 
saw me all through the 1930's. This is not true because I did not live 
in Los Angeles during the 1930's, or all of the 1930's. 

Mr. TA^^ENNER. At that point. I rather doubt your correctness 
as to your interpretation of Mr. Ashe's testimony, because my recol- 
lection is that Mr. Ashe testified that he knew yon had. been in Seattle. 

Mr. Daggett. Yes, he did testify as to that, as I remember. 

Mr. Tavenner. And that he had seen you in San Francisco. 

Mr. Daggett. That is correct. He did testify as to that. 

Mr. Tavenner. And, therefore, from those two statements, he could 
not have meant literally that you were attending these meetings or 
present in Los Angeles during the entire period of time that you 
mentioned. 

]\Ir. Daggett. Well, if we stop to interpret it, yes. But it was pub- 
lished in the newspapers that he saw me all through the thirties. 

Mr. Tavenner. It is very difficult to follow the record and also 
what other people may say about the testimony. 

Mr. Daggett. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. I think we have to rely solely upon the record of 
the testimony. 

Mr. Daggett. Yes. 

(Representative Clyde Doyle left the hearing room at this point.) 

Mr. Tavenner. However, if there was any public statement re- 
lating to your alleged activities or your affiliation with the Communist 
Party which leaves you under false light, of course, I think you are 
entitled to comment on it here. 

Mr. Morgan Hull, the person to whom you referred, was a close 
friend of yours, was he not ? 

Mr. Daggett. That is correct. 

Mr. Tavenner. In what business was he engaged ? 

Mr. Daggett. He was a newspaperman and I was a newspaperman, 
in Los Angeles. 

Mr. Tavenner. He became very prominent in the Newspaper Guild 
work, did he not ? 

Mr. Daggett. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. What position did he later hold? 

Mr. Daggett. In the Newspaper Guild? 

Mr. Taatenner. Yes. 

Mr. Daggett. I believe that he was what is called an international 
organizer for the Newspaper Guild, which means an organizer of 
chapters of the Newspaper Guild throughout the country, and I 
believe his headquarters were in New York. 

And this was at the time when the Newspaper Guild was first 
formed, which I believe was in 1936, when Heywood Broun was the 
president of the guild. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was he known to you to be a member of the Com- 
munist Party ? 

Mr. Daggett. Yes, he was. 



2462 COMMUNISM IX LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. Taa^enner. And he was identified, was he not, also by Mr. Ashe 
as one of those who attended these meetings in 1935 or 1936T 

]\Ir. Daggett. Yes. And I would like also to identify him as one 
of those who attended one of those meetings. 

Mr. Tavenner. I believe Mr. Joseph Aidlin was also one of those 
who attended. 

Mr. Daggett. Yes, I could identify Mr. Aidlin as one of those who 
attended the session. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know what his profession was ? 

Mr. Daggett. He was an attorney. 

Mr. Tavenner. A practicing attorney? 

Mr. Daggett. I believe so, although I didn't know him outside of 
that particular small group, Mr. Tavenner. I believe he was prac- 
ticing in Los Angeles at that time. 

Mr. Tavenner. Can you identify others who attended those early 
meetings in 1935 and 1936 conducted by Mr. Ashe? 

Mr. Daggett. Yes. I can recall Mr. Percy Solotoy, who at that 
time, I believe, also was a practicing attorney, and — if I can look at 
some notes here — a man named Jack Broman, who was a newspaper- 
man, and whose name, I believe, also was Jack Wilson. 

But I think Broman was the name that he wrote Communist Party 
articles under. I am not sure whether he wrote under the name of 
Wilson, or whether he wrote under the name of Broman, but I do 
recall him. 

Mr. Tavenner. Just a moment. 

Did Percy Solotoy appear as 'a witness during the hearings in Los 
Angeles ? 

Mr. Daggett, Yes, he did. September 17, you mean ? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Daggett. That same period, yes, he did. 

Mr. Tavenner. And, like yourself, he refused to answer questions 
that might indicate his Communist Party affiliations? 
-Mr. Daggett. I didn't follow his complete testimony, but I believe 
that the general effect of it was that ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. All right, if you will proceed, please. 

Mr. Daggett. And I recall Lucy Stander, who was the wife of 
Lionel Stander at that time. Lionel Stander was an actor. I do not 
recall Lionel Stander being at these meetings, but his wife was defi- 
nitely there. 

I recall Herbert Klein, who also was a newspaperman, who also 
testified. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you Iniow whether Mr. Herbert Klein, to whom 
you have just referred, is the same person who was also subpenaed as 
a witness and who had been a teacher at El Camino Junior College? 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2463 

Mr. Daggett, I don't know as to his profession, but it was the same 
man ; yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. And who likewise refused to testify ? 

Mr. Daggett. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. All I'ight, sir. 

Mr. Daggett. Can I mention the name of another attorney whom I 
do recall ? I hesitate to swear that I recall this man, but I do want to 
say that I recall him enough to state that I believe he was present at 
these meetings. 

Mr. Tavenner. I would rather for you not to state it unless you are 
certain in your own mind. 

Mr. Moulder. Mr. Chairman and counselor, may I intenaipt at 
this point? 

Mr. Walter. Yes. 

Mr. Moulder. You are naming some person there who attended a 
Connnunist meeting ? 

Mr. Daggett. Yes. 

Mr. Moulder. In addition to that, you name someone else who, 
according to your information, you assumed was a close personal 
friend of someone else. I believe it is improper for a witness to bring 
into the record the name of some other person just by opinion, associ- 
ating him w^ith someone that you have identified as a Communist. 

Mr. Tavenner. I did not understand it that way, 

Mr. Moulder. Did I not understand him to say that? He said he 
was a close friend of someone else. 

Mr. Walter. But he also said that he remembers this man attending 
these meetings. 

Give us the names of all the people that you remember attending 
these meetings. 

Mr. Daggett. This other person, then, is an attorney also in Los 
Angeles, named Spencer Austrian. 

Mr. Walter. And you saw him at these meetings, did you ? 

Mr. DAGGETfr. I am definitely certain that I did, yes. But I don't 
know whether I can state unequivocally that he was a member of the 
Communist Party. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Chairman, he has been identified by several 
witnesses, other witnesses, as having attended these meetings. 

Can you tell the committee the general subject matter, the sub- 
ject of discussions at the meetings that you referred to? 

Mr. Daggett. As I recall, they were just discussions on Communist 
political theory and Marxism at that time, what Marx and Lenin meant 
to the Communist Party as great Communist Party philosophers and 
historians and leaders of the Communist Party. 

And, as I said earlier, those discussions I found were very dull, and 
I didn't go to very many of them. 



2464 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

I used to argue frequently with my good friend Morgan Hull, who 
asked me to go to these meetings, about the virtue of continuing to 
go, and finally didn't go any more. 

And also my absence from these meetings was occasioned by the 
fact that I removed from Los Angeles shortly after starting to attend 
some of these meetings at Mr. Ashe's home. I removed to New York, 
where I remained for about 4 or 5 months. 

Mr. Tavenner. On July 19, 1940, the Committee on Un-American 
Activities took evidence, and during the course of the hearing there 
M'ere several affidavits introduced in evidence. One was the affidavit 
of W. B. Holther bearing date of July 25, 1939. In that affidavit he 
responded to a question that had been asked him. The question was 
this: 

Can you now state for the record some of the names of members of the Com- 
munist Party who attended that conference? 

And by conference, he was referring to a Committee for Political 
Unity which met in Fresno, Calif., for the purpose of solidifying the 
various liberal political elements throughout the State. 

Do you recall the meeting to which I have referred there, the one 
held at Fresno, Calif. ? 

Mr. Daggett. In 1940? 

Mr. Tavenner. No. The statement given was in 1939. So the 
meeting was held prior to that date. October 1937. 

Mr. Daggett. It is entirely possible that I did attend that meeting. 
At that time I was the editor of a labor newspaper in Los Angeles, 
the CIO Industrial Unionist. 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes. 

Mr. Holther, in this affidavit, refers to you as one of the persons 
present, in this language : 

Charles Daggett, editor of the Industrial Unionist, Los Angeles CIO paper. 

Mr. Daggett. Yes. It is entirely possible that I did attend that 
meeting. I do not recall the details of the meeting, however. There 
were a number of meetings at that time which I did attend, Mr. 
Tavenner. 

Mr. Tavenner. The question propounded to Mr. Holther was to give 
names of the members of the Communist Party who attended that 
conference, and your name was given as a member of the Communist 
Party, with the description that I have just read. 

Was he correct in identifying you at that time as a member of the 
Communist Party? 

Mr. Daggett. I do not recall ever meeting Mr. Plolther. I cannot 
place him in my mind, Mr. Tavenner. 

Mr. Tavenner. But was he correct in his identification of you at that 
time? 

Mr. Daggett. I would say that he was, yes ? 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know Paul Cline? 

Mr. Daggett. I cannot place Paul Cline ; no sir . 

Mr. Tavenner, A1 Lewis, sometimes referred to as Al Lane ? 

Mr. Daggett. I cannot place him. 

Mr. Tavenner. Betty Gannett? 

Mr, Daggett. I cannot place her, except having seen her name in 
the record of the committee. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2465 

Mr. Tavenner. You do not know what part these persons played 
in the meeting that was held at Fresno, Calif. 

Mr. Daggett. No, sir ; I do not. My job there was simply to report 
about this meeting for the Industrial Unionists. 

Mr. Tavenner. What was your next activity or connection with the 
Communist Party ? 

Mr. Daggett. We have missed one. 

Mr. Tavenner. Very well ; let us have that. 

Mr. Daggett. In between the time that I met with Mr. Ashe's group 
at his home. After that time, I went to Seattle to be the city editor 
of a newspaper there, the Seattle Star. 

Mr. Tavenner. That was prior to 1937? 

Mr. Daggett. That was prior to 1937. I believe that was late in 
1936, or the middle of 1936, thereabouts. 

And shortly after I had arrived there, there was the formation of 
the Newspaper Guild began throughout the country, and there was a 
rather large attempt to form a Newspaper Guild in Seattle at that 
point and this took place on the Post Intelligencer there, which was 
a Hearst morning newspaper in Seattle. 

Mr. Hearst, or, rather, his labor advisers, I believe, decided that 
they would break it up by firing two veteran employees. One was a 
man named Eberhart Armstrong and another was named Lynch. 
He was called "Slim" Lynch. He was a ])hotographer. 

And these people had worked for the paper for a number of years, 
like 12, 15, 17, 18, 20 years, and they were fired. 

And the Newspaper Guild began to grow even stronger as a result 
of these men being fired. 

And at that time, Morgan Hull, whom I, at that time, had known in 
Los Angeles as a Communist Party member, came to Seattle as an 
organizer for the Newspaper Guild. With him, perhaps not in the 
same train, but around the same time, also arrived a man by the name 
of Jonathon Eddy, who at one time, I believe, had worked on the New 
York Times. 

Eddy also was an organizer for the Newspaper Guild. 

And the guild was a little slow in forming because of the firings, and 
so forth, but it began to pick up momentum when these two men 
arrived in town to help organize it among the newspaper men in 
Seattle. 

I did go to some meetings with Eddy and with Hull, 

Mr. Tavenner. What kind of meetings ? 

Mr. Daggett. These could be called Communist fraction meetings 
of the Newspaper Guild. They were left-wing fraction meetings of 
the Newspaper Guild. 

The only other man who later was known to me as a Communist, 
who attended these meetings, was a man named Richard Seller, who 
was a newspaperman in Seattle at that time. 

There were several other people, but I don't believe that any of 
these people were Communists. 

Mr. Ta>^nner. You used two terms. You said a "Communist frac- 
tion meeting," and then you used the term "left-wing fraction 



55 

Mr. Daggett. Yes. 



j^.eetmg 



95008— 52— pt. 1- 



2466 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. Tavenner. Are they the same thing, or are they different? 

Mr. Daggett. No; they are the same thing, actually. The Com- 
munists had a method of working at least in the Newspaper Guild 
in the days of forming the Newspaper Guild at that time, where they 
would get together those who were Communists in a fraction group 
and those who w-ere not Communists, but were considered truly avid 
ancl sincere people in the formation of the guild, and these would be 
what they called liberals and progressive people and they discussed 
no Communist theory : They simply discussed the question of how ta 
organize the union at that time. 

Or if a strike was in the offing, or about to be held, or being held^ 
they would discuss the strategy to be employed during the strike, 
and these were fraction meetings. 

Mr. Tavenner. If I understand you correctly, some of the persons 
present were members of the Communist Party and some were not. 

Mr. Daggett. Yes ; correct. 

Mr. Tavenner. What was your next association with the Commu- 
nist movement? 

Mr. Daggett. In 1937, I believe, when I came back from Seattle 
and settled in Los Angeles, I took a job at that time with the CIO 
Industrial Unionist as the editor of the paper. And at that time I 
started attending group meetings of people who were in the News- 
paper Guild, in the newspaper profession in Los Angeles. These were- 
Communist Party meetings. 

I did pay dues at that time, and I belonged tothe Communist Party 
at that time, definitely. 

Mr. Tavenner. That was a group within the Newspaper Guild ? 

Mr. Daggett. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. That you belonged to at that time? 

Mr. Daggett. Yes, sir. There may have been others outside the 
Newspaper Guild, but I believe that, for the most part, these were 
newspaper people. 

Mr. Tavenner. When did you affiliate with that group ? 

Mr. Daggett. In 1937. I can't tell you the exact date. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long did you continue your association with 
that group ? 

Mr. Daggett. I would say either 3 months, or 4 months, or 5 months, 
Mr. Tavenner. I am not definitely certain, because I again left Los 
Aneeles to co back to return to Seattle. 

Mr. Ta\t3nner. How many members were there in that group at 
that time, during that 3 or 4 months' period? 

Mr. Daggett. It is a little difficult for me to say exactly. I would 
say 8 or 9, or 10 or 12. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you give us their names ? 

Mr. Daggett. Those I can remember, I will give you ; yes. 

Mr. Ta\t.nner. All right. 

Mr. Daggett. There v/as a man named Ed Robbin or Robbins. I 
cannot remember whether it had an "s" on it, or not; a man named 
Charles Judson; a girl named Urcel Daniel. 

I believe there was another man, named Durr Smith, who attended 
these meetings, and Morgan Hull also, and Herbert K. Klein again. 

There were others, but these are the names that I definitely can 
remember. 

Mr. Tavenner. You have given us the names of six. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2467 

Mr. Daggett. Yes. 

Mr. Ta%tenner. Who was the chairman or the leader of the group ? 

Mr. Daggett. You got me there. I can't recall. I think there was 
sort of an alternating chairman at each one of the meetings. 

JNIr. Tavenner. Was there a secretary ? 

Mr, Daggett. I don't recall. 

Mr. Tavenner. A literary director? 

Mr. Daggett. It was an organizing meeting, Mr. Tavenner, if that 
is what you are getting at. There was a chairman and somebody 
selling the literature and somebody keeping the minutes, and so forth; 
yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. And by literature, you are referring to Communist 
Party literature, are you? 

Mr. Daggett. Definitely, Communist Party literature; yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was it the same kind of party structure as the early 
meetings that you had attended under Mr. Ashe? 

Mr. Daggett. I wouldn't say that it was the same, although there 
was literature sold at the meetings at j\Ir. Aslie's home. The meetings 
at Mr. Ashe's home \vere devoted to political theory. Communist Party 
political theory ; whereas these meetings were devoted, as I recall them, 
principally to activities with the Newspaper Guild in Los Angeles. 

Mr. Tavenner. You have given us the names of six persons whom 
you can recall as being members of this group. The investigation con- 
ducted by the committee reflected a number of other names — names of 
persons supposedly members of this group. 

Now, I am going to hand them to you and let you look over them, 
not to read them into the record, but to look over them for the pur- 
pose of determining whether or not you can satisfy yourself in your 
own mind as to whether any other persons whose names are on here 
were members of that group. 

Mr. Daggett. Yes; I understand. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you recall the group known and referred to 
as "110"? 

Mr. Daggett. No, sir ; I do not. 

(A document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Daggett [after consulting document]. The name of Dolpli 
Winebrenner, I can recall that one. 

Mr. Tavenner. Can you give us any additional identifying infor- 
mation regarding these persons? For instance, the person to whom 
you have just referred? 

Mr. Daggett. Mr. Winebrenner? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes. 

Mr. Daggett. No ; except that he was a blond. That is about all 
I remember about him. 

]\Ir. Tavenner. For whom did he work ? 

Mr. Daggett. I don't recall for whom he worked at that time. 
[After consulting document.] I think the Daily News ; yes. I think 
that that was probably the only place he worked in Los Angeles. 

Well, I have mentioned the name of Urcel Daniel to you earlier. 
She at the time that I remember was on the Examiner at Los Angeles. 

Herbert Klein at that time was in and out of the newspaper busi- 
ness. H© had been on the newspaper that I had worked on some years 
before, but at that time I didn't know him this way, and at the time 



2468 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

I did know him this way, I don't recall where he was working. He 
had an independent income. I don't believe he was working at that 
time, nnless he was a teacher, because he was a teacher later, to my 
best recollection, at the Los Angeles City College, or whatever that 
school became after the University of Los Angeles moved to West- 
wood. 

Mr. Jackson. Is that the school that was on Vermont ? 

Mr. Daggett. Yes ; it was. That was the Los Angeles City College, 
I believe. [After consulting document.] And I do remember his 
wife, Minna Klein, who also attended these meetings. She was not 
working on a newspaper that I recall. 

Ed Robbins I have mentioned and he, I believe, was working at 
the time on the People's World, which was the Communist Party 
newspaper. And if that wasn't called the People's World in those 
days, it was probably called the Western Worker. It was not a very 
readable newspaper, as I remember. 

(Representative Francis E. Walter left the hearing room at this 
point.) 

Mr. Daggett. And Darr Smith — to identify him further — was, I 
believe, at that time — I believe this is his correct name. I always 
thought it was Darwin, but everybody calls him Darr. He at that 
time, I think, was employed on the Daily News as a reporter or a copy 
reader — I am not sure which — on the Daily News in Los Angeles. 

That completes the identification that I can make, to the best of 
my recollection, Mr. Tavenner. 

Mr. Tavenner. To whom did you pay your dues while a member 
of this group ? 

Mr. Daggett. I don't remember exactly, but I do remember paying 
some to Urcel Daniel at one point. I do remember that; yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. What were your dues ? 

Mr. Daggett, Not very much. I don't remember how much they 
were. They couldn't have been very much because my salary wasn't 
very big, and they were based upon salary. Wliat the percentage was, 
I cannot recall, but they weren't very much. It may have been 75 
cents or a dollar. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you learn the reason for the establislunent of a 
Communist group or branch within the Newspaper Guild? 

Mr. Daggett. That is a little hard for me to answer, what the defi- 
nite reason was. But I can tell you what attracted me to it, if that 
will throw any light on answering your question. 

At that time there was a President of the United States who believed 
in collective bargaining. This was a rather unusual period in the his- 
tory of our country. That was President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who 
believed thoroughly and completely in the right of people to organize 
and bargain collectively. 

At that time also there was a great and tremendous and powerful 
group of people who were against collective bargaining in this country 
and those who seemed for it. In my opinion, when one strips it down 
to the barest fundamentals, when he is thinking about these things, and 
particularly when they affect him. And according to my thinking 
at that time those who believed completely in President Roosevelt's 
program of collective bargaining, particularly in the Newspaper 
Guild where I was affected, and where I moved and had my career at 
that time, seemed to be the Communist Party people. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2469 

And that is why I joined at that time, Mr. Tavenner, because I 
wanted to work for the betterment of all of the newspaper people, 
including myself. 

Salaries were very low at that time. Newspaper people got very 
little money, and today they don't get too much, but they get a lot 
more because of the Newspaper Guild and because of the work of 
left-wingers and Communists within the Newspaper Guild. They are 
getting fairly good salaries today. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did anyone approach you about uniting with this 
particular group, in the Newspaper Guild? 

Mr. Daggett. About joining it? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes. 

Mr. Daggeitt. Morgan Hull. Yes. He had asked me several times 
before to do this, but I had not done it until that time. 

Mr. Tavenner. After the 3 or 4 months' period in which you say 
you were a member of this particular group, what did you do ? 

Mr. Daggett. I returned to Seattle to work in a political campaign 
and did not return again to Los Angeles for a number of years. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you return to an active capacity in the Com- 
munist Party at a later time ? 

Mr. Daggett. In 1945, 1 did ; yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. Tell the committee about that. 

Mr. Daggett. That was during tlie Hollywood Guild strike, which 
took place at the — Hollywood Conference of Studio Unions strike, as 
I think it is classified and called. The date again escapes me exactly, 
but it was during 1945. 

And at that time I was a member of the Screen Publicists' Guild in 
Hollywood. 

At that time we were faced with the problem of having a strike. 
Earlier we had moved from an independent status as a union into an 
affiliate of the Brotherhood of Painters and Paperhangers and Deco- 
rators, and whatever else it is called. But we always referred to it 
as the Painters Union. 

Mr. Taat!:nner. All of which was pretty fully described by Mr. 
Brewer when he testified. 

Mr. Daggett. Yes, sir ; I believe that he did, thoroughly. 
(Representative Clyde Doyle returned to the hearing room at this 
point. ) 

Mr. Taatcnner. Without going into detail as to that particular is- 
sue, just state to the committee how you became interested in the work- 
ings of the Communist Party at that particular time and what you 
did. 

Mr. Daggeit. Yes. Well, this was a period of general and personal 
tension for me in Hollywood because the producers in Hollywood 
had discharged some members of another affiliate of the painters union. 

I believe this was the set decorators union. "Wliat the fall title of 
that union was, I cannot remember, but it was the set decorators' group. 

And we were asked by the painters union then, to which we were 
affiliated, to support this strike. We were not only asked, but we 
were ordered to do so by one of the national vice presidents of the 
painters union, one Mr. Joseph Clark. 

We were also ordered to do so by Herbert Sorrell, who was the 
president of the Conference of Studio Unions, or the chairman, or 
whatever you want to call him. But he was the leader of the con- 



2470 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

ference, and he also was the representative of the painters union ia 
Hollywood at that time. 

We were told if we didn't support the strike, we would lose our 
charter as a union within the painters union. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Sterling Hayden testified in the early part of 
this investigation that he was directed by the Communist Party cell 
of which he was a member to go out into the Screen Writers' Guild 
and use his influence there — or maybe it was the Actors' Guild — to 
bring them in line in support of that same strike. 

Did you receive any directions from the Communist Party in that 
particular? 

Mr. Daggett. Not in that same manner, Mr. Tavenner. 

But at this time — I hadn't quite finished this personal involvement 
again — at that time I was working, as I think most intelligent people 
were working, for some kind of determination of the conflict between 
the employers and the unions, so there wouldn't have to be a strike. 

At that time I was invited to come to dinner at the home of Ring 
Lardner, Jr., and I did go to his home for dinner, and it seemed just 
to be a sort of dinner party at his house. There were 10, 15, 18 people 
there, in west Los Angeles, or Westwood, I guess you would call it. 

And after dinner, after eating and drinking and talking, Ring 
Lardner asked me and the man I went to the dinner party with, if 
we wouldn't join the Communist Party at that time because the Com- 
munist Party was working and working toward some kind of peace- 
ful settlement for this strike situation. 

Mr. Tavenner. Who was it that extended the invitation ? 

Mr. Daggett. Ring Lardner, Jr. Yes. 

Another person I can remember being at the meeting was Dalton 
Trumbo, whom I didn't know at that time, but recall him from later. 

There was also another man who was a publicist, named Robert 
Wachsman, although I have never seen him again after that particu- 
lar meeting at any party meeting. 

I attended this meeting with a very close personal friend of mine 
at that time, a man named George Glass, whom I believe is present 
here and will be a witness. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was this invitation extended to both of you? 

Mr. Daggett. Yes ; it was. 

Mr. Tavenner. How was the invitation extended to you ? 

Mr. Daggett. Well — 

We think that— 

I mean, in general, as I recall it, Lardner said — 

We think that you fellows are looking for a proper solution for this thing. The 
Screen Writers' Guild is among the unions involved, and we want to have a 
peaceful situation rather than a strike situation, and in order to learn more 
about it, you ought to come in and join the Communist Party. 

Mr. Tavenner. I thought you were already a member of the Com- 
munist Party. 

Mr. Daggeit. That was in 1937. And I had dropped out, Mr. 
Tavenner. 

Mr. Tavenner. In other words, as far as you were concerned, it 
was an invitation to renew your party membership ? 

Mr. Daggett. That is right. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2471 

And I was motivated into doing so by my recollection of the situa- 
tion in Seattle during the Post Intelligencer strike. At that time 
the left-wing group, spearheaded by the Communists, organized the 
whole community of Seattle against Mr. Hearst so effectively that 
the newspaper was closed down for 90 days, and the Newspaper Guild 
won the strike. 

The two men who had been rather recklessly discharged by Mr. 
Hearst's people were put back to work when the NLEB and the 
Supreme Court ruled for them, and the strike was over. 

But I do remember the very effective work that the Communists 
and left-wingers did in that strike during that time; and in 1945, 
when I again became involved in a union strike situation, I felt that 
possibly these people might have the answer. 

So I did go to some meetings. 

Mr. Tavenner. Now, this is just a detail in your statement, but you 
refer to two of the men being discharged in Seattle and both being 
returned to their position. Is it not true that one had died in the 
meantime ? 

Mr. Daggeit. One died in the meantime, Mr. Armstrong. Mr. 
Lynch was returned to his job and I believe is still working on the 
paper, at a handsomer salary than he ever had before. 

Mr. Tavenner. As a result of this invitation, what did you do ? 

Mr. Daggett. I can't remember the exact details, but we agreed, 
at least I agreed, and Mr. Glass with me, and we agreed that we would 
attend some meetings at wherever we were invited to attend. And 
the first meeting I recall was at the home of Leo Townsend. 

Mr. Tavenner. Leo Townsend is the same person who testified and 
admitted his Communist Party membership; is that not correct? 

Mr. Daggett. Yes, sir. He is a writer in Hollywood. 

Mr. Tavenner. How many meetings did you and Mr. Glass attend 
at the home of Leo Townsend, if you know ? 

Mr. Daggett. I would say — my recollection is a little dim on it, 
but I would say a minimum of — not at Mr. Townsend's home, Mr. 
Tavenner. Probably three at Mr. Townsend's home; maybe two. 
Either two or three. 

Mr. Tavenner. You stated that you and Mr. Glass agreed. I was 
not clear in my mind whether you and Mr. Glass agreed to attend 
these meetings, or whether you agreed to become members of the party 
and attend the meetings. 

Mr. Daggett. We agreed to go to the meetings first and see what 
the score was. 

Mr. Jackson. May I ask a question ? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes. 

Mr. Jackson. Were these meetings branch meetings ? 

Mr. Daggett. Yes, sir ; they were. 

Mr. Jackson. In order to have attended, in the natural course of 
events, it would have been necessary to be a member of the Communist 
Party, would it not? 

Mr. Daggett. It would seem to me to be so ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. How many of these meetings did you attend, as 
far as you can recall ? 

Mr. Daggett. I would like to say this : I can't remember exactly, 
but either a minimum of 6 and a maximum of 10. And it is some- 
where in between there. It is either 6, 7, 8, 9, or 10. 



2472 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

But I don't believe any more than 10. These were not all at Mr. 
Townsend's house. 

Mr. Tavenner. Where were the other meetings held ? 

Mr. Daggett. The other meetings, that I recollect, were held at 
the home of Jay Gorney, who was a song writer or a musician of one 
kind or another — whether he was a song writer or a man who wrote 
scores for films, I don't recall exactly — and at the home of Abe 
Polonsky, who has also been a witness before this committee. 

Mr. Ta\tnner. I believe that Abe Polonsky refused to testify when 
he appeared before this committee. 

Mr. Daggett. To the best of my recollection, he did ; yes, sir. But 
I can't say, because I haven't followed his record. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you familiar enough with the record to know 
that he was identified by numerous witnesses as a member of the 
Communist Party ? 

Mr. Daggett. I believe that Mr. Townsend identified him as a mem- 
ber of the Communist Party, and I am quite certain that I can do the 
same. 

Mr. Taa-enner. How many of these meetings were attended by Mr. 
Glass? 

Mr. Daggett. All that I attended, Mr. Glass attended, as I recall. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you pay any dues to the Communist Party dur- 
ing this particular time? 

Mr. Daggett. I don't think I did; but I bought some literature, 
and, you see, I wasn't working at the time, and at the time when you 
are not working you don't have to pay any dues, as I remember. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was Communist Party literature sold at these 
meetings ? 

Mr. Daggeit. Yes. There was an organized meeting. 

There was a chairman and somebody taking the minutes and so 
forth. 

Mr. Ta\^nner. Do you recall whetlier tlie group had a name? 

Mr. Daggett. No, I do not. As far as I know, it was just a meeting 
at somebody's house. 

Mr. Tavenner. What business was transacted at these meetings? 

Mr. Daggett. Really, nothing in particular. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were Communists or persons on a higher level in 
the Communist Party invited to appear and address the meetings at 
any time, do you know? 

Mr. Daggett. I don't recall this, but I can recollect some of the 
people who were there at these meetings. 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes. Did you consider them as Communist Party 
meetings ? 

Mr. Daggett. Yes, I did. 

Mr. Tavenner. And the persons present were persons who neces- 
sarily would be members of the Connnunist Party ? 

Mr. Daggett. I believe so ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Who were present? 

Mr. Daggett. Larry Parks, and Karen Morley, Gordon Kahn, 
Henry Myers — I have already mentioned Abe Polonsky, and Jay 
Gorney and Leo Townsend — and Ben Barzman, Morris Carnovsky, 
Sandra Gorney, or Sondra — I am not sure which her name is, whether 
it is Sandra, S-a-n-d-r-a, or S-o-n-d-r-a — and a man named Paul 
Jarrico. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2473 

Some of these people were writers and some were actors. 

And, of course, Mr. Glass and myself. 

Mr. Tavknxer. You referred to some of the meetings taking place 
in the home of rJay Gorney. 

Mr. Daggett. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. ]Mr. Gorney Avas identified during the course of 
these hearings as a member of the Communist Party, by Leo Town- 
send, as you have mentioned, and also by Martin Berkeley. 

Mr. Daggett. I don't remember Mr. Berkeley, but I do remember 
Mr. Townsend having done so, yes. 

Mr. Tavennee. What further activity did you have in the Com- 
munist Party? 

Mr. Daggett. Before I left it in 1045, after a few of these meetings 
at the homes of these people, shortly after going to the first meeting — 
and I have testified that I believe the first meeting was at Leo Town- 
send's house — now, it may not have been; it may have been at 
Polonsky's house. I am a little bit confused as to which one, but 
definitely these were meetings which I attended. 

Shortly after the first meeting I recall being approached by Mr, 
William Blowitz and Mr. (leorge Thomas, Jr., who were members 
of the Publicists' Guild at that time. And they invited me and, I 
believe Mr. Glass, at the same time. Whether or not I was approached 
by myself or whether I was approached in company with Mr. Glass, 
I don't recollect, but, at least, we were invited to attend some strike 
fraction meetings at the home of Mr. Ben Margolis, who was an 
attorney in Los Angeles. 

Mr. Tavenner. You say "fraction meetings." What do you mean 
by that ? 

Mr. Daggett. Communist Party fraction meetings. 

Mr. Taa^nner. Was that meeting supposed to be a fraction meet- 
ing of different groups of the Connnunist Party or from the mem- 
bership of the Publicists' Guild? 

Mr. Daggett. Of the Publicists' Guild. Although at one of these 
meetings — Mr. Morgan Hull was at one of these meetings. At that 
time he was an official of the Communist Party in some capacity in 
Los Angeles. I don't remember what it was. 

Mr. Tavenner. Could it have been labor director ? 

Mr. Daggett. It is entirely possible ; yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you recall the exact way in which Mr. Blowitz 
approached you about attending this meeting? 

^Ir. Daggett. No. He just said. "We understand you guys have 
come in now, and will you come over to a meeting next Wednes- 
day?" — or Thursday, or whatever day it was — "at Margolis' house 
at 8 o'clock?" 

I said, "Sure," and we did. 

And I think it was just that casual and just about that. 

Mr. Tavenner. About how many meetings did you attend at Mr. 
Margolis' house? 

Mr. Daggeit. I would say three or four, Mr. Tavenner. 

Mr. Tavenner. What was the pur]:)ose of the meetings? 

Mr. Daggett. To discuss how the strike was going. In the meet- 
ings at the homes of Townsend, Gorney, and Polonsky there wasn't 
too much discussion of the strike. As I recollect, those discussions 
were devoted to the formation of the United States and the composi- 



2474 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

tion of the World Court and things of that kind, and very little 
about the strike. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you discuss at that meeting the action that 
the guild should take ? 

Mr. Daggett. I believe we did; yes. Yes; I believe we did. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you recall what was decided as to the action 
that the guild should take in regard to the strike ? 

Mr. Daggett. It was pretty definite support of the strike. Yes. I 
can this in general, but I can't tell you in detail what that was, because 
I don't remember. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did Mr. Blowitz attend the meetings, or any of 
them ? 

Mr. Daggett. Yes ; he did. And so did Mr. Thomas. 

Mr. Tavenner. Can you give us the names of the other persons 
who attended these meetings? 

Mr. Daggett. Only this particular one, Morgan Hull. And for 
the rest, I believe that just Mr. Glass and Mr, Blowitz and Mr. Thomas 
and myself and Mr. Margolis were present. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Glass was present at each of the meetings at 
which you were present ? 

Mr. Daggett. I believe so, yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. And that was three or four meetings, you think ? 

Mr. Daggett. Yes ; either three or four. 

Mr. Tavenner. What part did Mr. Glass perform in those meetings? 

Mr. Daggett. Just listening and discussing what the issues and the 
questions, the immediate questions, were at the time. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you have any further connection with Com- 
munist Party activities? 

Mr. Daggett. After 1945, no. 

Mr. Tavenner. Why was that ? 

Mr, Daggett. Well, at that time, 1945, during this period that I 
have discussed here, I do remember one of the things which — there 
were two or three contributing reasons which led me to be thoroughly 
disenchanted with the Communist Party. 

As I have testified earlier, I remembered that up in Seattle, during 
the Post Intelligencer strike, the group had played a very effective 
part in making the strike a success. 

And I believe that was a very justifiable strike, Mr. Tavenner, the 
one in Seattle. The one in Hollywood was really no justifiable strike; 
it was a jurisdictional strike between the groups that were in power, 
w^hich were the powerful lATSE, on the one hand, and the powerful 
Painters and Carpenters Union, on the other hand. It looked like 
that kind of thing, but as it developed, one could see it was the wrong 
kind of strike. It did not work for the betterment of working condi- 
tions and increase in salary, which is the only justifiable reason for a 
strike, in my opinion. 

This I learned as the thing developed. I didn't learn it right away. 

But as you watched it going through the process, I could see it was 
the wrong kind of strike, and I was interested in some kind of a 
peaceful sttelement. 

Mr. Sorrell, who was the head of the Conference of Studio Unions, 
as I recall, simply felt the only way to continue was to continue pick- 
eting on as broad a basis as possible, and to have the strike be a& 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2475 

dynamic a strike as possible. He had no notions, that were apparent 
to me, to have any peaceful settlement of the strike. 

This did come about later, however. But I think it just came about 
through a sort of decrepit position on the part of the strikers. 

At this time, Mr. Glass and I were the closest of friends. We had 
a publicity business together at that time, and we had a dispute over 
certain funds that were held in the bank under Mr. Glass' name. That 
ended our friendship and it was rather a shocking thing to me, psy- 
chically and emotionally, because he and I had been friends for a long 
period of time. 

This became a larger concern with me. What was happening to my 
friendship with Mr. Glass became of much larger concern with me than 
anything connected with the strike. 

Also, I recall at one of the meetings at somebody's house that there 
was some picketing going on of theaters in Los Angeles. This was 
what you would call secondary picketing. There was picketing going 
on at the studios, and picketing going on also at the theaters. 

And I remember Sandra Gorney saying at one of these meetings, 
when there was some brief discussion of the strike, that she couldn't 
understand why Warner Bros. Theater — and I believe it was War- 
ner's on Hollywood Boulevard — was being picketed by the strikers, 
because there was a picture playing there which had been written 
by Albert Maltz, and everybody knew Albert Maltz was a friend of 
the working class, and why should his picture be picketed. 

Well, this was kind of ridiculous, because if you are going to picket, 
you picket, no matter who wrote the picture; you are picketing the 
employer and not the screen writer. 

And I think that was another sort of revealing insight into the 
barren and completely inept position that the Communists seemed 
to be taking during that strike. And I believe that was another rea- 
son why I departed and went my own way. 

]Mr. Taat5nner. Do you mean to say that from that time on you 
were not affiliated and have not been affiliated with the Communist 
Party? 

Mr. Daggett. I definitely do mean to say that; yes, sir. And I 
would like to add that I never shall be again. 

Mr. Jackson. What was the date of your break with the party, 
Mr. Daggett? 

Mr. Daggett. I can't give you the exact date, Mr. Jackson, but it 
was in 1945, during the course of the strike. 

Mr. Doyle. May I ask the witness a question? 

Was that Herbert K. Sorrell that you mentioned ? Was the middle 
initial K? 

Mr. Daggett. I believe so ; yes. 

Mr. Doyle. Was the painters' union that you referred to local 644 ? 

Mr. Daggett. I think so, but I am not sure. It is the one that Sor- 
rell was the head of at the time, that he was business agent for, or 
president of, or something of that kind. 

Mr. Doyle. To your knowledge, was he a Communist? 

Mr. Daggett. I have no knowledge of his membership at all, Mr. 
Doyle. 

Mr. Doyle. Do you have any knowledge of whether or not he used 
any other name? 

Mr. Daggett. I have no such knowledge; no, sir. 



2476 COMAIUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. Doyle. Do I nnderstand that, in your opinion, the union of 
which he was a leader at that time, was following the Communist 
line? 

Mr. Daggett. Well, it is a little hard to say what was the Com- 
munist line, Mr. Doyle, because there just didn't seem to be any line 
really. There seemed to be no consistency at all, that I can put my 
finger on, and I was looking for consistency in the matter. 

Mr. Doyle. Did you meet him personally? 

Mr. Daggeit. I probably had known Sorrell a number of j^ears be- 
fore the strike. I don't recall having any personal meetings with 
him during the strike. 

We did have in my union an electric committee, which attended 
general strike strategy meetings at the Painters Union Hall. I was 
not a member of that committee. This was throughout the strike. 

Mr. Tavennee. Mr. Daggett, were you a member, at any time, of 
any other group or branch of the Communist Party, in addition to 
those that you have told us about ? 

Mr. Daggett. None that I can recall, Mr. Tavenner, at all. 

Mr. Ta%tenner. You say none that you can recall ? 

Mr. Daggett. That is right. 

Mr. Tavenner. I wanted to consider the matter carefully in answer- 
ing that question. 

Mr. Daggett. Yes. 

Mr. Taa^nner. And to make certain that your answer is correct 
about it. 

Mr. Daggett, Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you certain in your own mind that you were not 
a member of any other group ? 

Mr. Daggett. Yes, I am. I am quite certain, yes. 

Mr. Taat.nner. Are there any other persons whose names you can 
identify to the committee, who were members of the various groups 
to which you have referred ? 

Mr. Daggett. I don't believe I can, Mr. Tavenner. 

^Ir. Moulder. Is that all. Mr. Tavenner ? 

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

Mr. Moulder. Mr. Kearney. 

Mr. Kearney. The name of Lionel Stander's wife, I believe, was 
mentioned as a member of the Communist Party. 

Mr. Daggett. Yes, sir ; Lucy Stander. 

Mr. Kearney. Do you know whether Lionel Stander was a member 
of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Daggett. I do not know this to my knowledge, no. 

Mr. Kearney. Did he ever attend any meetings that you attended? 

Mr. Daggeti. No, I did not attend any meetings with Lionel 
Stander. 

Mr. Kearney. You also mentioned Will Rogers as a friend of • 

Mr. Daggett. Only in passing, Mr. Kearney. 

Mr. Kearney. Is that senior, or junior ? 

Mr. Daggett. Junior, as a friend of Mr. Aidlin's. 

Mr. Kearney. Only as a friend ? 

Mr. Daggett. Yes. Mr. Tavenner asked me if I knew anything 
about Mr. Adlin at the present time, and I volunteered that infor- 
mation. 

Mr. Kearney. This is simply and solely as a friend? 



COMMUNISM m LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2477 

Mr. Daggett. Simply and solely as that. And I thought I made 
that clear. 

Mr. Kearney. I thought you did, too, but I just wanted to clear it 
up on the record. 

Mr. Dkaggett. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Moulder. Mr. Jackson. 

Mr. Jackson. I have several questions, Mr. Chairman. 

When you Avere approached at the Ring Lardner party, or dinner, 
to reaffiliate with the Comnuniist Party, was the proposition made to 
you and to Mr. Glass at the same time, or separately ? 

Mr. Daggett. At the same time. 

Mr. Jackson. What was your response to the suggestion, as best 
you recall? 

Mr. Daggett. My emotional response, Mr. Jackson ? 

Mr. Jackson. I mean your actual response ? 

Mr. Daggett. I ended up agreeing to join. 

Mr. Jackson. You said, "I will join" ? 

Mr. Daggett. Yes. 

Mr. Jackson. Do you recall whetlier or not there was any positive 
response from Mr. Glass at that time ? 

Mr. Daggett. I believe so. I believe he said he would, too, at the 
same time. Yes. 

Mr. Jackson. You attended the party with Mr. Glass, did you? 

Mr. Daggett. Tliat is right. 

Mr. rlACKSON. Did you leave the party with Mr. Glass? 

Mr. Daggett. I believe so. 

Mr. Jackson. Did you have any discussion subsequent to the party ? 

Mr. Daggett. Yes ; I believe we did. 

Mr. Jackson. What was the substance of the discussion? 

Mr. Daggett. Sort of should we or shouldn't we. And the ulti- 
mate of that was that we should, and did. 

Mr. Jackson. Did you say it was mutually agreed between you that 
you would both go into the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Daggett. I would say so, yes. 

Mr. Jackson. Since your previous appearance before the com- 
mittee in Los Angeles last September, have any efforts been made 
by an individual or group of individuals to persuade you to make 
another appearance before the committee, or, conversely, to dissuade 
you from making an appearance? 

Mr. Daggett. Neither. 

Mr. Jackson. You have not been approached in any way as to 
your appearance? 

Mr. Daggett. No. I did discuss it with my then employers, Mr. 
Stephen Bosustow, and he felt that perhaps I should make another 
appearance. And then I did discuss it with Mr. Clair Warren, of 
the law firm of Pack, Tennenbaum, and Ross. 

Mr. Jackson. Have any efforts been made to reenlist you in the 
Communist Party since your separation in 1945 ? 

Mr. Daggett. No, sir ; that I can recall. No, sir. 

Mr. Jackson. You have named, have you, all of the individuals 
who were known to you to be members of the Communist Party, or 
whose appearance at certain functions would lead to the logical 
assumption and belief that they w^ere members of the Communist 
Party? Are there no other identifications that you desire to make, 



2478 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

or can make with respect to the branch meetings which you attended ? 

Mr. Daggett. That is correct ; yes, sir. 

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

Mr. Moulder. Mr. Doyle. 

Mr. Doyle. No questions. 

Mr. Daggett. ]NIr. Chairman, or Mr. Tavenner, may I make one 
small other remark about one of the reasons why I have come to be 
a cooperative witness ? 

Mr. Moulder. Yes. 

Mr. Daggett. After leaving the Communist Party group in 1945 
I went to work for James Roosevelt, who then was either about to 
be, or then was chairman of the Democratic Party in California. 
He had a radio program and he approached me to help him write a 
daily commentary on his radio program, which I did. 

During the course of that, there was all sorts of international news, 
and several times I do remember helping him prepare scripts that were 
definitely anti-Communist in character. 

And because at the time of my appearance in September before the 
committee, some publication sought to link me with James Roosevelt, 
or James Roosevelt with communism, I would like to make it quite 
definitely and wholly clear tliat never during any of my association 
with James Roosevelt had I any association or any hang-over as- 
sociation with the Communist Party. 

Mr. Jackson. May I ask another question ? 

Mr. Moulder. Yes. 

Mr. Jackson. Were any efforts made by the committee, or by coun- 
sel, to so link you ? 

Mr. Daggett. No, sir; absolutely none. I think the committee has 
been extremely fair. 

Mr. DoTLE. Mr. Chairman, I was called out of the hearing for per- 
haps a half hour. Do I understand that the witness in any way, during 
that time I was out of the room, undertook to indicate that either 
Mr. James Roosevelt or Mr. Joseph Aidlin, of Los Angeles, were 
Communists ? 

Mr. Daggett. I did testify to Mr. Aidlin being present at some 
Communist meetings that I attended ; yes, sir, but not Mr. Roosevelt. 

Mr. Doyle. I was not present in the hearing room to hear that 
testimony. 

Mr. DaCtGett. These were meetings at the home of Mr. Harold Ashe, 
or meetings that Mr. Ashe presided over. 

Mr. Doyle. Then, as to the suggestion of Mr. Kearney, do I under- 
stand that Mr. Roosevelt's name is stricken from the record ? 

Mr. Moulder. Mr. Kearney is referring to the question with refer- 
ence to Joe Aidlin, a practicing attorney. That is the question that 
Mr. Kearney was referring to, at the beginning of his testimony, as 
I recall it. 

Mr. Doyle. Do I understand, Mr. Daggett, that in any way you 
were indicating in your testimony that James Roosevelt was a Com- 
munist, or ever had been ? 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2479 

Mr. Daggett. I was indicating definitely in my testimony that Mr. 
James Roosevelt was not, and I also stated definitely that during my 
connection with Mr. James Roosevelt, I was not, nor did I have any 
intellectual hang-overs about the Communist Party. 

This was during a period when I helped Mr. Roosevelt prepare a 
number of radio progi'ams and speeches for the chairman of the 
Democratic Party in California, and helped him raise funds for a 
number of Jackson Day dinners, which I believe you attended. Con- 
gressman. 

And this was also during a period when I was scolded by People's 
World for not giving Bob Kenny a proper seat at the Jackson Day 
dinner. 

I think I raised something like 80 or 90 thousand dollars for Mr. 
Roosevelt at that time. 

Mr. Doyle. May I just ask this one question, then, due to the fact 
that I was absent during the half hour that you were mentioning 
these names : 

Do I understand that your testimony still stands that you were 
present at Communist meetings known to you to be Communist meet- 
ings, at which time you were a Communist, and that some of those 
meetings were attended by Mr. Aidlin, a Los Angeles lawyer? 

Mr. Daggeit. Yes and no on that one. 

Mr. Doyle. How much yes, and how much no ? 

Mr. Daggett. I did go to some Communist meetings at Mr. Ashe's 
home, but at that time I was not a member of the Communist Party. 

I went to these discussion meetings at Mr. Ashe's home because I 
was asked to by Mr. Morgan Hull, and Mr. Aidlin was among those 
at these meetings. 

Mr. Doyle. But that was a meeting which, by reason of the fact 
that you were present and were not then a Communist, was a meeting 
which was not restricted to Communists, was it? 

Mr. Daggett. Well, I believe it was. 

Mr. Doyle. Well, you were not. 

Mr. Daggeti'. That is right. 

Mr. Doyle. Then how could it have been restricted to Communists, 
if you were not a Communist and were at those meetings? 

Mr. Daggett. I can only make it clear in this way: That I was 
invited to these meetings and they were kind of beginners' classes 
in communism at that time. 

Mr. Doyle. New beginners? 

Mr. Daggett. I merely testified that Mr. Aidlin was among those 
present. 

Mr. Jackson. Mr. Doyle, may I say, as to Mr. Aidlin, that it was a 
matter of previous identification of Mr. Aidlin in the record ? 

Mr. Doyle. Here today ? 

Mr. Jackson. Not today, but by a previous witness. 

Mr. Tavenner. By Mr. Harold J. Ashe. 

Mr. Doyle. I did not know that. 

Is that the same Aidlin who is, as far as you know, a lawyer in 
Los Angeles? 



2480 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. Daggett. Yes, it is ; exactly the same. 

Mr. Moulder. Mr. Jackson. 

Mr. Jackson. Mr. Daggett, you made mention that at the time you 
went to Seattle to work in a campaign you were at that time a member 
of the Communist Party, did you ^ 

Mr Daggett. No, sir ; 1 was not. I had been in Seattle. 

Mr. Jackson. You were in one of these intervals between? 

Mr. Daggett. Yes, sir. 

Would you like me to tell you about that political campaign ? I can. 
There were Communists involved in that campaign. 

JMr. Jackson. Just what was the campaign, briefly ? 

Mr. Daggett, The campaign was for Lieutenant Governor Meyers, 
Vic Meyers, who was then lieutenant governor in the State of Wash- 
ington, and he was running for mayor of Seattle. At that time I was 
working on the Industrial Unionist, which was the CIO paper in 
Los Angeles, and I received a telephone call from Mr. Howard Cos- 
tigan, who has testified, I believe, before the State investigating com- 
mittee in Washington to a number of Communist activities of his, 
and who at that time was a friend of mine, and from Mr. Richard 
Seller, whom I have mentioned here as having met with in Seattle. 

He had called me and invited me to come to Seattle and help him, 
to come to work on the campaign for mayor, which I did. 

And this was a kind of a united-front labor campaign to put Meyers 
over for mayor of Seattle, and he was running at that time against 
John Doerr, who was mayor, and Arthur Langley, who defeated him 
in the final election. 

This is the only participation that I have ever had in what might 
be construed as a political campaign that had any Communists 
involved in it. 

Mr. Moulder. May I ask this question : You ha^e mentioned your 
connection with campaigns in Seattle and having been associated with 
James Roosevelt in campaigns and certain places where you were 
employed. Did any of those people have any knowledge or informa- 
tion concerning your ever having been affiliated with the Commu- 
nist Party? 

Mr. Dagget't. I am positive that Mr. Roosevelt never had any — if 
that is part of your question; I believe it is. I don't know about 
Mr. Meyers, whether he did or not during that campaign, 

Mr. Moulder. So far as you know, did any of them ? 

Mr. Daggett. So far as I know, no, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. How do you spell Meyers ? 

Mr, Daggett. I can't tell you for sure. Either M-e-y-e-r-s or 
M-e-i-e-r-s. He is still lieutenant governor in the State of 
Washington.^ 

Mr. 1'avenner. I want to refer, Mr. Daggett, to the testimony of 
Mr. Ashe. 



1 Victor E. Meyers. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2481 

Mr. Doyle. While counsel is lookino- that up mny I ask the witness 
this: Mr. Daoo;ett, part of our assio;ninent by Conaress, that is, an 
assignment under law to this committee, is to recommend to Congress 
ways in which existing legislation might be modified or changed or 
amended or additional legislation considered by Congress. 

I am wondering if, in view of your coming back here to cooperate 
with the committer to strengthen its hand, figuratively speaking, 
in the job we have to do. I am wondering if you have any recom- 
mendation as to any legishition which the Congress should consider 
in this field? 

Mr. Daggett. I definitely believe, as a private citizen, Mr. Doyle, 
that the Communist Party should be legally outlawed in the United 

States. 

Mr. DoYx,E. Why do you feel that, sir? 

Mr. Daggett. So that there can be no question of its appeal on any 
other basis than as a revolutionary party attached to the Soviet Union, 
because definitely there can be no other identification of this group 
at the present time. 

Mr. DoTLE. Do I understand that it is not a political party, in your 
judgment? 

Mr. Daggett. In my judgment — and this is a judgment based on no 
initimate contact in the past 6 or 7 years, but it is the judgment of a 
thinking person, Mr. Doyle — that today the Communist Party in the 
United States is simply a radical and revolutionary group affiliated 
in all of its intellectual and political positions with the international 
position of the Soviet Union. 

Mr. Doyle. And by "revolutionary party," do I understand you to 
mean, when you use that term, revolutionary in the sense of being 
determined, if need be, to use arms and ammunition? 

Mr. Daggett. I would think that its members could be used for that 
purpose ; yes, sir. 

(Representative Donald L. Jackson left the hearing room at this 
point.) 

Mr. Daggett. In a situation in which there was war between the 
United States and the Soviet Union, which God forbid there will 
not be. 

Mr. Kearney. Will the gentleman from California yield at that 
point? 

Mr. Doyle. Yes. 

Mr. Daggett. This is an assumption on this. 

Mr. Kearney. Am I not correct that that is the position taken in 
definite words by the head of the Communist Party today, William 
Z. Foster? 

Mr. Daggett. This I don't know, Mr. Kearney. 

Mr. Doyle. May I ask this question, then, of Mr. Daggett : 

I know you very sincerely considered whether or not you should 
come back here to testify before this committee, in view of the fact 

95008—52 — pt. 1 4 



2482 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

that you stood on your constitutional privileges in the Los Angeles 
hearings in September. 

Do I understand from your answer that it is a revolutionary party 
and your answer to my question about its willingness to use arms 
and ammunition, that that is based upon a conclusion which you 
reached as a result of your short membership in the party, plus what 
you have learned since ? 

Mr. Daggett. I would say it is chiefly what I have learned since, Mr. 
Doyle. What I believe I have learned since, by observation and by 
reading, and by thinking about the numerous twists and turns of the 
Communist Party line in the past few years, which all end up sup- 
porting the Soviet Union in any change of position that Russia may 
take internationally. 

Mr. Doyle. And do you think that if Congress considered legisla- 
tion outlawing the Community Party in America, that it would be 
not outlawying a political party, but rather a conspiracy against the 
United States form of government. 

Mr. Daggett. This is my belief, yes. 

(Representative Donald L. Jackson returned to the hearing room 
at this point.) 

Mr. Doyle. Which would go to the extent, if need be, of use of arms 
and ammunition to gain its objective? 

Mr. Daggett. This is my belief, yes. 

Mr. Doyle. In line also with our specific assignment of statute, may 
I ask you this : 

Have you any suggestion as to ways and means in which this com- 
mittee can, or should conduct differently its hearings so as to improve 
our processes for the security of our own Nation as against this revo- 
lutionary intent? Have you any suggestion to make to us, anything 
we should do differently or do more of? 

Mr. Daggett. No, as one who has become involved with the commit- 
tee, I feel, quite naturally, because I don't like the experience, Mr. 
Doyle — I particularly don't like the experience of mentioning the 
names of other people who I believe left the Communist Party years 
ago. I don't know, but I think most of them did, that I have men- 
tioned. I feel that perhaps executive sessions in which a good deal 
of information could be elicited from people and then definite concen- 
tration upon present-day Communists, because these are the menace 
to the country rather than those who were some years ago — 

I also feel that there might be a view taken by the committee. There 
might be an inquiry made by the committee into the completely right- 
wing groups which are now capitalizing upon the so-called Com- 
munist menace in this country and by those I mean the kind of crack- 
pot organizations, which I can't name exactly for you, but groups 
that picket motion pictures and say that these are made by Com- 
munists, because actually they aren't made by Communists. 

The films do not, in my opinion, have any Communist content, nor 
do they have any Communist slants. 

And these are the groups, too — the extreme right-wing groups, too, 
I believe should be surveyed by this committee before it finishes its 
hearings. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2483 

Mr. Doyle. At this time, do you know the names of any which'you 
can identify? 

Mr. Daggett, I can think of only one group which I believe is out 
of line somewhat in this particular, and that is a group called the 
Wage Earners Committee, which has operated around the Hollywood 
area in the past few months. 

Mr. Doyle. Is their headquarters in Los Angeles? 

Mr. DAGGET'r. This I don't know, but they claim to be a national 
organization, I believe. But they do have a headquarters in Los 
Angeles. 

Mr. Doyle. Have you felt in any way, in connection with the hear- 
ings, the operation of the committee, so far as you are concerned, in 
Los Angeles or here today, that the committee has in any way put you 
under any obligation \fhich was unjust or unfair, or undemocratic? 

Mr. Daggett. No, sir; I do not. I don't like it, Mr. Doyle, but I 
have to answer the questions. 

Mr. Doyle. We do not like the part of our work that makes us bring 
people before us to question them. 

Thank you. 

JMr. Moulder. Are there any more questions ? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes. 

In the light of some of the questions by committee members, and 
your answers, I believe I should refer to the testimony of Mr. Ashe, 
Mr. Daggett. Mr. Ashe was the first witness who testified in Holly- 
wood. He went on to describe the formation of professional cells in 
the Communist Party ; that he was the organizer of them, and that the 
purpose of organizing the professional cells was that those who were 
members were not willing to have their identity known, as would be 
the result if they were members of what were called the street cells. 

Mr. Ashe, in testifying on that subject, said : 

It started out very small. I met two or three individuals who were sympa- 
thetic. I took them over to the Western Worker office and high pressured them 
into the party. Those individuals were Morgan Hull — I now understand he is 
dead — another one was John Jack Wilson, better known in the Communist Party 
as John Broman, and a third person, whose name escapes me at the moment. 

The two that were mentioned, were they two of those who attended 
these meetings with you and you identified ? 
Mr. Daggett. Mr. Tavenner, yes. 
Mr. Tavenner. Continuing with the testimony of Mr. Ashe : 

But I recruited three that night and in the next 2 or 3 weeks was able to 
convince the party that a professional unit should be permitted. Over Dr. 
Tasjian's objection, we set up a unit known as Z-100. Z-100 immediately 
started meeting. I usually met with them because there were no old party 
members to guide them. It recruited very rapidly, and I would say within 
about 5 months it had become so large we had to split the unit and make another 
unit, called Z-150. The last I knew of these 2 units, the combined membership 
totaled about 23. 

Then I asked this question : 

I wish you would give to the committee the names of the members of these 
professional units whose membership was to be kept secret. 



2484 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

And there he gave the names of tlie various persons whom you have 
identified, inchiding Joe Aidlin, Spencer Austrian, Percy Solotoy, 
Jeff Klbre. 

You were not asked any question about him. 

Mr. Daggett. No. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you acquainted with Jeff Kibre? 

Mr. Daggett. I knew Jeff Kibre, but I don't recall attending meet- 
ings with Jeff Kibre. 

Mr. Tavenner (continuing reading) : 

Charlie Daggett, who is a Los Angeles newspaper man, was a member of that 
professional unit, 

was the language of Mr. Ashe, on page 1428 of the record. 

Mr. Ashe, by that testimony, identified you as a member of one of 
these professional groups. 

Mr. Daggett. Yes, sir ; he did. 

Mr. Tavenner. From your testimony just a few moments ago, I 
was unable to understand whether or not you admitted that you were 
a member of that unit or were not. 

Mr. Daggett. I admitted attending a number of meetings, at which 
time Mr. Ashe presided, Mr. Tavenner. I did admit that, yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. You admitted attending the meetings which Mr. 
Ashe was testifying about. 

Mr. Daggett. And I knew at the time these were Communist Party 
meetings; yes, sir. And I was invited to attend these meetings by 
Mr. Morgan Hull, to see for myself what the Communists were doing 
and thinking. And I did go to a number of them. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you a member of the Communist Party at any 
time while you were attending those meetings ? 

Mr. Daggett. I do not recall paying any dues ; I do not recall hav- 
ing any card. I do recall listening to the discussions and buying some 
copies of literature at those meetings. 

And what I did was exactly what a Communist Party member 
would do. But I was not a member of the Communist Party at that 
time. 

Mr. Tavenner. In that same connection, Mrs. Ashe, who testified 
as a witness, was asked this question : 

Are you acquainted with Charles Daggett? 

Mrs. Ashe. Charles Daggett was a member of one of these professional units, 
either Z-100 or Z-150. I don't Itnow which unit he was identified with. I 
believe Morgan Hull recruited Mr. Daggett. 

And then there was this question : 

Did you sit in Communist Party meetings with Mr. Daggett? 
Mrs. Ashe. Yes ; I did. 

Question : 

How frequently, would you say? 

Mrs. Ashe. That I wouldn't be able to say. It is a long time ago. 

Mr. Moulder. In other words, you were recognized by the group 
as being a member of the Communist Party ? 
Mr. Daggett. Yes. 
Mr. Moulder. Mr. Jackson. 
Mr. Jackson. I have just one point. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2485 

I think perhaps in answer to Mr. Doyle's question of Mr. Daggett, 
he might have inferred that some individuals might have been un- 
fairly accused before this committee. 

If you are in possession of the name of any person who has been 
unfairly accused, or who has suffered the consequences of unfair accu- 
sation before this committee, I should certainly like to have it for 
the record. 

INIr. Daggett. I did not wish to make this inference, IVIr. Jackson, 

]\Ir. Jackson. I was afraid that inference might be drawn in your 
comments on executive session. 

As I see the function of this committee, and one of the prime func- 
tions of this committee, is to bring to the public, put under the spot- 
light, through the press, radio, television, every other available me- 
dium, the activities of those who have been identified as members of 
the Communist Party. 

And to this time I do not know of an individual who has been placed 
in the witness chair and unfairly accused. 

Mr. Daggett. I cannot say that I do, either, Mr. Jackson. 

Mr. Jackson. I think the committee has been extremely careful 
in that regard to see that there is a documented case. 

There are many of those who have appeared who scream to high 
heaven that they have been unjustly accused. But you will find gen- 
erally, or on every occasion, that they will refuse to answer the ques- 
tions which are put to them by counsel and committee members. 

Mr. Daggett. Yes, sir ; this I observed. I was speaking only from 
my personal point of view of not liking it. 

Mr. Jackson. It would be much more comfortable to do it in execu- 
tive session, but I think the end purpose of the committee would be 
defeated in such case, that end purpose being the development of in- 
formation for the American people as to the nature and the extent of 
the Communist conspiracy. 

Mr. Daggett. Yes. 

Mr. Moulder. Any more questions ? 

Mr. Doyle. In other words, agreeing with my distinguished col- 
league on the committee, you would not expect us. a committee of 
Congress, to knowingly lose an opportunity if it was honest, open, and 
aboveboard and sincere, based upon documentary evidence, to bring 
into the public view anything and everything in connection with con- 
spiracy to use force against our Government, would you ? 

Mr. Daggett. Absolutely not. I would like to say that I never saw 
any sign of any force being used at any time that I attended any 
meetings or any talk about force. 

Mr. Moulder. The witness is excused. 

INIr. Tavenner. Mr. George Glass ? 

Mr. Moulder. Will you raise your right hand and be sworn, please, 
sir. 

Do you solemnly swear that the evidence you give this subcom- 
mittee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, 
so help you God ? 

Mr. Glass. I do. 



2486 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

TESTIMONY OF GEOEGE GLASS 

Mr. Tavenner. You are Mr. George Glass ? 

Mr. Glass. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. When and where were you born, Mr. Glass ? 

Mr. Glass. August 19, 1910, Los Angeles, Calif. 

Mr, Tavenner. Will you state for the committee, please, your gen- 
eral educational background. 

Mr. Glass. Los Angeles public schools. 

Mr. Tavenner, What has been your business record, your record of 
employment ? 

Mr. Glass, Oh, newspapermen, radio commentator, motion picture 
publicist, advertising man, exploiter in motion pictures, 

Mr, Tavenner. As a motion picture publicist what have been some 
of the main achievements that you have had ? 

Mr. Glass. I have tried to get lots of people to see lots of pictures 
via publicity on the radio and newspaper. 

Mr. Tavenner. You have not engaged in writing yourself ? 

Mr. Glass. I am not a writer. I write only journalistic copy. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Glass, your name was mentioned a few minutes 
ago by the witness, Mr. Charles Daggett, in certain connections. It 
was thought at one time during the Hollywood hearings that Mr. 
Daggett would probably be a witness who would cooperate with the 
committee and testify there. I believe you learned at that time, did 
you not, that if he did so testify your name would be mentioned ? 

Mr. Glass. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. As a result, you have requested the right to appear 
before the committee to explain your position with regard to that 
matter, is that correct ? 

Mr. Glass, That is correct. Beyond that, at that time I made a 
statement under oath to a committee investigator which, to the best 
of my recollection, I will repeat here to get the record straight, I hear 
Mr. Daggett's testimony here quite completely, and my recollection 
of it and understanding of it is not quite the same. 

I was invited, as he said, to go to Mr. Ring Lardner, Jr.'s house for 
a political discussion of M^hat he called the Communist Political As- 
sociation. This was a buffet supper which I attended with Mr. Dag- 
gett and I don't recall Dalton Trumbo's being there, but I do recall 
that it was made quite clear at that dinner that a significant thing was 
supposed to have happened. 

The International Communist Party, in view of the common fight 
against nazism, was su])posed to have disbanded and there was sup- 
posed to be no more Communist International and no more Com- 
munist Party in the United States. In its place there had come the 
Communist Political Association devoted to the ideal that communism 
and capitalism could live side by side in the new world, which through 
the fight against the Nazis it had been proven that this was possible. 

I don't recall who made the speech. It's quite possible that it was 
Mr. Trumbo, but it was after someone made a speech at Mr. Trumbo's 
house at the conclusion of which Mr. Lardner said, "Would you come 
to some discussion group meetings of the Communist Political As- 
sociation?" And I said "yes" ; I did. 

Mr. Tavenner. Just a moment. The Communist Political Associa- 
tion supplanted the Communist Party of the United States for a short 
period of time ? 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2487 

Mr. Glass. That was my understanding. 

(Representative Francis E. Walter entered the room and Repre- 
sentative Morgan M. Moulder left the room at this point.) 

Mr. Tavenner. That was May 1944 to October 1945, and as a result 
of the Duclos letter the Communist Political Association was dissolved 
and the party reorganized ? 

Mr. Glass. Any connection, however remote, that I may have had 
was severed long before the Duclos letter, although I must say it was 
very revealing when it came out. 

Mr. Tavenner. Well now, as a result of this meeting you were 
asked — were you asked by Mr. Ring Lardner ? 

Mr. Glass. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. You and Mr. Daggett were asked to come, as I 
understand, to meetings of the Communist Political Association? 

Mr. Glass. I merely remember my being asked. I don't recall 

Mr. Tavenner. Was Mr. Daggett present with you ? 

Mr. Glass. Yes, he was. We went there together. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was he with you at the time that you were requested 
to attend the future meetings ? 

Mr. Glass. I don't recall that. I do know I was requested and I 
said "Yes." 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Daggett's testimony was, according to my 
recollection, that you were both invited to become members of the 
Communist Political Association. Are you drawing any distinction 
there between attending and becoming members ? 

Mr. Glass. Yes; I am because I had no intention of joining at 
that particular time and subsequently did not join and, as a matter of 
fact, out of my experiences which followed this became increasingly 
less possible, so I do draw the very sharp distinction. My agreement 
to Mr. Lardner was merely to attend the series of discussion groups 
known as the Communist Political Association. 

Mr. Tavenner. How many of those meetings did you attend? 

Mr. Glass. Approximately half a dozen, perhaps one or two more. 
I don't think it was more than that. 

Mr. Tavenner. It was Mr. Daggett's testimony that there may have 
been from 6 to 10 meetings which you and he attended ? 

Mr. Glass. I could guarantee the 6 ; I don't know about the other 4 ; 
possibly, but I don't think so. 

Mr. Tavenner. Where were those meetings held ? 

Mr. Glass. The names I recall at the homes which I attended were 
Jay Gorney, G-o-r-n-e-y, Ben Barzman 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you spell the name ? 

Mr. Glass. B-a-r-z-m-a-n. 

Mr. Tavenner. What was the first name ? 

Mr. Glass. Ben. Gordon Kahn, K-a-h-n. I am not sure of my 
spelling, incidentally. Leo Townsend and Henry Myers, M-y-e-r-s. 

Mr. Tavenner. During the course of your attendance at those meet- 
ings did you buy Communist Party literature ? 

Mr. Glass. Yes ; I did. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you take part in the discussion groups ? 

Mr. Glass. Yes; I did. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you pay dues ? 

Mr. Glass. No, sir. 



248S COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you at any time become afliliated with the 
Communist Party in tlie sense of becoming a card-carrying member? 

Mr. Glass. No, sir. 

(Representative Bernard W. Kearney left the room at this point.) 

Mr. Tavennek. Was any card issued in your name even though it 
may not have been delivered to you ? 

Mr. Glass. No. 

Mr. Tavenner. To your laiowledge ? 

Mr. Glass. Xor was it written on any list of any kind so far as I 
know, and if so, certainly not with any kind of authorization. 

Mr. Tavenner. Xow, did you attend the meetings, the fraction 
meetings, held at the home of Ben Margolis ( 

Mr. Glass. Quite a difference there, too, in that I think Mr. Daggett 
has confused a meeting — one meeting — which I attended at Mr. Ben 
Margolis' home with other meetiniis held among executives of the 
guild. There is a difference between a union meeting and a Com- 
munist meeting at Mr. ]\Iargolis' house. I was asked to go to Mr. 
Margolis' house to discuss the strike. 

]\Ir. Tavexner. By whom? 

Mr. Glass. I think by Mr. Margolis. Tie was then, it should be 
explained, he was then an attorney for the Screen Publicists' Guild 
and it was quite natural for him to issue that request. Out of my 
interest for the Screen Publicists" Guild, which I had helped to organ- 
ize, I attended. I wasn't completely prepared for the nature of the 
meeting, although I understood that Communist functionaries were to 
be there, and incidentally I never heard the word "fraction" used. 

That is a fairly new term for me. The strike was discussed there 
and what the Connnunist Party's — and those were the words used 
there — what the Comnuniist Party's attitude would be. This I might 
say was a great eye opener for me, because the open candor of the 
Communist Political Association and its mild discussions on the type 
of philosophy outlined in Earl Browder's book, Teheran, was some- 
what in opposition to the necessity for having a strike meeting to 
discuss what a party's position was going to be with regard to a 
Hollywood labor dispute. 

Wliile I said nothing at the time. I didn't like the feel of it, and 
I didn't like the tone of it, and even— — 

Mr. Taat<:nner. "Wliy did you not like the feel and the tone of that 
meeting at Ben ISIargolis' ? 

Mr. Glass. It had a conspiratorial feel about it is the best way I 
can describe it, and did not fit in with the peaceful keynote sounded 
at Ring Lardner, Jr.'s, home at that buffet supper. 

In other words, the two just didn't fit. 

Mr. Taat^nner. In other words, you recognized that this was a 
Communist Party in action? 

Mr. Glass. I didn't recognize it but I w^ould rather prefer to put it 
in a perhaps more colorful way, it smelled fishy. I didn't see any rea- 
son, I didn't see any reason for that kind of action being taken by 
what was described at the meeting as the Communist Party and being 
attended by functionaries whom I did not Imow outside of Morgan 
Hull and him only because I had worked on the same paper years 
before. 

Mr. Tavenner. You knew Morgan Hull to be a functionary of the 
Communist Party ? 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2489 

Mr. Glass. No, I did not, I was astonished to see him that night. 

Mr. Tavexner. But you found out at the meeting that he was a 
Communist Party member and functionary, 

Mr. Glass. Yes, I did. 

Mr. Tavenxer. And who else were at the meeting? 

Mr. Glass. Ben Margolis, Mr. Daggett, myself, Morgan Hull, are 
the only ones I recall. 

Mr. Tavexxer. Do you recall William Blowitz? 

Mr. Gl.\ss. I do not. I don't say he wasn't there, but I just don't 
remember it; and I can't say consciously. 

Mr. Taat.xxer. Do you recall whether William Blowitz had any 
conversation with you about attending the meeting ? 

Mr. Glass. I do not remember that. 

Mr. Tavexxer. Wlm suggested that you attend? 

Mr. Glass. I am reasonably sure it was Mr. Margolis. 

Mr. TA^'EX"^'ER. Did you discuss your attendance with Mr. Daggett? 

Mr. Glass. We went there together. I don't recall 

Mr. Taa^xxer. Mr. Daggett has testified that Mr. Blowitz said in 
effect, "You bovs are now in," meaning in the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Glass. Yes. 

Mr. Tavexner. "So come to this meeting." 

Mr. Glass. I don't recall that. If he did so he gave me a mem- 
bership I didn't desire and wouldn't have recognized and do not rec- 
ognize now. He may have said this to Mr. Daggett, he did not say it 
to me. 

Mr. Tavexx'er. "\Miat action was finally taken at the meeting ? 

Mr. Glass. The decision at that meeting was that the Hollywood 
strike being a workingman's struggle should be supported. 

Mr. Tavexxer. By whom? 

Mr. Glass. By the Communist Party. 

Mr. Tavexxer. You took part in that decision? 

Mr. Glass. Yes. Well, I don't recall having said anything at 
that. I might interpolate here that this was in no way opposed to 
my own view of what the Screen Publicists' Guild's position should be 
because I had always felt that the Screen Publicists' Guild, being 
part of the Painters Brotherhood, had to support their position. 

Mr. Tavexxer. I am not discussing the merits of this jurisdictional 
strike that was taking place but we are concerned with the Commu- 
nist Party's activity in connection with it. Here you are present 
at the meeting 

Mr. Glass. Yes. 

Mr. Ta\tcxxt:r. at wliich the Communist Party decides what course 
of action it will follow. Does not that show that you were recognized 
as a party member at that time ? 

Mr. Glass. Well, I hope not. I hope not and that was not my under- 
standing of it at the time. That is not the understanding I took 
with me to that meeting. 

Mr. Tavex'Xer. It was the understanding that you obtained after 
you got there ? 

Mr. Glass. Quite true. It was a very, very major factor in any ef- 
forts that were made to draw me closer to communism, in those failing 
subsequently, a very, very major factor. Up to then I had gone to 
these meetings where I heard polite little discussions of the book, 
Teheran, and the Brave New World and communism and democracy 



2490 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

living side by side. This is the first time I ever heard of anything of a 
conspiratorial nature. It didn't dawn on me all at once in that eve- 
ning. Shortly after that I ceased to have anything to do with the 
Communist Political Association and was asked by one Janet Stephen- 
son very directly if I would not join to which I said "No." 

Shortly thereafter there emerged in the daily papers the Duclos 
letter, which then made clear to me for all time that a certain type 
of window dressing; had been ffoing on through the Communist Polit- 
ical Association in an effort to draw mnuentuil people closer to com- 
munism's orbit, and I think I achieved rather full understanding at 
that time. 

Before that my associations had ceased completely. It is very 
important to me that I reiterate the point that I had no desire to join, 
I paid no dues, and had no card and did not want to join. From the 
time I started to attend these half a dozen or so political meetings 
my direction led aw^ay from communism rather than toward it. 

Mr. Tavenner. It looks as though when you attended this meet- 
ing at Margolis' house where the conspiratorial method was made 
clear to you that you were going toward it not away from it. 

Mr. Glass. Wliat I meant to say is not of my own knowledge was 
I going toward it. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Daggett has testified that he attended as well 
as he could judge three of these meetings at the home of Mr. Margolis 
and that you were present with him on each occasion. 

Mr. Glass. I believe he is mistaken about two of those meetings. I 
can recall only one and it is the one and only time I was ever in Mr. 
Margolis' house for any reason. Believe me I wouldn't quibble over 
the other two meetings if I were there. 

Mr. Tavenner. The other two meetings are very important. 

Mr. Glass. I would not be saying what I am saying if I ^vere there. 
I recall only the one meeting. 

Mr. Tavenner. You say you recall one meeting. Can't you be 
positive on a subject of that nature? 

Mr. Glass. Well, I will be positive with only the one reservation 
that it was 6 or 7 years ago. 

Mr. Tavenner. But that is not a matter under your testimony that 
there could be any doubt about? You are taking a position here, if 
I understand your testimony, that just as soon as you understood the 
conspiratorial methods of the Communist Party as came out in that 
meeting which you attended at Margolis' house 

Mr. Glass. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. You went away from the party ? 

Mr. Glass. I didn't step right out the door. 

Mr. Tavenner. If you attended another meeting after that it would 
disprove your entire theory that you are presenting to this committee, 
don't you see ? 

Mr. Glass. I see that. I see also 

Mr. Tavenner. You cannot be mistaken on a matter of that kind ? 

Mr. Glass. It's also possible that in the awakening process it doesn't 
happen overnight but I will say quite definitely I attended only one 
meeting. I cannot remember two other meetings, I just can't. 

Mr. Tavenner. You say you can't remember; that is an entirely 
different matter from saying you attended only one meeting. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2491 

Mr. Glass. Well, inasmuch as I recognize the veracity of what you 
rsay I attended only the one meeting. 

Mr. Tavenner. And you are positive of that? 

Mr. Glass. Positive as I can be. 

Mr. Tavenner. When it became the action at that meeting that the 
Communist Party would favor the strike, what further action was 
taken as to carrying back to your respective groups the decision that 
had been made at that meeting? 

Mr. Glass. I don't recall any particular action that I had to take 
any part in. I don't recall any instructions of any kind. 

Mr. Tavenner. Well, what did you do after that meeting with 
respect to this decision to support the strike ? 

Mr. Glass. Well, subsequently the Screen Publicists' Guild did 
support the strike. 

Mr. Tavenner. Well, you were a member of the Screen Publicists' 
Guild? 

Mr. Glass. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. How many pei-sons were at this meeting from your 
own guild, the Screen Publicists' Guild, other than yourself? 

Mr. Glass. I don't recall other than myself and Mr. Daggett, were 
the onl^i' two that I remember. 

Mr. Tavenner. You were the only two ? 

Mr. Glass. That I recall. I can't name anybody I can't remember. 

Mr. Tavenner. Well, you have told us there were only four or five 
persons present at the meeting ? 

Mr. Glass. At the entire meeting? I didn't say that. 

Mr. Tavenner. How many were there present ? 

Mr. Glass. There must have been a dozen in the room. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you attend your guild meeting on your return 
from this meeting ? 

Mr. Glass. I don't know precisely when the next guild meeting 
was held but at a subsequent guild meeting the strike was discussed. 

Mr, Tavenner. Discussed and what position did you take in that 
discussion? 

Mr. Glass. I supported it consistent with what I had done before. 
I had always been in favor of supporting the strike. 

(Representative Donald L. Jackson left the room at this point.) 

Mr. Ta\t?nner. So you continued in the support of the strike ? 

Mr. Glass. That is right. 

Mr. Tavenner. Quite obviously this meeting which you attended 
at the home of Margolis was to solidify the position of certain leaders 
in your guild who were members of the party or attached to the party 
so that they would control the action of the guild through yourself 
and the others who attended this meeting; isn't that true? 

Mr. Glass. It wasn't so stated. I don't think there is much doubt 
about it in retrospect. 

Mr. Tavenner. You are not in doubt about that? 

Mr. Glass. No. 

Mr. Tavenner. You are quite certain of it ? 

Mr. Glass. I am quite certain. Much of this didn't dawn on me 
until later on. Then things dawned on me such as the conduct of the 
strike, the interference with it by the Hollywood Communists, dis- 
illusionment over the strike and naturally, finally, after I had ceased 
association with anybody, the Duclos letter itself. I was not very 



2492 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

happy that I had gone to Mr. Margolis' liouse and that I had supported 

Mr. Tavenner. You referred a moment ago to Janet Stephenson 
having once said to you, "I think you ought to sign up*' ? 

Mr. Glass. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. That was a statement made to you during the course 
of your attendance at these meetings with Mr. Daggett that you have 
described? 

INIr. Glass. The actual sohcitation didn't happen at a meeting. She 
came over to my house, obviously I think disturbed that I had not 
been coming to the meetings at any time. 

Mr. Tavenner. But that was prior to your meeting at the home 
of Ben Margolis ? 

Mr. Glass. No, that was subsequent to it. 

INIr. Tavenner. Subsequent to it? 

Mr. Glass. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were any of the meetings held at your home ? 

Mr. Glass. None that I remember, I am sure not. I had a very 
small home and couldn't accommodate many people. I would like, 
Mr. Tavenner, to bear in most strongly upon the staging that was set 
for me and for others in this pitch that was made about the dissolu- 
tion of the Communist Party and the new world in which we were 
living. 

It made it very easy to believe that these people were genuinely 
sincere. 

Mr. Tavenner. Anything that you desire to say on the subject, I 
am sure the committee would hear you. 

Mr. Glass. I hope that can never happen again. I would certainly 
like to recommend that whatever legislation this committee recom- 
mends it makes anything like that from this day forward impossible. 
Persons with humanitarian instincts can get trapped into something^ 
of that nature very easily when it is presented to them in that kind of 
Candy coating such as we got at Mr. Lardner's house. We were served 
communism on a democratic platter. 

Mr. Doyle. While counsel is conferring, what did you mean when 
you said it had a conspiratorial tone to it ? 

Mr. Glass. By contrast to the open discussions and the tone of the 
Communist Political Association discussion in which the main topic 
of discussion was getting along in the world, here was the meddling 
in internal strife in a rather surreptitious way by people I had never 
met before, do not recall now, and could not identify, to discuss behind 
closed doors a Hollywood labor problem. 

Somehow the two didn't quite fit. I mean, if peace was to be the 
motif and consistently, this meeting need not have been held. 

Mr. Walter. It was then that you concluded that the Communists 
were using the strike as a vehicle to further the Communist policies? 

Mr. Glass. It was then that that first began to dawn on me, Mr, 
Walter. I had gotten a pretty thorough spoon-feeding in the other 
doctrine of peace and good will up to that time. These seemed like 
very nice people, the ones I knew. 

Mr. Doyle. I think you referred to the strike, didn't you, as a 
Communist-controlled strike ? 

Mr. Glass. I couldn't say it was Communist-controlled, but the 
Communists certainly sought to exploit it in every way they could. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2493 

Mr. Tavenner. What part did Mr. Margolis play in the discussion 
that took place in this meeting at his home ? 

Mr. Glass. He took an active part, but I can't recall precisely what 
his statements were. 

Mr. Tavenner. Who was the chairman of the meeting ? 

Mr. Glass. I don't know who the chairman was. He had as much 
to do with the conduct of the meeting as anyone there, he and Mr. Hull. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was there any difference of opinion expressed in 
that meeting ? 

Mr. Glass. Some, some. 

Mr. Tavenner. Can you tell us the nature of it ? 

Mr. Glass. Well, I don't remember the people or the exact state- 
ments. I can just remember the general tenor. Some people, one or 
two people there, had the opinion that the support of any strike was 
not particularly desirable at that time. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was any vote taken on any proposal made ? 

Mr. Glass. Not that I remember. I don't recall exactly how the 
decision came about. I do remember the decision was made. I don't 
remember a raising of hands or passing of ballots or anything of 
that nature. 

Mr. Tavenner. You remember then that everyone agreed to what 
you were told to do ? 

Mr. Glass. In effect that was the total effect of it ; yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. That the Communist Party line was being imparted 
to those present ? 

Mr. Glass. Correct. 

Mr. Tavenner. And tliose present in turn were expected to impart 
it to their own organizations? 

Mr. Glass. I didn't see it wholly as a Communist Party line at that 
time because as I say I was pretty well indoctrinated with the Com- 
munist Political Association line. This was fairly completely new to 
me, this type of meeting, that type of approach, that type of discus- 
sion and that type of conclusion. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Glass, from what you now know of the Com- 
munist Party and its operation, do you not think it is almost incon- 
ceivable that a person could be invited to a meeting of that kind unless 
he were a member of the party ? 

Mr. Glass. At that particular time, no; but now positively yes. 
You must remember that I was active in the guild, had gone to asso- 
ciation meetings, and I knew Mr. Margolis to be counsel for the guild. 

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

Mr. Walter. Any questions, Mr. Doyle? 

Mr. Doyle. No questions. 

Mr. Walter. Mr. Jackson ? 

Mr, Jackson. At any of these meetings which you attended, Mr. 
Glass, were you solicited to pay dues ? 

Mr. Glass. No, sir. I was solicited by literature. 

Mr. Jackson. Were you a subscriber to the Daily Worker ? 

Mr. Glass. No, sir. 

Mr. Jackson. New Masses ? 

Mr. Glass. No, sir. I subscribed to the People's World. 

Mr. Jackson. Do you know any member of the Communist Party, 
Mr. Glass? 

Mr. Glass. Today? 

Mr. Jackson. Today. 



2494 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. Glass. That I can identify ? No, sir. 

Mr. Jackson. Well, I might s^y that the list which was read into- 
the record by Mr. Daggett consists of one of the choicest crops of 
Communists that this committee could possibly see. 

Mr. Glass. His history there predates mine considerably by a num- 
ber of years. 

Mr. Jackson. Did it occur to you during the time that you were 
attending these meetings that you were surrounded by active members 
of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Glass. On the basis that it had been put to me, it did not occur 
to me. I would like to modify that. At one meeting, the meeting 
at Mr. Townsend's house, a man was introduced named Emil Freed 
who was — oh, he was introduced as sort of an elder statesman and 
he gave a lecture on the book, Teheran — and so it was clearl}^ recog- 
nizable to me that I was in the presence of an old-line party member. 

Mr. Jackson. At any of these meetings did any of the individuals 
in attendance identify themselves to you as members of the Communist 
Party? 

Mr. Glass. Only Mr. Lardner at his house. 

Mr. Jackson. Did you attend any meetings other than those which 
you attended in common with Mr. Daggett which you realized then 
or now realize were Communist Party branch meetings? 

Mr. Glass. No. I have been questioned ; I have been questioned ; 
I was questioned previously in Hollywood about having gone to Abe 
Polonsky's house and I gave as m}- answer the true answer that I 
went there in response to an invitation to attend a meeting for the 
benefit of the Hollywood strikers. There was then a second strike 
going on, as I recall, and some of their families needed money ; they 
needed food ; and this was a fund-raising party. That I attended in 
the spirit of attending a labor-union supporting meeting. That is 
about the only one. 

Mr. Jackson. How many people were in attendance at the meeting 
at Polonsky's house ? 

Mr. Glass. About 50. 
• Mr. Jackson. What positive steps, after you had determined this 
conspiratorial air to exist, what positive steps did you take to dis- 
entangle yourself or disassociate yourself ? 

Mr. Glass. Merely abstained from going to anybody's house for 
any further discussions on anything pertaining to communism or any- 
thing like that. 

Mr. Jackson. Were you approached by any person subsequent to 
the time you disassociated yourself to reassociate or to attend any 
additional meeting? 

Mr. Glass. No, sir. In the first place I had never considered my- 
self as having been associated and the solicitation from Janet Stephen- 
son was the last that I had. It was the first and last in which I was 
directly asked to join and to have my name affixed to something and 
to take that positive action to join something and I said "No." I had 
not gone to anyone's house for some time prior to that. 

I might say that inasmuch as Mr. Daggett mentioned it, my per- 
sonal differences with him had something to do with my not continu- 
ing to go to any further meetings because there wasn't even a social 
basis for being with him or with anybody tliat he kncAV. It was a 
very strong friendship at the time. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2495 

Mr. Jackson. I have no further questions. 

Mr. Walter. Anything further, Mr. Tavenner ? 

Mr. Tavenner. I would like to ask one further question, Mr. Chair- 
man. 

Subsequent to this time, subsequent to 1945, did you engage in any 
activity at the People's Educational Center? 

Mv. Glass. I gave one lecture on how to plan a movie campaign 
to some embryo publicists who were attending a publicity class there. 
I have introduced that lecture in toto into the record of my previous 
interrogation and anyone who reads it should be a pretty good 
publicist. 

My only desire then was to help some young people become motion- 
picture publicists. I also took a course in Berlitz Spanish there for 
about 3 months. It was a very cheap course, and I like the idea of 
that method of learning a language but the class went so slowly and 
since I had studied Spanish in high school, I dropped out through 
sheer boredom. 

Mr. Tavenner. You are acquainted with the fact that the People's 
Educational Center was formerly known as the Los Angeles Labor 
School ? 

Mr. Glass. I had not known that but shortly after I ceased my 
Spanish studies there I heard it referred to as the "little red school- 
house." I heard nothing of that nature w^hile I was there studying 
Spanish and giving the one lecture. 

Mr. Tavenner. How are you now employed ? 

Mr. Glass. I am with the Stanley-Kramer Co. I am in charge of 
advertising, exploitation, publicity, merchandising of motion pic- 
tures. We are a production company. 

Mr. Tavenner. There was a witness who appeared before the com- 
mittee by the name of Carl Foreman who was also an employee of 
that company ; is that right ? 

Mr. Glass. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. He refused to testify ? 

Mr. Glass. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. With regard to most of the questions which were- 
asked? 

Mr. Glass. I recall him. 

Mr. Tavenner. In fact, as to practically all questions that involved 
his alleged Communist affiliations. Is he still working there ? 

Mr. Glass. No, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. His connection with the firm w^as terminated 
promptly ? 

Mr. Glass. Totally inactive. He has no further connection with 
our firm. 

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

Mr. Walter. The witness may be excused. 

Mr. Doyle. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that I for one, and 
I am sure I speak for the entire committee, would like to thank IMr. 
Glass for appearing voluntarily and testifying before this committee. 

Mr. Walter. Thank you, Mr. Glass. 

The committee will stand adjourned. The next open session will 
be on Wednesday at 10:30. The session tomorrow will be closed. 

(Whereupon, at 4:30 p. m., the committee recessed.) 



COMMUNIST ACTIVITIES AMONCx PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 
IN THE LOS ANGELES AREA— PART 1 



TUESDAY, JANUARY 22, 1952 

United States House of Representatives, 

Subcommittee or the Committee on 

Un-American Activities, 

Washington^ D. C. 

public hearing 

A subcommittee of the Committee (vi Un-American .'Vftivities met, 
pursuant to call, at 2 p. m., in room 226, Old House Office Building, 
Hon. Clyde Doyle presiding. 

Committee members present : Representatives Clyde Doyle and Don- 
ald L. Jackson. 

Staff members present : Frank S. Tavenner, Jr., counsel ; Raphael 
I. Nixon, director of research; William A. Wheeler, investigator; and 
A. S. Poore, editor. 

Mr. Doyle. Let us come to order, please. 

May the record show that the same subcommittee that was ap- 
pointed to sit this morning has both members present, Messrs. Jackson 
and Doyle. 

Vou may ]iroceed, M^-. Counsel. 

Mr. Tavenner. Dr. Light, will you take the stand again, please ? 

TESTIMONY OF LOUISE LIGHT SILVER, ACCOMPANIED BY HER 
COUNSEL, MARTIN GANG— Resumed 

Mr. Tavenner. Dr. Light, on your appearance before the committee 
yesterday h\ o])en session, I asked you various questions based on the 
testimony of Dr. Reznick before this committee. 

Dr. Light. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. I would like to ask you a few more questions, so 
that we more definitely may pinpoint the individuals referred to. 

One of the persons mentioned by Dr. Reznick in the course of his 
testimony was a Dr. Morris Feeler. You testified that you were 
acquainted with Dr. Feder. Do you know the correct spelling of 
the last name ? 

Dr. Light. I think it is F-e-d-e-r. 

Mr. Tavenner. With one d? 

Dr. Light. One d ; yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. What branch of the medical profession was he a 
member of? 

Dr. Light. You mean 

95008— 52— pt 1 5 2497 



2498 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. Tavenner. I meant to say, what type of medicine ? 

Dr. Light. He was a general practitioner. 

Mr. Tavenner. A general practitioner? 

Dr. Light. That is right, 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know the location of his office ? 

Dr. Light. It is some place in Boyle Heights. I don't know the 
address. 

Mr. Ta\t:nner. You also identified a Dr. Joseph Hittleman as a 
member of the professional branch of the Communist Party. 

Dr. Light. That is right. 

Mr. Tavenner. What phase of medicine was Dr. Hittleman en- 
gaged in the practice of? 

Dr. Light. When I knew him lie was a general practitioner. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know where his office is located? 

Dr. Light. Right now, I do not know. At that time he also was 
located in Boyle Heights. Tliat was in 1942—1940, 1941, 1942, some- 
where around there. 

Mr. Tavenner. Dr. Simpson Marcus was also identified by you as 
a member of the professional branch of the Communist Party. Can 
you give us further identifying information relating to Dr. Marcus ? 

Dr. Light. He also was a general practitioner, and had his office 
some place on the west side of town, but I don't know the address. 
Some place on Beverly Boulevard, in the last 3 years, but I don't know 
just where. 

Mr. Tavenner. You also identified Dr. Fred Reynolds as a member 
of the professional branch of the Communist Party. Can you give us 
further identifving information relating to him? 

Dr. Light. Yes; he is an ophthalmologist; that is, an eye doctor. 
He has his office on the west side of town. 

Mr. Tavenner. You also identified Dr. Oscar Elkins as a member of 
the professional branch of the Communist Party. 

Dr. Light. Yes . 

Mr. Tavenner. Can you give us further identifying information 
relating to him ? 

Dr. Light. I think I said yesterday that I had heard, or think, that 
he died overseas. I don't know. But he was a member of the city 
board of health. He had no private office, as far as I knew. 

Mr. Tavenner. Dr. Alexander Riskin was also identified by you. 

Dr. Light. He was. 

Mr. Tavenner. As a member of the professional branch of the 
Communist Party. 

Dr. Light. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. Can you give us additional identifying information 
concerning him ? 

Dr. Light. Yes, I think he was in general practice for a while and 
then he became the medical director of the Community Medical Center 
on Fifty-fifth and Broadway. He recently left the center and, as I 
understand, is now working as a resident in anesthesia in one of the 
eastern hospitals some place. I think it is Bellevue, in New York, 
but I wouldn't be sure. 

Mr. Tavenner. My purpose in asking you to come back to the 
witness stand is that I am informed that there are 3 persons by the 
name of Dr. Sam Sperling living in Los Angeles. You identified a 
Dr. Sam Sperling as a member of the professional branch of the 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2499 

Communist Party. Are you acquainted with more than one Dr. Sam 
Sperling? 

Dr. Light. I know only one. He is a psychiatrist. I didn't know 
there were two others besides. That really complicates things a 
little bit. 

Mr. Tavenner. Therefore, you are not in a position to state what 
phase of medicine the other two doctors are engaged in ? 

Dr. Light. No, I wouldn't know. 

Mr. Tavenner. Can you give us any further identifying informa- 
tion regarding the Dr. Sam Sperling to whom you referred ? 

Dr. Light. No; only just that he does psychiatry; that he was in 
the service for a considerable period of time during the war, but that 
is all I know of him. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know where his office was located? 

Dr. Light. Most of the doctors that I mentioned, except for the two 
or three in Boyle Heights, are on the west side of town. That means 
Hollywood, Wilshire Boulevard, but I don't know the exact address. 
If I had a telephone book I could probably find them. 

Mr. Jackson. What was Dr. Sperling's physical build, as you know 
him? 

Dr. Light. Well, since it has been about 5 or 6 years since I have 
seen him, that is a little difficult. He is, I think, a rather slight person 
with a very low-pitched voice, but I couldn't give you any distinguish- 
ing characteristics. I don't remember. 

Mr. Jackson. About what age was he ? 

Dr. Light. I would say he would be now about 35 or 38 years of 
age — maybe about 35. 

Mr. Doyle. Did he wear glasses or spectacles ? 

Dr. Light. I think he wears glasses. 

Mr. DoYLE. And does he have a mustache ? 

Dr. Light. I was wondering about that. I don't remember. I 
don't think so. 

Mr. Jackson. How tall a man would you say he was ? 

Dr. Light. Let's say about 5-5 or 5-6. Not a very tall man. 

Mr. Jackson. Was he heavy-set ? 

Dr. Light. No. 

Mr. Jackson. Of slight build ? 

Dr. Light. Somewhat of a slight build, I would say, unless he has 
changed. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you state that he was in the military service? 

Dr. Light. That is right. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know whether he returned to Los Angeles 
after the completion of his service ? 

Dr. Light. I know he returned to Los Angeles after the completion 
of his service. I don't know whether he rejoined the party after he 
returned from the service. Most of these doctors that I mentioned 
were in the party before their going into service. What happened 
after they came out is another story. 

Mr. Tavenner. Dr. Jack Druckman was identified by you as a mem- 
ber of the professional branch of the Communist Party. 

Dr. Light. I think his name is Jacob. They call him Jack. 

Mr. Tavenner. Can you give us any further identifying informa- 
tion relating to him ? 



2500 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Dr. Light. I think so. When I knew him he had an office on 
Temple Street, and he was in general practice. Later on he went in 
for the study of psychiatry, and I think at the present he is practicing 
psychiatry some place in West Los Angeles or Beverly Hills. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you think you would recognize the address ? 

Dr. Light. You mean of Dr. Druckman ? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes. 

Dr. Light. His Temple Street address or his new address ? 

Mr. Tavenner. His new address. 

Dr. Light. I don't know. Let's try it. 

Mr. Tavenner. 300 South Beverly Drive, Beverly Hills. 

Dr. Light. I know he is out in that area somewhere, but I wouldn't 
be sure that is the address. I know he is out in that west part of town. 
That is what we call the west part of town. 

Mr. Tavenner. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that is all I have. 

Mr. DoYX,E. Do j'^ou have any questions ? 

Mr. Jackson. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Doyle. Very well. Thank you, Dr. Light. 

The committee will resume the executive session at this time that 
was started this morning. 

(Whereupon, at 2: 20 p. m., the committee proceeded into executive 
session.) 



COMMUNIST ACTIVITIES AMONG PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 
IN THE LOS ANGELES AREA— PART 1 



WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 23, 1952 

United States House of Representatives, 

C0M3IITTEE ON Un-AmERICAN ACTIVITIES, 

Washington, D. 0. 

PUBLIC HEARING 

The Committee on Un-American Activities met pursuant to ad- 
journment at 11 :15 a. m., in room 226, Old House Office Building, 
Hon. John S. Wood presiding. 

Committee members present: Representatives Francis E. Walter, 
Clyde Doyle, James B. Frazier. Jr., Bernard W. Kearney, and Don- 
ald L. Jackson. 

Staff members present: Frank S. Tavenner, Jr., counsel; Thomas 
W. Beale, Sr,, assistant counsel; William A. Wheeler and Courtney 
E. Owens, investigators; John W. Carrington, clerk; and A. S. 
Poore, editor. 

Mr. Wood. The committee will be in order. 

Let the record disclose that there are present the following members 
of the committee : Mr. Frazier, Mr. Walter, Mr. Doyle, Mr. Kearney, 
Mr. Jackson, and Mr. Wood. 

Are you ready to proceed, Mr. Tavenner ? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes. sir. I would like to call Mr. David Aaron. 

Mr. Wood. Mr. Aaron, would you come forward, please, sir ? Will 
you please raise your right hand and be sworn ? 

You do solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give in this 
committee will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the 
truth, so help you God? 

Mr. Aaron. I do. 

Mr. Wood. Proceed, Mr. Tavenner. 

TESTIMONY OF DAVID AARON 

Mr. Tavenner. What is your full name, please, sir? 
Mr. Aaron. David Aaron. 

Mr. Tavenner. When and where were you born, Mr. Aaron? 
Mr. Aaron. I was born in Chicago, 111., on the 14th day of Janu- 
ary 1908. 

Mr. Tavenner. Where do you now reside? 

Mr. Aaron. I reside in Fullerton, Calif. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you represented by counsel? 

Mr. Aaron. No, sir ; I am not. 

Mr. Tavenner. You are an attorney, I believe. 

2501 



2502 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr, Aaron. I am. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you desire to have counsel present with you 
■during the course of your questioning? 

Mr. Aaron. I don't think it is necessary, Mr, Tavenner. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Aaron, will you give the committee, please, a 
brief statement of your educational qualifications? 

Mr. Aaron, Well, I graduated from high school in 1924, attended 
the University of Michigan and the University of Chicago; there- 
after attending Chicago Kent College of Law, from which I gradu- 
ated in 1932. 

I was admitted to practice law in the State of Illinois in 1932, and 
have practiced there in private practice until the end of 1941, I then 
was appointed as an assistant State's Attornev of Cook County, 111., 
in which capacity I served for 1 year. Thereafter I was drafted, 
served in the Army for 22 months, was discharged on a medical dis- 
charge in '^October 1944, and then went to California. 

Mr, Tavenner. You are now engaged in the practice of law? 

Mr. Aaron, Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Aaron, I want to make it clear at the outset to 
you that in my questioning I have no intention of asking you to violate 
any confidential relationship that exists between counsel and client, 
and that I am not questioning the right of any witness to have the 
benefit of counsel of his choice in appearing before this or any other 
investigative body. In fact, this committee has been on record for 
a long time as encouraging every witness to seek counsel, and confer 
with counsel while a witness before the committee. 

The right and duty of a lawyer to represent his client, and as a 
reciprocal privilege of a client to employ a lawyer of his choice, those 
things are not involved at all in these hearings or in any question 
which I will ask you. 

The Congress of the United States, in placing upon this committee 
the duty of investigating the extent, character, and objectives of un- 
American propaganda activities, and the diffusion thereof within the 
United States, has not exempted lawyers from the scope of its inquiry. 
We have had testimony before this committee of the establishment of 
professional cells or groups within the Communist Party in Los An- 
geles. That testimony was first given by Mr, Ashe, the first witness 
that appeared before this committee when we had our hearings in 
California. 

He described to this committee the disagreements within the Com- 
munist Party in the first place as to whether or not the professional 
groups witliin the party should be organized separately and distinct 
from what he termed the street groups, 

Mr. Ashe then testified as to the establishment of professional 
groups. It is our purpose here to inquire as to the extent of the organ- 
ization of Communist groups within the profession of which you are 
a member. 

First of all, I want to inquire if you know whether or not there was 
a Communist cell or group organized within the legal profession in 
Los Angeles ? 

Mr, Aaron, I do and there was. 

Mr, Tavenner, Upon what do you base your information? 

Mr. Aaron, My membership in it. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2503 

Mr. Tavenner. When did you become a ineniber of the Communist 
Party? 

Mr. Aaron. November 1946. 

Mr. Tavenner. Where? 

Mr. Aaron. In Los Angeles. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long did you remain a member of the Com- 
munist Party? 

Mr. Aaron. I believe — now, there isn't any exact date about when 
I left. I can't tell you that. I don't recall. But roughly, it coin- 
cides with my removal of my office and residence from Los Angeles into 
Orange County, which is about the end of 1948. 

Mr. Wood. Will you elevate your voice slightly? 

Mr. Aaron. I beg your pardon, sir. It was about the end of 1948. 

Mr. Tavenner. Have you had any association or connection with 
the Communist Party since that time? 

Mr. Aaron. No, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. I desire to ask you to tell us what you know about 
Communist activities in Los Angeles, and I believe the best way to 
approach the subject is to ask you first to tell us the circumstances 
under which you became a member. 

Mr. Aaron. Well, do you want me to tell you the whole story, Mr. 
Tavenner ? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes ; I think we should have the whole story. 

Mr. Aaron. When I got out of the Army and came to Los Angeles, 
I went to work after a period of 2 or 3 months, perhaps 4, for the 
National Labor Relations Board. During the course of my employ- 
ment there, which terminated on the 31st of October 1940, I was 
thrown in contact with a lot of cases involving violations of the Na- 
tional Labor Relations Act, and in connection with that I was thrown 
in contact with a great many people who were engaged in labor 
organizational activities and with lawyers who represented them. 

I was in a somewhat upset state emotionally after I got out of the 
Army, and I didn't have my feet on the ground very well. I suppose 
that is one of the compelling reasons for my becoming sympathetic 
to the idea and perhaps, in view of all these things that w^ere happen- 
ing, there must be something the matter wdth the system, our economic 
system. In that belief, I was given a great deal of encouragement. 

Some time late in the fall or in the early fall of 194() I was invited 
to join a group — it was a discussion group — which was going to dis- 
cuss labor law and labor problems viewed from the Marxist angle. 
Well, I was interested in labor law at the time, and I didn't particu- 
larly care from what angle it was discussed; I thought I would be 
able to learn something. 

Mr. Tavenner. This was while you were still employed by the 
Government ? 

Mr. Aaron. That is correct. And after I went to several of these 
so-called discussions, I discovered that they had degenerated or 
changed from a discussion of what labor law and labor problems were, 
viewed from a Marxist angle, to a study of what Marxism was, ancl 
it was a sort of natural transition, and it w^as very natural that a thing 
like that should happen. It w^asn't at all sudden or severe, and what 
with one thing and another these things were brought up and gradu- 
ally I came to the conclusion that that was a good idea. 



2504 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

I said something, I guess, in the course of these discussions that 
made some of the people think that I was sympathetic, so I was asked 
whether or not I had ever been interested in becoming a member of 
the Comnmnist Party. I said I hadn't thought about it. 

Mr. Tavenner. By whom were you asked that question ? 

Mr. Aaron. By Leo Gallagher. I said I hadn't thought about it,, 
but he asked me if I would think about it and I said I would. 

]\Ir. Tavenner. Now, you were asked that question by Mr. Leo- 
Gallagher? 

Mr. Aaron. That is correct. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you then know, or did you at any later time 
find out, whether or not Mr. Leo Gallagher was a member of the Com- 
munist Party? 

Mr. Aaron. Well, Mr. Tavenner, I assume at the time that he must 
be or else he wouldn't ask me a question like that. But after becoming- 
a member, I never saw Leo Gallagher at a meeting, and I don't know 
to this day whether he is or whether he isn't. 

Mr. Tavenner. Well, then, will you proceed to tell us what oc- 
curred after this invitation was extended to you ? 

Mr. Aaron. I was asked again, and I gave it some thought. Fi- 
nally I decided that I would. So I went over and talked to one of the 
men who I believe had asked me about it, and told him that I had de- 
cided that I would. 

Mr, Tavenner. What was the name of the person ? 

Mr. Aaron. That man was John McTernan. 

Mr. Ta\^nner. John McTernan ? How do you spell the last name ? 

Mr. Aaron. M-c-T-e-r-n-a-n. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was he a member of the legal profession ? 

Mr. Aaron. Yes, he was. 

Mr. Tavenner. Proceed. 

Mr. Aaron. iVnd I told him I was leaving the Government employ 
on the 31st of October, or on the 1st of November, and I would see him" 
thereafter. 

So thereafter I got in touch with him and we went to a meeting,, 
and I guess I was a member as of then. 

Mr. Tavenner. At this point, I would like to ask you in more de- 
tail about the invitation that you received to attend this group meeting 
of persons to discuss labor from the Marxian standpoint and which 
yon said finally developed into a study of Marxism. 

Were there any other associates of yours in your Government posi- 
tion who were invited to, or who attended those meetings ? 

Mr. Aaron. I don't know whether any of the others were invited. 
I know that none of the others attended. 

Mr. Tavenner. After you severed your connection with your Gov- 
ernment position and accepted the invitation to join the party, tell us 
just what occurred; how you were assigned to a group, and any other 
information you have. 

Mr. Aaron. I wasn't assigned to any group. I just came up to this 
house and there was a considerable grou]i of people there, and 1 was 
told that I had already been accepted, and that I was in. 

Mr. Tavenner. Who was it that directed you to come to that par- 
ticular meeting? 

Mr. Aaron. Mr. McTernan. 

Mr. Tavenner. Can you fix the time of the meeting? 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2505 

Mr. Aaron. Do you mean the date, or the time of day ^ 

Mr. Tavenner. The date. 

Mr. Aaron. It was about the Cth of November, or thereabouts. 

Mr. Tavenner. Of what year? 

Mr. Aaron. In 1946. 

Mr. Tavenner. Whose house was it where the meeting was held? 

Mr. Aaron. Charles J. Katz'. 

Mr. Tavenner. Who was Charles J. Katz ? 

Mr. Aaron. He is a lawyer in Los Angeles. 

Mr. Tavenner. At that time, was he a member of a firm of lawyers ? 

Mr. Aaron. I believe that at that time he was a member of what 
-was then called Katz, Gallagher, & Margolis. 

Mr. Tavenner. Tell us more of what occurred at that first meeting 
that you attended. 

Mr. Aaron. I am afraid I can't tell you very much about that, Mr. 
Tavenner. That' w^as a long time ago. You understand, I hope. 

If you don't mind my explaining, I understand that this committee 
is a fact-finding body,\and you are here to get facts. Any questions 
that you ask me I will answer, unless it involves a violation of an 
attorney-client relationship. 

But. other than that, I will answer any questions that are asked of 
me. But there are some which go back a long way. 

In 1948, late in 1948, I not only moved out of Los Angeles, but I 
changed my place of practicing law and I changed all my associations 
and I had nothing to do with these people any more, and I have been 
working awfully hard ever since in an entirely difi^erent i)lace, and 
there are a lot of things that are very dim in my mind ; I can't recall 
them. 

Mr. Tavenner. I am only interested, of course, in presenting to the 
committee matters of which you have a distinct knowledge and 
distinct recollection. 

Mr. Aaron. I will answer them to the best of my ability. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long did you remain in Los Angeles after you 
"became a member of this group ? 

Mr. Aaron. I moved my office into Orange County right about the 
1st of September of 1948, and I moved my home out there shortly 
after that. 

Mr. Tavenner. Then you lived there from November 1946 until 
September 1948? 

Mr. Aaron. I practiced law until September 1948 in Los Angeles. I 
moved my home out to Orange County at about the end of the year, 
I think. I don't recall. 

Mr. Tavenner. During that period of time, from November 1946 
to September 1948, did you attend meetings of this Communist group 
which you had joined? 

Mr. Aaron. I did. 

Mr. Tavenner. How frequently did you attend meetings? 

Mr. Aaron. Every week. 

Mr. Tavenner. Every week? 

Mr. Aaron. As I recall it, they were weekly meetings. I may be 
wrong about that. I can't recall. It seems to me that they were, 
though. I might be wrong, but I think they were every week. 

Mr. Tavenner. Wliere were these meetings held ? 



2506 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. Aaron. At the homes of the various members — that is, if the- 
homes were big enougli to take care of the groups. 

Mr. Tavenner. How many were in the group ? 

Mr. Aaron. Well, altogether, from beginning to end, I suppose 
there were 25 or 30. 

Mr. Tavenner. Can you recall the names of the persons who owned 
the homes where the meetings were held ? 

Mr. Aaron. I could probably recall some of them. 

Mr. Tavenner. Would you just tell us those that you do remember?. 

Mr. Aaron. There was Katz, Margolis. 

Mr, Tavenner. What Margolis? 

Mr. Aaron. Ben Margolis. 

Milton Tyre, Victor Kaplan. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you spell those names, please? 

Mr. Aaron. T-y-r-e; K-a-p-1-a-n. 

Marburg Yerkes, Alberg Herzig, and Fi-ank Pestana. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you spell it, please ? 

Mr. Aaron. P-e-s-t-a-n-a. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are these persons in Avhose homes you met? 

INIr. Aaron. Let me see. Yes, we met in those homes. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were all of these persons lawyers ? 

Mr. Aaron. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did the cell have a name, this cell or group ? 

Mr. Aaron. It was called the Engels Club. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was it confined to lawyers ? 

Mr. Aaron. Yes, sir; it was. 

Mr. Tavenner. Who was the chairman Or leader of this group, or 
the various chairmen, if you can tell us? 

Mr. Aaron. That is a hard question to answer, Mr. Tavenner, be- 
cause, in the first place, they split the group up into two or three sub- 
groups because it was too unwieldy. There wasn't enough room for 
all the people to meet in one place. So each of them had a leader. 

Now, who the leaders were, I can't recall. I mean thej^ were elected, 
or appointed, or something, and I honestly don't remember. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you hold a position of any kind? 

Mr. Aaron. For a while I collected the dues. 

Mr. Tavenner. You collected the dues? 

Mr. Aaron. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. You have given us the names of a number of per- 
sons in whose homes you met. Was each of those persons a member 
of the Communist Party? 

Mr. Aaron. They were. 

Mr. Ta\t:nner. To be absolutely definite about it, and so that there 
will be no misunderstanding, I would like you to give us the names 
of all those whom you can remember were members of this group. 

Mr. Aaron. That is quite an order. 

Mr. Tavenner, Yes. 

Mr. Wood. Do you want liim to repeat th.e names he has already 
given, or those he has identified ? 

IMr. Tavenner. Yes, sir; I think so. 

You have already mentioned tlie name of Mr. John McTernan as a 
member. 

Mr. Aaron. Yes, 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2507 

Mr. Tavenner. You have mentioned the name of Mr. Milton Tyre 
as a member. 

Mr. Aaron. That is right. 

Mr. Tavenner. You have mentioned the name of Mr. Victor Kap- 
lan as a member. 

Mr. Aaron. That is right. 

Mr. Tavenner. You have mentioned the name of Mr. Alberg Herzig. 

Mr. Aaron, That is correct. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you recall whether or not his wife attended any 
of these meetings as a member ? 

Mr. Aaron. She did. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you recall her name? 

Mr. Aaron. Thelma. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was she also a lawyer? 

Mr. Aaron. She was. 

Mr. Tavenner. You have mentioned the name of Frank Pestana. 

Mr. Aaron. I did. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was he a member of this group of the Communist 
Party ? 

Mr, Aaron. He was. 

Mr. Tavenner. You have mentioned Mr. Ben Margolis. 

Mr, Aaron. That is correct. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was he a member of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Aaron. He was. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you acquainted with Mr. Robert Katz ? 

Mr. Aaron, Yes, I was, 

Mr. TA^^NNER. What relation was he, if you know, to Mr. Charles 
Katz? 

Mr. Aaron. So far as I know, they were not related in any way, ex- 
cept tliat Robert Katz was employed by the same firm of which Charles 
Katz was the senior partner. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was Mr. Robert Katz a member of this group ? 

Mr. Aaron. Yes, he was. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was Mr. John Porter a member of this Communist 
group ? 

Mr. Aaron. Yes, sir ; he was at one time. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Jack Tenner ? 

Mr. Aaron. Yes, Jack Tenner was also. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you give us the basis of your statement as to 
how you know Mr. Jack Tenner was a member ? 

Mr. Aaron. I believe that he became a member after I did, and I 
w^as a member of that group when he actually became a member. 

Mr, Tavenner. Did you ever collect dues from him ? 

Mr. Aaron. Yes, I did. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you ever collect dues from Mr. John Porter? 

Mr. Aaron, I don't recall, I believe that I did, but I couldn't say 
that for sure. 

Mr. Tavenner. ^V\mt is the basis of your statement that Mr. Mil- 
ton Tyre was a member of the party ? 

Mr. Aaron. Pie was there when I became a member, although I 
understand that he isn't any longer. But he was during the time 
that I was a member ; he was. 



2508 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

I would like to qualify my answer about Mr. Yerkes also. I talked 
to Mr. Yerkes some time ago, and he told me he had severed his con- 
nection with the group completely, oh, probably a year and a half 
ago, or 2 years ago ; I don't know how long. 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes. I will ask you in questioning about these 
individuals, if you know any of them that have now withdrawn from 
the party. If you know that, I would like for you to state it. 

Mr. Aaron. The only one about whom I can state definitely is Mar- 
burg Yerkes and his wife Martha. And I know that he has told me 
thaFhe gave up his membership and severed his connection with that 
group a long time ago. 

Mr. Ta^^nner. Have you seen Mr. Yerkes here in Washington? 

Mr. Aaron. I have. I have spoken to him. 

Mr. Tavenner. Is he here as a witness to appear before the com- 
mittee ? 

Mr. Aaron. I believe he is, Mr. Tavenner. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you also know whether or not Mr. Alberg Her- 
zig is out of the party ? 

Mr. Aaron. Well, he was — as a matter of fact, he left, so far as 
I know, he left the party very shortly after I joined it. There was 
a clash of personalities which resulted in his retirement. 

Now, just exactly what the circumstances were, I don't know, but 
I think that same clash of personalities has been responsible for a 
lot of people retiring. 

Mr. Tavenner. What do you mean by clash of personalities? 

Mr. Aaron. Well, there are some members of that group, I suppose, 
you might call Communists in the true sense of the word, and that is 
that they feel that the most important thing is the aims of the party. 
There are other j^eople that don't think that way. There are other peo- 
ple that think that maybe a man ought to have room for argument 
and don't want to have things shoved down their throats, and maybe 
that isn't the right way to do things. 

_ Well, there is no such thing, and whenever anybody gets to feeling 
that that isn't the right way, they either change their minds and think 
right, or else they get out. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you mean to say that democratic processes were 
not recognized by this professional group among the lawyers? 

Mr. Aaron. I never got into any great arguments myself, Mr. Tav- 
enner, because I just didn't argue. I sat and observed and formed my 
own conclusions. 

But I think that, from what I have heard from others, you will find 
that that is quite definitely the case. 

Mr. Tavenner. When you state that there was a clash of personali- 
ties, that means that there must have been people on two sides. 

Mr. Aaron. Yes. 

Mr. Ta-stenner. You said that Mr. Herzig was on one side. Now, 
who was the leader on the other side? 

Mr. Aaron. As I recall it, it was Mr. Margolis, but I think that you 
could probably get a better answer about that from Mr. Herzig than 
you could from me. 

Mr. Ta\^nner. Will you give us the names of others who were mem- 
bers of this group ? 

Mr. Aaron. It is awfully hard to remember them all, Mr. Tavenner. 
I have named some. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2509 

Mr, Tavenner. Was Mr, J, Allen Frankel a member? 

Mr. Aaron, Yes, he was a member, 

Mr, Tavenner, Also known as Jack Frankel ? He was a member ? 

Mr, Aaron, Yes. 

Mr, Tavenner, How do you know that ? 

Mr. Aaron. I was at meetings with him. I went to meetings at his 
house. 

Mr. Tavenner. William Esterman? 

Mr. Aaron. He was a member also. 

Mr. Tavenner. How do you know that? 

Mr, Aaron. I was at meetings with him. 

Mr. Tavenner. Jane Grodzins? 

Mr. Aaron. Yes, she was a member. I have attended meetings at 
her home. 

Mr. TA^^ENNER. Selma Bachelis? 

Mr. Aaron. She was a member also. I attended meetings at her 
home. 

Mr. Tavenner. The last two you mentioned were women. Were 
they both members of the legal profession ? 

Mr. Aaron. I believe so ; yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you acquainted with Mr. Sam Houston Allen ? 

Mr. Aaron. I am. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was he a member of this Communist group? 

Mr. Aaron. He became a member quite late in my term, or quite late 
in the j^eriod in wliich I was a member. 

Mr, Tavenner. On what do you base your statement that he was a 
member ? 

Mr. Aaron. Well, his name was brought up and passed upon while 
I was a member, and he thereafter attended meetings. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. William M. Samuels? 

Mr. Aaron. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you acquainted with him ? 

Mr. Aaron. I was. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was he a meml )er of this group ? 

Mr. Aaron. He was. 

Mr. Tavenner. On what do you base your statement ? 

Mr. Aaron. Well, he attended m.eetings the same as I did, and at 
one time he also was engaged in collecting dues. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you ever collect dues from Mr. Sam Houston 
Allen, do you recall ? 

Mr. Aaron. I don't recall that I did. 

Mr, Tavenner. Were you acquainted with Robert Silberstein ? 

Mr. Aaron. I met him once. 

Mr. Tavenner. Where? 

Mr. Aaron. In Los Angeles. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell us the circumstances under which you 
met him? 

Mr. Aaron. I met him at, I believe — well, it was at somebody's 
house. I don't recall just now whose home it was, but I think it was 
McTernan's, and it was a meeting of several of the members of the 
Communist club of which I was a member and which he attended and 
to whom he spoke. He spoke to us. 

Mr. Tavenner. What were th'j circumstances under which he spoke 
to this Communist meeting ? 



2510 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. Aaron. It had to do with the function of the lawyers' group as 
Communists, and it was my understanding, and I am quite sure that 
he certainly wouldn't have been there if he hadn't been accepted by 
the members of the group as a member of the party. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you recall what was the purpose of his appear- 
ance before your group meeting? 

Mr. Aaron. Just what was said at that meeting, I don't know, but 
I know that he had something to tell us about what the lawyers' group 
was supposed to do, and it had to do, I think, with the Lawyers' 
Guild. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell us more about the nature of this 
meeting, who made up the meeting, the character of the meeting? 

(Eepresentative John S. Wood left the hearing room at this point.) 

Mr. Aaron. There were probably six or eight people there. They 
were, I believe, the leaders of the group. That is the reason why I 
couldn't understand why I was asked to attend, but I did. This was 
supposed to be a very secret meeting. We weren't supposed to discuss 
it with anybody and weren't even supposed to tell the rest of the 
members about it. 

Mr. Tavenner. The members of what ? 

Mr. Aaron. Of the Engels Club, to which I belonged. 

Mr. Tav.enner. Do you know how you were selected to attend ? 

Mr. Aaron. I do not. 

Mr. Tavenner. But you went to San Francisco to attend this secret 
meeting ? 

Mr. Aaron. No. This wasn't in San Francisco. It was in Los 
Angeles. 

Mr. Tavenner. Los Angeles ? 

Mr. Aaron. Oh, yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. How did you receive word to come to that meeting, 
do you know ? 

Mr. Aaron. One of the members told me. 

Mr. Tavenner. One of the members of your own cell or group ? 

Mr. Aaron. That is right. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were the other persons present known to you to be 
members of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Aaron. They were all members of our group. 

Mr. Tavenner. All members of your own particular group ? 

Mr. Aaron. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. And Mr. Silberstein appeared before it and dis- 
'Cussed the Lawyers' Guild, did he? 

Mr. Aaron. I can't recall now just what he discussed. All I know 
is that whatever it was, he told us what the score was about something. 
Just what it was, I don't know. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you recall what position Mr. Silberstein held 
at that time ? 

Mr. Aaron. I believe that he was executive secretary of the Na- 
.tional Lawyers' Guild. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know where he was' from ? 

Mr. Aaron. Washington. 

Mr. Walter. As a matter of fact, he still occupies that position, does 
he not? 

Mr. Aaron. I believe so. I don't know, Mr. Walter. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2511 

Mr. Tavenner. Since we brought up the subject of the Lawyers' 
^Guild, what discussion occurred m your Comnunnst group meetings 
regarding the activity that you and otliers, as members, shoukl exert, 
if any, iif the Lawyers' Guilds , ^. -n 

Mr. Aaron. I was given to understand that the Lawyers Guild was 
to be made as much as possible the legal arm to speak for and repre- 
sent the Communist Party. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you given any directions with regard to par- 
ticipation in the activities of the Lawyers' Guild? 

Mr. Aaron. It was decided at one time that I should be secretary 
of the Los Angeles chapter. 

Mr. Tavenner. That was decided by the Communist Party cell, 

was it? 

Mr. Aaron. That is right. 

The word ''cell" is unfamiliar to me. We called it a club, I guess. 

Mr. Tavenner. Or group, or the Engels Club. 

Mr. Aaron. But it was decided that I was to be secretary becavise 
the secretary was the one that kept all the functions of the guild 
chapter going and saw to it that the committee appointees did their 
committee work and arranged for meetings and just generally ran 
the whole thing. 

So, sure enough, at the next meeting of the guild members, I was 
elected, only I didn't make a gcod one because I didn't have the time; 
I was too busy trying to earn a living. I didn't have the time to do 
that sort of thing. 

Mr. Walter. Let us get the record straight. 

Do I understand you to say that you were actually elected secretary 
of the Los Angeles branch of the Lawyers' Guild? 

Mr. Aaron. That is correct. 

Mr. Walter. And that election was brought about through the sup- 
port that you received from the Communist members of your group ? 

Mr. Aaron. I cannot say that for sure, Mr. Walter. 

Mr. Walter. They engineered your election, did they? 

Mr. Aaron. That is where the idea hrst came up. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know whether or not this Communist group 
captured that oftiee on any other occasion beside the occasion when 
you were elected ? 

Mr. Aaron. After I was elected, it was discovered that the secre- 
tary — I was secretary, and I couldn't do it. So I think they created 
a job of executive secretary, and that was something which I don't 
recall, but I don't think it was an elective office. They had other 
people who did that work after it was discovered that I couldn't, and 
chey did it, and they managed to get part of it done. 

Mr. Tavenner. Is there any further information you can give us 
relating to efforts by your group in the Communist Party to control 
the policies or the actions of the Lawyers' Guild? 

Mr. Aaron. They tried, Mr. Tavenner, but on several occasions they 
were defeated because there w^ere members of the board of the Los 
Angeles chapter who did not see eye to eye with them. There were 
several men who had been active in the Lawyers' Guild for many 
years, who were bitterly opposed to the members of the board who 
were members of the Communist Party, and on numerous occasions 
they fought them and on some occasions they beat them. 



2512 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. Tavenner. Was there anj requirement within your group, that 
is, your -Communist group, that you, as Communists, also become 
members of the Lawyers' Guild i 

Mr. Aaron. It is my undei^tanding that we absolutely had to be 
members of the Lawyers' Guild. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know whether all of the members of your 
group, or substantially all, were members of the Lawyers' Guild? 

Mr. Aaron. I believe that substantially all of them were, although. 
I couldn't vouch for everyone. I don't know about that. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you acquainted with Mr. Fred M. Snider? 

Mr. Aaron. Yes. I met him on two or three occasions. 

Mr. Tavenner. What were the circumstances under which you met 
him ? 

Mr. Aaron. The first time I met him was at a meeting of the Com- 
nnniist Pariy. As a matter of fact, it was the first meeting I ever 
attended. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was that a meeting closed to persons other than 
members of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Aaron. All of our meetings were closed to everybody except 
our own members. As a matter of fact, there was quite an argument 
came up that night because Snider was not a member of our group, 
and there was considerable fuss raised because it was stated that night 
that there was a rule that nobody, whoever it might be, could come 
to any one of our meetings unless everybody in our group agreed to it. 

We were what is known as a closed group. 

Mr. Tavenner. As a matter of fact, was an effort made to keep the 
membership secret ? 

Mr. Aaron. Yes, definitely. 

]\ir. Tavenner. Mr. Ashe testified that, in the formation of these 
professional clubs of the Communist Party in Los Angeles, that that 
was the purpose, one purpose, at least, in having the professional club& 
separate from the others; namely, to keep secret the names of the 
members. 

But that is before your appearance in the Communist Party, is it 
not? 

Mr. Aaron. I guess it must haA^e been. 

( Eepresentative John S. Wood returned to the hearing room at this 
point.) 

Mr. Tavenner. On that subject, I want to read to you an excerpt 
from the January 3, 1936, issue of the Daily Worker : 

Any lawyer whose convictions are the same as those of the average Communist 
Party member belongs to the Communist Party. Real convictions can only be 
expressed by deeds. If this is necessary, his membership remains a closely 
guai-ded secret. 

(Representative Francis E. Walter left the hearing room at this 
point.) . 

Mr. Tavenner. Did your group act in conformity with that, that is,. 
to keep the membership a closely guarded secret ? 

Mr. Aaron. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you acquainted with Esther Shandler ? 

Mr. Aaron. Yes, I was. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was she a member of your group ? 

Mr. Aaron. She was. 

Mr. Taven n er. On what do you base your statement ? 



COMMUNISM IX L03 ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2513. 

Mr. Aaron. I attended meetings with her. 

Mr. Tavenner. Leon Turrett ? 

Mr. Aaron. Yes; he was a member. I attended meetings with him. 

Mr. Tavenner. Nancy Keeves i 

Mr. Aaron. Yes, she was a member also. 

Mr', Tavenner. Was she also a lawyer ? 

Mr. Aaron. She was. 

Mr. Tavenner. Aubrey Finn ? 

Mr. Aaron. He became a member after I did. 

Mr. Tavenner. George Altman ^ 

Mr. Aaron. Yes, he was a member. 

Mr. Tavenner. On what do you base your information ? 

Mr. iViVRON. I attended meetings with him. 

Mr, Tavenner. Pauline Epstein ? 

Mr. Aaron. She was a member. I attended meetings with her. 

Mr. Tavenner. INiatt Richman ? 

Mr. Aaron. I attended meetings with ]\Ir. Richman also. 

Mr. Ta\'enner. Were persons from the higher levels of the Com- 
munist Party brought before your meetings from time to time to 
address your meetings ? 

Mr. Aaron. I don't recall that that was ever done. 

Mr. Tavenner. What part were you told the lawyers should play 
in the promotion of the plans and purposes of the Communist Party? 

Mr. Aaron. There, again, it gets back kind of far, Mr. Tavenner. 
It is hard for me to recall it, because I have lost an awful lot of that 
stuif along the way. I mean all I can do is to give you impressions as 
to what 1 recollect. 

But the function of the lawyer was to not actively go out on the street 
and promote, but to act in an advisory capacity; to give aid and 
counsel to the people who are active in it. 

(Representative Donald L. Jackson left the hearing room at this 
point.) 

Mr. Tavenner. "Active in it." Are you speaking about activit}^ in 
the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Aaron. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. Occupying a position as a lawyer, you were not 
expected to stand on the street corner and sell the Daily Worker or 
the People's World, were you. 

Mr. Aaron. No, sir. Not only that, but we weren't even supposed 
to admit to anybody, even if we knew that they were members of the 
Conununist Party, we weren't even supposed to admit to them that 
we belonged to it. Nobody was supposed to know it. 

Mr. 1'avenner. Y\"ere you ever afhliated with the International 
Labor Defense ? 

Mr. Aaron. No, sir. 

Mr. T VA'ENNER, I show you a photostatic copy of a pamphlet issued 
by the International Labor Defense, entitled, "Under Arrest ! Work- 
er's Self-Defense in Courts."' 

(A document was handed to the witness by Mr, Tavenner.) 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you ever see that pamphlet? 

Mr. Aaron. I don't believe that I have. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce this 
pamphlet and ask that it be marked herein "Exhibit No. 1." 

!!5O08— 52 — pt. 1 6 



2514 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. Wood. It may be admitted. 

(The document referred to, marked "Aaron Exhibit No. 1," is filed 
herewith.^) 

(Representative Donald L. Jackson returned to the hearing room at 
this point.) 

Mr. Tavenner. In presenting this document, I would like to make a 
statement with regard to it. 

The following is taken from a pamphlet entitled "What is the ILD ?" 
published by the International Labor Defense in 1934 : 

During and following the World War, the necessity for a permanent organiza- 
tion became more and more apparent, beginnings were made in the Workers 
Defense Union (1920), the National Defense Committee (1921), Labor Defense 
Council (1922) — groups composed of members of the I WW, socialists, liberals, 
and so forth, whose chief activity consisted of defending the victims of the Palmer 
subsequent anti-Red drives. But here again, these were just committees with 
no apparatus, with no contacts in wide sections of the country. The class strug- 
gle was growing tierrer every day. Victims increased in number. A permanent 
national organized defense movement became a vital necessity. 

In June 1925, a conference was called in Chicago by the remains of the Labor 
Defense Council, to which all existing defense committees, organizations, trade- 
unions, fraternal orders, and so forth, were invited. This conference formed 
the International Labor Defense. 

Mr. Chairman, in order to further identify this organization, I 
want to read from the constitution and organization resolutions 
adopted by tlie Fourth National Convention of the International Labor 
Defense, held in Pittsburgh, December 29 to 31, 1929. Article I of the 
constitution reads : 

The name of the organization shall be the International Labor Defense, a sec- 
tion of International Red Aid. 

Section 1 of article VIII reads : 

The ILD shall be afBliated to the International Red Aid, which is the inter- 
Dational organization devoted to defense of all workers against the attacks of the 
governments in all capitalist countries. 

That identifies the publishers of the pamphlet Under Arrest as an 
agent or section of the Communist International Eed Aid, and the 
document has already been admitted in evidence. 

I would like to read certain [)arts of this pamphlet to show that the 
Communist Party has indoctrinated its members in certain courtroom 
techniques. For instance, in one part of the pamphlet it is said : 

The class struggle goes on in the courtroom as well as it does on the picket 
line, in the shops and in the mines. The worker must learn to cari-y into the 
courtroom the same determined militancy that brought him there. 

To summarize the point, the workers must see through the sham and cere- 
mony and recognize the capitalist country, its capitalist court, as a class enemy. 

On pages 15 and 16, of this exhibit appears the following : 

Bring out the class issues at the trial. In most cases, the judge and prosecutor 
will try to evade the class character of the case. It is important that you insist 
upon answering questions put to you in your own way. You either answer your 
own way, or not at all. 

Can you identify any of these portions of this document which 
I have read as having been discused in your meetings, your Communist 
Party meetings? 

1 See appendix, pp. 2691-2709, this publication. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2515 

Mr. Aaron. I am afraid not, Mr. Tavenner. I don't recall hearing 
that document discussed, and I don't recall hearing any discussion 
with respect to tactics in the event of the defense of any such a case. 

Mr. Tavenner. What were your Comnumist Party meetings de- 
moted to ? AVhat did you do at these meetings ? 

Mr. Aaron. Talk. 

Mr. Tavenner. Talk. 

Mr. Aaron. Lots and lots of talk. 

Mr. Tavenner. About what ? 

Mr. Aaron. Well literature, pamphlets, periodicals, books, articles ; 
most of which was completely over my head. 

Mr. Tavenner. What was the character of this literature which 
you discussed ? 

Mr. Aaron. Well, we were told to read books on the Communist 
Party, and we were told that it was absolutely necessary, that we 
subscribe to a magazine called Political Affairs, and to keep up to date 
on all current matters as reported therein. And somebody usually 
had an assignment to discuss a certain problem of some kind from a 
Marxist or Communist point of view. 

And those things irot too involved for me. 

Mr. Tavenner. You referred to Political Affairs, I believe, did 
jou not ? 

Mr. Aaron. Yes, sir. 

Mr, Tavenner. As one of the periodicals which you were required 
to read. 

Mr. Aaron. Yes, sir. 

Mr, Tavenner. Did you study and discuss articles from these var- 
ious publications ? 

Mr. Aaron. Very often, one of the members would have, as an 
assignment, the discussion of a certain article, and that member would 
be expected to enlarge and expatiate on that particular article and go 
into a great deal of detail about how it was approached from the Com- 
munist point of view, and so forth. 

Mr. Tavenner. I have before me an excerpt from an article of 
Political Affairs of February 1951, which contains speeches and re- 
ports of the Fifteenth National Convention of the Communist Party, 
V. S. A., held in New York, December 28 to 31, 1950. At that time, 
Henry Winston, organizational secretary of the National Communist: 
Party, said, in part : 

What does it mean to win the entire Party for a concentration policy? It 
means that every shop and Connnnnity Club, clubs in the countryside, functional 
clubs, clubs of housewives, writers, painters, doctors, lawyers, and teachers, 
each department and commission, shall in one or another form help to determine 
the outcome of this struggle. 

Of course, that statement appeared long after you left the party. 

AYliat I would like to ask you is how you were prepared, if at all, 
in your meetings to help determine the outcome of the struggle referred 
to by Henry Winston, organizational secretary of the national party? 

Mr. Aaron. I don't know. I honestly couldn't tell you. I don't 
think we were prepared to at all. I don't see how we could. 

Mr, Tavenner. Were you given the works of Lenin to study and to 
read, and did you study them ? 



2516 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS- 

Mr. Aaron. There were some books that we were supposed to read, 
and I got quite a few of them, but I never could get through them, 

Mr. Tavenner. I am not asking you how proficient you may have 
become, but I am asking you what effort was made in your group 
meetings to prepare and to determine the outcome of this struggle? 

Mr. Aaron. The efforts at determination made in our meeting was 
that somebody always brought a whole flock of literature, magazines,, 
pamphlets, and a few books and everything, and they got them from a 
book store, I guess. They spread them out on a table and you were 
supposed to take whatever you were interested in and be sure to read it. 

I took some stuff, and, as I say, I would start something and I 
would fall by the wayside. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you recall seeing the book of William Z. Foster,. 
Towards Soviet America, published in 1932 in New York? 

Mr. Aaron. I may have seen that book. I don't know. There were 
a whole flock of them. 

Mr. Tavenner. In which he describes what America under Soviet 
control would be like. 

Mr. Aaron. I never read it. 

Mr. Tavenner. You never read it ? 

Mr. Aaron. No, sir. ' 

Mr. Tavenner. Let me read you one paragraph of this book which,, 
incidentally, mentions lawyers : 

The Soviet court system will be simple, speedy, and direct. The judges by the 
corre'-pondiug Soviets will be responsible to them. The Supreme Court, instead. 
of being dictatorial and virtually legislative, as in the United States, will be purely 
juriuicial and entirely under the control of the Central Executive Committee, 
which will govern the country between meetings of National Soviet Congresses.. 
The civil and criminal courts will be simplified, the aim being to proceed directly 
and quickly to a correct decision. Then in the acute stages of the revolutionary 
struggle, special courts to fight the counterrevolution would probably be neces- 
sary. The pest of lawyers will be abolished. The courts will be class courts, 
definitely warring against the class enemies of the toilers. 

Mr. Aaron. I never read that before, but judging from wliat I have 
been reading lately, that is just about the way they operate. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you acquire any information or knowledge as to 
just what use the Communist Party proposed to make of this group 
of persons called the "pests," of lawyers'? 

Mr. Aaron. The impression that I gained — and it may be a conclu- 
sion at which I arrived later on — was that if this plan of theirs ever 
did become effective, that, as lawyers, there wouldn't be much use 
for us. 

Mr. Kearney. In other words, there would be a lot of lawyers un- 
employed, is that what you mean ? 

Mr. Aaron. Or they would be doing something else. But they 
would not be practicing law as we know it. 

Mr. Tavenner. YV^hy is it that members of the legal profession, if 
they understood, from the teachings of Foster and the books of 
Foster, who was the head of the Communist Party in the United States, 
why would lawyers unite in the support of a party which had such 
aims in the new organization which it fostered and sponsored? 

Mr. Aaron. May I give a subjective answer to that, Mr. Tavenner? 

Mr. Tavenni':r. Yes, sir. 



COMMUNISM IX LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2517 

Mr. Aaron. As I say, I went into this thing without having my feet 
on the ground, really, and with a kind of a cloudy, misty fear as to how 
things were all going to be better. 

But after I got into it and the more I dug into it and the more I 
saw how it operated and actually what was going on, that is what just 
made me quit, and I think that is what has happened to an awful lot of 
the lawyers, too. It has happened to a lot of other people. It sounds 
swell on paper, but when you see how it works it just doesn't work, and 
it doesn't work right. You begin to realize that what you would end 
up with is a system where you would not be governed by law, but 
by men, and that is just the opposite of everything that I have been 
brought up to believe. 

Mr. Tavenner. The membership was encouraged, as I understand, 
to study Communist literature, and I imagine — and from what we 
have learned here — it certainly included the study of Lenin's works. 
That is true, is it not ? 

Mr. Aaron. Yes, sir. 

(Representative James B. Frazier, Jr., left the hearing room at 
this point.) 

IVIr. Aaron. We were supposed to study all the classics of Com- 
munist literature. 

Mr. Tavenner. How is it that a lawyer, a person who has been 
trained in the legal profession in this country, could remain a member 
if he read from Lenin this paragraph, which appears on page 139 
of Book I, entitled, "Toward the Seizure of Power" : 

But he is a poor revolutionary who, at the time of acute struggle, is halted by 
the immutability of a law. In a period of transition, laws have only a temporary 
validity, and wiien a law hinders the development of the revolution, it must be 
abolished or amended. 

If a lawyer read that and studied it in a professional branch of the 
•Communist Party, how could he stay in that branch if he were loyal 
to the form of government that we have in this country today ? 

Mr. Aaron. All I can say is that it must be because they feel that, 
due to the flaws, or what they consider to be the terrific flaws in our 
form of government, that they think another form would be better. 

But I think what they fail to take into consideration is that no form 
of government is any better than the people that are living under it, 
and the people that make it, and that you are not going to improve 
anything that way. That is why they don't understand. 

Maybe I am wrong, but that is the way I figure it: That there is 
nothing the matter with out form of government that we can't cure 
ourselves. 

Mr. Tavenner. There has been a special committee appointed by 
the American Bar Association, which has made a report to the Amer- 
ican Bar Association, and there is included in this report the follow- 
ing statement, that — 

The Communist Party in the United States is part and parcel of the Inter- 
national Communist Party, completely controlled and dominated by the world 
Communist movement organized in Soviet Russia and with its true leaders and 
•dictators operating out of Moscow. 

That was a finding by the American Bar Association. 

Do you concur in that finding? 

Mr. Aaron. Do you want my personal opinion ? 



2518 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes ; your personal opinion. 

Mr. Aaron. This is something which is not based on any factor. It 
is only a personal belief. I think that is probably true. I did not 
think so when I joined. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was an effort made, in the course of the conduct 
of the meetings which you attended over the period from November 
1946 to September 1948, to educate its members and indoctrinate them 
in the principles of communism ? 

Mr. Aaron. That was practically all we did. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Chairman, I think it might be well to read into 
the record at this time what Mr. J. Edgar Hoover testified to before- 
the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on February 3, 1950 : 

Of the many professions, penetration of tlie legal profession is the most 
amazing. As oflicers of the courts, well trained and educated lawyers have 
made some of the finest contributions to American life. It is regrettable, there- 
fore, that any association of lawyers avIII permit itself to be used and parrot 
the Communist Party line. 

There is a name here that I failed to ask you about, that I should 
have. In fact, there are several of them : 

Fred H. Steinmetz. 

Mr. Aaron. I know him. 

Mr. Tavenner. What were the circumstances under which you 
knew Mr. Steinmetz? 

Mr. Aaron. I knew him at the meetings of the Communist Party.. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was he a member of the Communist Party? 

Mr. Aaron. He was. 

Mr. Tavenner. Richard L. Rykoff ? 

Mr. Aaron. Yes; he was a member, also. 

Mr. Tavenner. On what do you base your statement? 

Mr. Aaron. I attended meetings with him. 

Mr. Tavenner. Can you be more definite as to the period of time 
and place of the meetings ? 

Mr. Aaron. As I said, these meetings took place in various places. 
Rykoff, Dick Rykoff, came into the party rather late in my term. I 
think that it was probably, oh, as late as the early part of 1948, and 
he came in well after I did, and attended meetings with me. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was he a member when you left the party? 

Mr. Aaron. To the best of my recollection, he was. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you acquainted with Mr. William Israel? 

Mr. Aaron. Yes ; I was, and I am. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Israel is here, I understand. 

Mr. Aaron. He is here. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was he a member of the party ? 

Mr. Aaron. He was for a while, but it is my best recollection that 
he just dropped out. 

Mr. Tavenner. Jean Pestana. 

Mr. Aaron. That is Frank's wife. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was she a lawyer ? 

Mr. Aaron. She was. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was she a member of this group, or cell? 

Mr. Aaron. She was. 

Mr. Tavenner. Seymour Mandell? 

Mr. Aaron. He was a member also. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2519 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Aaron, I would like for you to tell the com- 
iHittee the cii'cumstances under which 3'ou left the party. 

Mr. Aaron. AVell, I moved my office out to Orange County, as I 
said, in 1948, about Labor Day, and I met an entirely different group 
of people, and I realized right then and there that life in Los Angeles 
was not for me, and the things that they were doing were not for me, 
either. 

I did attend some meetings after that, but when I moved my home 
out to Orange County I never attended another meeting. 

Thereafter I became active in the affairs of my town. I became 
active in the affairs of a service club and veteran's organization, and I 
have been very active in them ever since, and I just realized beyond 
any doubt that this other business was all wrong, and I saw every- 
thing in its proper perspective. 

I have mari-ied since then, and I am much more settled than I was, 
and I can see that that sort of thing was just plain wrong, that is all. 

I worked hard out there, too. I worked awful hard. 

Mr. Tavenner. Your break with the Communist Party, then, has 
been definite and complete, has it ? 

Mr. Aaron. That is correct, sir. And the things that I think and 
feel and the friends I have and things I stand for and tilings I am 
trying to do are completelv in opposition to anvthing that they stand 
for. 

Mr. Tavenner. Have you been approached to reaffiliate with the 
Conununist Party ? 

Mr. Aaron. No, sir. 

Mr. Taa'enner. Did you meet with any obstruction or effort to dis- 
courage you from cooperating with this committee and describing to 
it the professional cell about which you have testified? 

Mr. Aaron. No, sir ; I have not. 

After I was subpenaed to appear before this committee, I talked to 
several of my best friends and clients, people with whom I am associ- 
ated in service club and veteran's organization work, and their unani- 
mous reaction has been that they think I am doing a fine thing and they 
certainly bear me no ill will about it. 

Of course, I feel that it isn't a question of a fine thing. I am simply 
doing what I am directed to do, to appear before this committee. I 
wouldn't think of not appearing and I wouldn't think of refusing to 
answer a question, and I wouldn't think of doing anything but telling 
you the truth, to the best of my recollection. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did yon go to one or more of your principal clients 
and explain your position ? 

Mr. Aaron. I did, and I have received full cooperation and backing 
riglit down to the hilt. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are your friends in the service organizations which 
you mentioned acquainted Avith the facts relating to your Communist 
Party activities? Did you acquaint them with such facts? 

Mr. Aaron. I did, and their unanimous reaction has been the same: 
"We have known you since you came out here in 1948, and we know 
what you have done, and we know what you have tried to do, and the 
way you have lived, and what you have said, and the people you have 
gone around with, and what you have thought, and, as far as we are 
concerned, you are 100 percent all right and anything you did in the 
past, all right, you made a mistake, anybody can make a mistake." 



:2520 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

It has been a very encouraging thing, Mr. Tavenner. It makes me 
realize just how fine those people are. 

Mr. Tavenner. In other words, you have been encouraged to per- 
form a duty which is a very difficult one ? 

Mr. Aaron. Well, it hasn't been easy. 

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

Mr. Wood. Mr. Doyle, do you have any questions? 

Mr. Doyle. Mr. Aaron, I would like to preface my few questions so 
that 3^ou will understand this better. 

You are a lawyer, and I am, also. 

Mr. Aaron. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Doyle. I, too, am a member of the California bar. My home 
is at Long Beach and I am past president of that bar association. I 
was vice president of the conference of bar delegates of the State. 

I mention that personal matter so that you will realize that when 
I say I want to compliment you on what you are doing today, that 
I am doing it not only as a member of this subcommittee, but as a 
member of the same bar of which you are a member. 

Mr. Aaron. Thank you, Mr. Doyle. 

Mr. Doyle. You have related, Mr. Aaron, that there was an effort 
made by the organized group of lawyers known as the Engels Club, 
in Los Angeles, apparently through its designation, the naming of 
you one way or another as secretary of the Los Angeles chapter of 
the Lawyers' Guild to effectively control generally the day-to-day 
procedures of the Lawyers' Guild in Los Angeles County. 

Mr. Aaron. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Doyle. You said that they created the job of executive secre- 
tary after you gave up the secretaryship because you did not have 
time to perform the duties. Who was elected executive secretary of 
the Lawyers' Guild of Los Angeles County ? 

Mr. Aaron. I believe that after they found out that I couldn't do 
anything about it, as I recall it, Seymour Mandell was made executive 
secretary, and then, after him, I think Jean Pestana. 

(Representative Donald L. Jackson left the hearing room at this 
point.) 

Mr. Doyle. As to the first person elected subsequent to your re- 
tirement, Mandell being the one that was then chosen, was he a mem- 
ber of the Communist group ? 

Mr. Aaron. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Doyle. Then the Communist group that you testified about 
as being a member of it also effectively named the executive secretary 
of the Lawyers' Guild of Los Angeles? 

Mr. Aaron. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Doyle. Was that a paid job in any way? 

Mr. Aaron. I don't recall, Mr. Doyle. I don't know. I don't 
think it was. 

Mr. Doyle. The Los Angeles Lawyers' Guild at that time was 
quite numerous in its membership, was it not? 

Mr. Aaron. They had a membership drive about that time, and 
I thing they got their membership up to about 100 or 150, or some- 
thing like that. 

Mr. Doyle. Who was the president of the Lawyers' Guild at that 
time ; do you recall ? 

Mr. Aaron. I don't recall. 



COMMUNISM IX LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2521 

Mr. Doyle. Or the vice president. Do you remember any of the- 
officers ? 

Mr. Aaron. No, I don't. It may seem peculiar, but I just don't 
remember. It is a matter of record. 

(Representative Donald L. Jackson returned to the hearing room, 
at this point.) 

Mr DoYLE. I realize that. I should have stated also, Mr. Aaron, 
that seven members of this House Committee on Un-American Activi- 
ties are lawyers — seven of the nine. So we are not unappreciative of 
the fact that when you come as you have, it is not an easy task for you 
to do. We realize that. 

At this point, Mr. Chairman, I would just like to reemphasize that 
seven of us are members of the bar. 

By the way, our distinguished chairman, John Wood sits here. I 
happen to know he was for several years a distinguished judge of the 
district court of his own State of Georgia. And some of the other 
lawyers outside of myself, members of this committee, have held very 
distinguished positions in court and at the bar. 

I mention that, Mr. Aaron, because I know^ several other members 
of the California bar are in the hearing room at this minute, so that 
you realize that we, as members of the bar on this committes, are assid- 
uously seeking not to have anyone embarrassed, and not to have anyone 
put in jeopardy in any way. 

And we certainly are not asking any member of the bar, as our 
worthy counsel said, to divulge any confidential communications or 
Aaolate any professional relationships. 

Mr. Aaron. I have been asked no such questions. 

Mr. DoYLE. I was just going to ask you, therefore, Mr. Aaron, and 
you volunteered an answer to my anticipated question : Do you feel, 
now that you have answered all the questions so far, of our distin- 
guished legal counsel, do you feel that you have been asked any ques- 
tions by him which in any way took you into the realm of feeling that 
you were being asked a question that would in any way violate any con- 
fidential relationship as a member of the bar ? 

Mr. Aaron. I do not think so ; no, sir. 

Mr. Doyle. Or violate any oath of office as a member of the bar ? 

Mr. Aaron. I feel 1 can uphold my oath of office only by answering 
all the questions Mr. Tavenner has asked me. 

Mr. Doyle. Then am I in error when I take it from your testimony, 
when you relate the history of the activities of the Communist group 
of lawyers of which you were a member in Los Angeles city, which 
you testified to ; am I in error when I take it, from your local testimony 
about that group, that they w^ere very active in trying to control in 
one way or another, as much as possible, the activities of at least the- 
Liawyer's Guild in Los Angeles County ? 

Mr. Aaron. That is correct. 

Mr. Doyle. How about the Los Angeles Bar Association, of which 
you and I are both members — I take it? 

Mr. Aaron. I don't think that their activities ever got that far,. 
Mr. Doyle. 

Mr. Doyle. How about the California State bar activities? 

Mr. Aaron. They did take some activity with regard to the State 
bar activities, but that was only, I believe, in support of the well-known 
dispute that went on for some time, about the qualifications or the 



2522 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

certification of the delegates of the Los Angeles Bar Association 
because of the fact that members of one race were not admitted to 
membership in that organization. 

They did press that, I think, from time to time. 

Mr. Doyle. About the matter of legislation before the State legis- 
lature pending, or being prepared by the State bar association and by 
the Los Angeles Bar Association, the reason why I ask you that ques- 
tion, Mr. Aaron, is that I am a member and have been for 3 years, of the 
State Bar of California committee on legislation. 

I am now a member of that group. Has the Communist group of 
Los Angeles, of wdiich you were a member, in any way endeavored to 
try to influence the formation of legislation to be submitted to the 
State legislature ? 

Mr. Aaron. Through the National Lawyers' Guild, Mr. Doyle, the 
guild did foster and pushed certain legislation, but it had nothing to 
do witli Communist activities. 

I believe that they were interested, for instance, in a law having to 
do witli the doctrine of comparative negligence in accident cases and 
things of that type. 

But the things which the guild pushed, as far as State legislation 
was concerned, were, as far as I know, limited strictly to purely legal 
matters. 

Mr. Doyle. As I understood your testimony in connection with 
membership in the Lawyers' Guild, at least in Los Angeles County, 
that you, as a member of the Communist group of lawyers, were given 
to understand, and so were the other members of that group, that 
they were expected to join the Lawyers' Guild in Los Angeles. 

Mr. Aaron. Yes, sir. 

Mr, Doyle. What was the objective in asking you to all be members 
of that guild ? 

Mr. Aaron. The guild was supposed to be made into the legal organ, 
the legal instrument, w^hich would speak for and in behalf of the 
Communist Party. 

Mr. Doyle. Sometime in the future? 

Mr. Aaron. I guess so. 

Mr. Doyle. Or were you given to understand that, as far as it could, 
right at that time the Lawyers' Guild was then, at that time, the legal 
arm of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Aaron. I will put it this way : We had a lot of disputes in the 
Lawyers' Guild about whetlier or not the Lawyers' Guild chapter 
in Los Angeles should go on record and send telegrams to Congress 
about such things as aid to Turkey and Greece, when that came 
up. 

You will remember that that came up. I don't recall what the 
action was that was taken, but it was discussed. 

And things which had nothing to do with law actually, but in- 
ternational matters, they had discussions in the guild chapter meet- 
ings about whether or not the guild should take a stand on such 
things. 

Mr. Doyle. And even at that time, apparently, the Lawyers' Guild 
influence was present in the Communist group. 

Mr. Aaron. Well, put it the other way around : The Communist 
group influence was present in the Lawyers' Guild. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2523 

Mr. Doyle. Mr. Chairman, I do have perhaps a half a dozen more 
■questions to ask the witness, but I do not wish to monopolize the 
time. 

Mr. Wood. The committee will stand in recess until 2 o'clock. 

(Thereupon, at 12:35 p. m., the committee recessed, to reconvene 
at 2 p. m., same day.) 

AFTERNOON SESSION 

(The subcommittee reconvened at 2: 25 p. m., Representatives John 
S. Wood, Clyde Doyle, Bernard W. Kearney, and Charles E. Potter 
were present, Mr. Wood, chairman, presiding.) 

Mr. Wood. The committee will be in order. 

Mr. Doyle, did you wish to further examine the witness? 

Mr. Doyle. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Wood. You may proceed. 

TESTIMONY OF DAVID AARON— Resumed 

Mr. Doyle. Mr. i^aron, did you recall in any way whether or not 
this Los Angeles group of lawyers that you referred to, the secret 
group that you referred to, that is, the group that kept its identity 
:secret and its membership secret — do you recall whether or not that 
group was asked in any way to cooperate with other similar groups 
of Communist lawyers in any other part of the country ? 

Mr. Aaron. Not exactly in that way, Mr. Doyle. The lawyers in 
that group were asked to perform services in connection with cases 
involving defendants in other parts of the country, in conjunction 
with lawyers in other parts of the country. 

Mr. Doyle. That is one of the things I have in mind. 

Mr. Aaron. It was not my understanding. I mean I cannot tell 
you under oath that definitely the lawyers in other parts of the country 
with whom our group did work were members of the Communist 
Party, because I don't know that. 

For example, there was one case involving a man up in Washington, 
a lawyer up there, who was being tried, I believe, for perjury. If I 
remember correctly, his name was Coughlin. Lawyers in various 
parts of the West were all requested to contribute some effort or raise 
some funds to assist in his defense. 

But whether or not the other lawyers in wherever it might have 
been — Seattle, or San Francisco, or Oakland, or Portland, or wherever 
tliey happened to be — were Communist lawyers, a part of the Com- 
munist group there, I couldn't say. 

Mr. DoY'LE. Were you aware of any other group of lawyers in 
Xos Angeles County which group was Communist ? 

Mr. xAaron. No, sir. 

Mr. Doyle. Or in California ? 

Mr. Aaron. No; I couldn't say. I was given to understand that 
there was such a group in San Francisco, but who they were I 
don't know. 

Mr. Doyle. At the time you dissolved your connection with the 
gi'oup of Communist lawyers, was it your impression that communism 
Avas on the increase or decrease among lawyers numerically in Los 
A ngeles, if you liad any impression ? 



2524 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. Aaron. Well, I honestly can't say that I had much of an im- 
piession at all. They were constantly seeking methods of recruiting: 
other lawyers and seeking people who they thought would be 
interested in it. 

But I don't think that there was any great amount of interest 
among other lawyers, and it seemed to me that the prospects for the- 
f 11 ture didn't look very good. 

Mr. Doyle. Mr. Aaron, you probably never have had Public Law 
604 of the Seventy-ninth Congress called to your attention, the full 
test of it. That is the statute by which this committee, the Commit- 
tee on Un-American Activities, was named and functions. 

Mr. Aaron. No, sir. 

Mr. Doyle. I will not take time to read it because I know you have- 
to get a plane, but one of our assignments is to inquire into the — 

estent, character, and objects of un-American propaganda activities in the 
United States, the diffusion within the United States of subversive and un- 
Aiaerican propaganda that is instigated from foreign countries or of domestic 
origin and attacks the principles of the form of government guaranteed by our 
Constitution. 

I will ask you : Were you, as a member of the Communist group of 
lawyers in Los Angeles, told in any way, or given to understand in 
any way, as such a member, as to what the relationship of the Soviet 
Union was to the United States so far as form of government is- 
concerned? 

Mr. Aaron. No, sir. 

Mr. Doyle. Was the question of the Soviet LTnibn discussed? 

Mr. Aaron. The Soviet Union was discussed, naturally, but not in' 
relation to orders coming out of Moscow, if that is what you mean.. 
We didn't have anything like that that I can recall at all. 

Mr. Doyle. My final question is this, because I can assure you that 
this committee is trying to be objective in its work: Have you any 
suggestion or advice to make to this connnittee as to ways and means 
in which it should function, or should it function differently, or 
should it put more emphasis or less emphasis on any phase of its- 
work? 

I know that you have followed the course of this committee's con-- 
duct for the last year or two, perhaps, in some w^ay. 

Mr. Aaron. All I ever knew about this committee, Mr. Doyle,. 
1 read in the newspapers, and I had no idea as to how this connnittee 
operated until a comparatively short time ago. As far as I am con- 
cerned, it is the first experience that I have ever had personally with 
a congressional committee. As far as I am concerned, I would not 
change its method of operation one iota. 

Mr. Doyle. I thank you for that expression. 

Now, have you any suggestion as to the consideration of legisla- 
tion by the United States Congress on the subject of communism or* 
subversive conduct or iin-American activities? 

For instance, would you recommend the outlawing of the Com- 
munist Party in the United States? 

Mr. Aaron. That is a question which has bothered me for some 
time, Mr. Doyle. I frankly don't know wliat the answer is myself. 
If I did. I would have come forward with a suggestion a long 
time ago. 



COMMUNISM IX LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2525 

I know the problem is here. It has to be met. And, in my own 
way, through working in programs to promote Americanism, I am 
doing my best to combat it. 

But what tlie action of the legislature should be is something that 
I don't know. 

There are, I suppose, certain constitutional problems which are 
involved, and I just don't know whether the proper thing or the correct 
thing to do, looking toward the future, is to legislate to outlaw the 
•Communist Party, or whether the best thing to do is to leave it as 
it is, or — I just don't know. 

I know that I am going to help all I can. 

Mr. DoYLiE. In view of that oti'er that you are going to help all you 
can, may I say that I am sure we would invite you to give us, at any 
-and all times, your considered opinion and your reasons therefor in 
this field. 

Mr. Aaeon. Thank you, Mr. Doyle. 

Mr. Doyle. I will not take any more time, Mr. Chairman, because 
I know other members want to question the witness. 

Mr. Wood. Mr. Kearney. 

Mr. Kearney. First let me say, in answer to the last question of the 
gentlenum from California, I will say that the Members of the Con- 
gress themselves are confused as to whether or not the party should 
be outlawed, because that has been debated pro and con here, and there 
necessarily would be different ideas. 

You stated this morning, Mr. Aaron, that at one time during your 
membership in the Engels Club you collected dues from various mem- 
bers of that club. 

Mr. Aaron. Yes, sir; I did. 

Mr. Kearney. Do you recollect to whom those dues were turned 
•over? 

Mr. Aaron. I do. 

Mr. Kearney. Would you name the individual ? 

Mr. Aaron. It was a gentleman by the name of Noum Light. 
N^-o-u-m is the first name, and his last name is L-i-g-h-t. 

Mr. Kearney. Would you tell the committee what position he had, 
if any, in the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Aaron. Mr. Kearney, I don't know. All I know is that I was 
told to take the money over and give it to him, which I did. 

Mr. Kearney. Was he not a member of this club ? 

Mr. Aaron. No. 

Mr. Kearney. But he was a member of the Communist Party, 
was he? 

Mr. Aaron. I assume so. 

Mr. Kearney. He must have been in order for those dues to be 
turned over to him. 

Mr. Aaron. I doubt if they would let the money get to him if he 
wasn't. 

Mr. Kearney. Referring to these meetings about which you spoke, 
:as I understood it, this morning you said they were all closed meet- 
ings and were open only to members of the Communist Party. 

Mr. Aaron. Yes, sir ; members of our group. 

Mr. Kearney. And they were members of the Communist Party? 

Mr. Aakon. Yes, sir. 



2526 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS' 

Mr. Kearney. Can you tell the committee whether, within your" 
knowledge, at any time, this group was addressed by any high func- 
tionary of the Communist Party on a national level ? 

Mr. Aaron. No, sir ; I don't recall any such occasion. 

Mr. Kearney. Were there any outsiders, not members of the group, 
that you know of, who addressed, from time to time, members of the 
group while you were a member? 

Mr. Aaron. No, sir. 

Mr. Kearney. I think that is all, ]\Ir. Chairman, with this observa-- 
tion, that I personally — and I think I speak for the committee — want 
to extend my appreciation to Mr. Aaron for his wholehearted coop- 
eration before the committee here today. I think the committee owes 
him and others who have testified in similar vein many, many thanks. 

]\fr. Wood. Mr. Potter. 

Mr. Potter. Mr. Chairman, of course I regret that I was not here 
this morning to hear the testimony of Mr. Aaron, but due to the 
interrogation of Mr. Kearney I am interested in knowing this : Who 
instructed you to turn over the funds that you collected to INIr. Light? 

Mr. Aaron. I am afraid that I can't recall that, Mr. Potter. It 
was somebody in our group who was one of the officials, but which one 
it was, I don't know. Somebody in our group, but I don't know who. 

Mr. Potter. Have you had any contact with Mr. Light since you 
left the party ? 

Mr. Aaron. Oh, no. 

Mr. Potter. Do you know v»-hether he is still active in that group? 

Ml- Aaron. I haven't any idea. I don't even know whether he i& 
still r.live or whether he lives in Los Angeles or anything about him.. 

Mr. Potter. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Wood. Where w^as his office ? 

Mr. Aaron. I delivered it to him at his home. 

Mr. Wood. Do you know what his business was? 

Mr. Aaron. Wait a minute. He had an office downtown on Fifth 
Street in Los Angeles. It seems to me, if I remember correctly, that 
he was in the jewelry business. 

Mr. Wood. Mr. Aaron, I believe you mentioned a lady by the 
name of Martha Yerkes. 

Mr. Aaron. Yes; I did. 
 Mr. Wood. You said she was at one time a member of this particu- 
lar group that you have named of members of the Communist Party 
and also was affiliated with the Lawyers' Guild. 

Did she at one time hold a position of executiA'e secretarj^ of the- 
Lawyers' Guild ? 

Mr. Aaron. Yes ; I believe she did. 

Mr. Wood. Approximately how many members were there of this 
particular group to which you belonged during the period that you 
were in the group; approximately what was the maximum number 
of members in that group ? 

Mr. Aaron. I think it was about 30, Mr. Wood. 

INIr. Wood. What were the dues, and in what periods were they paid ? 
Wj^s it monthly, weekly, or what? 

Mr. Aaron. Monthly, and the dues varied depending upon who 
it was and how much he could afford to pay. 

It seems to me I remember a discussion at one time in which I was 
told that we should contribute — I think it was about 6 percent of our 



COMMUNISM IK LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2527 

income as dues — and I looked at whoever told me that and asked him 
whether they meant gross or net. If they meant net, they owed me 
money. 

]Mr. A¥ooD. Did the contribution in the way of dues approximate 
that figure of 6 percent ( 

Mr. Aaron. I paid them $2 a month, and there were an awful lot 
of others that did the same thing. 

Mr. Wood. Were there any periods of time when additional funds 
other than dues were sought from the members of the group or any 
effort made to raise additional funds? 

Mr. Aaron. I believe on one or tw^o occasions, Mr. Wood, there may 
have l^een some solicitation for additional funds, but wdiat the occasion 
w^as, or why, I don't recall. 

Mr. Wood. You say your contribution, your dues, amounted to $2 a 
month and that some of the others were in that amount. 

Were there any members in the group who paid substantiall}' more 
than that ? 

Mr. Aaron. Some of them paid $20 a month. 

Mr. Wood. About what would you say, then, was the percentage of 
the members of that group who ])aid as high as $20 a month? 

INIr. Aaron. There were, I believe, possibly three or four, no more 
than that, who paid as much as $20 a month. 

Mr. Wood. How many paid as much as $15? 

Mr. Aaron. I don't think anybody did. There were some, I believe, 
a few, that paid $10, and some that paid $5, and most of them paid $2. 

Mr. Wood. Mr. Counsel, do you have any further questions of the 
witness before he is released? 

Mr, Tavp^nner. There is one other question I would like to ask him. 

Do you recall the names of those three or four who paid the $20 a 
month? Can you name any of the group that paid that much? 

Mr. Aaron. JNIargolis, McTernan, George Altman, and I think that 
is all. 

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

Mr. Wood. I understood before the recess, Mr. Aaron, that Con- 
gressman Jackson, who is also from Los Angeles, desired to ask you 
some questions, but he has not returned as yet, and since your plane 
leaves at 3 : 30, 1 do not want to retain you any longer. 

I want to join with the other members of the committee, however, 
in conveying to you the very great appreciation the committee feels 
for your coming here and the sacrifice that I am sure you did make 
to come here and testifv before the committee and givine: us the 
benefit of any information you have. 

I convey to you my personal appreciation and that of the com- 
mittee. I hope the trip has not caused you too much inconvenience. 
With the thanks of the committee, you will be excused. 

Mr. Aaron, Thank you, Mr. Wood. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Albert Herzig. 

Mr. Wood. Are you Mr. Herzig? 

Mr. Herzig. Yes. 

Mr, Wood. Will you raise your right hand and be sworn, sir. 

Do you solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give to this com- 
mittee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, 
so help you God ? 

Mr, Herzig, I do so affirm. 



2528 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

TESTIMONY OF ALBERT M. HERZIG 

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

Mr. Herzig. Albert M, Herzig. 

Mr. Wood. Before proceeding further, Mr. Counsel, permit me to 
jnake an observation. 

The acoustics of this room are not very good, to begin with, and 
the committee is sitting a little bit away from you, Mr. Hei-zig, so 
-would you mind keeping your voice up, please ? Will you bear that 
in mind, please ? 

Mr. Herzig. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Ta\"enner. iVre you represented by counsel, IMr. Herzig? 

Mr. Herzig. I am part of "Martin's gang." Martin Gang repre- 
sents me. 

Mr. Tavenner. And he is present in the hearing room? 

Mr. Herzig. Yes. 

Mr. Wood. If at any time during the progress of your examination 
you desire to confer with him, you may feel free to do so. 

Mr. Herzig. Thank you. I only have him here because there is 
a saying that you should not have a fool for a client and therefore 
be your own. 

Mr. Tavenner. When and where were you born, Mr. Herzig? 

Mr. Herzig. Los Angeles, Calif., October 11, 1914. 

Mr. Tavenner. Where do you now reside? 

Mr. Herzig. Los Angeles. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you engaged there in the practice of law ? 

Mr. Herzig. Patent law, yes ; as a specialty. 

Mr. Tavenner. Would you outline for the committee please, your 
educational background and training? 

Mr. Herzig. I went to grammar school in Seattle, in junior high 
school in San Bernardino, Calif., and part of high school there; the 
last year of high school in Las Vegas, Nev. 

I graduated in 1933. One year at UCLA — University of California 
at Los Angeles — and 3 years at the University of California at Berke- 
ley, as an undergraduate ; then Boalt Hall of Law, which is the uni- 
versity's school of law at Berkeley. 

I graduated, I think, in 1940, when I was admitted to the bar of 
California. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Herzig, it has come to the attention of the 
staff of this committee, that at one time you were a member of the 
Communist Party. Is that correct ? 

Mr. Herzig. I considered myself a member, yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. When did you unite with the Communist Party? 

Mr. Herzig. I think I wandered into the Communist Party, as near 
as I can recall, in San Francisco — it must have been 1944; it might 
have been 1943, it might have been 1945, but I think it was about 
1944. 

I could establish that by the fact that I received a draft notice at 
that time. Prior to that I tried to get a commission. So I think it 
•can be established — in Los Angeles, to be drafted. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long did you remain a member of the Com- 
munist Party ? 

Mr. Herzig. It must have been 2 or 3 years, off and on. 

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



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2529 

Mr. Herzig. No. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Chairman, I would rather not ask the witness 
questions relating to his membership in the Communist Party in San 
Francisco at this time. I would like to ask him those questions in 
closed session. 

Mr. Wood. Very well. 

Mr. Tavenner. I thought I would make that explanation. 

Mr. Herzig, did you move from San Francisco to Los Angeles ? 

Mr. Herzig. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. When was that? 

Mr. Herzig. It must have been about 1933 or 1934. It might have 
been 1935. I am not too clear on that. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you mean 1933, or 1943 ? 

Mr. Herzig. Pardon me. It must have been about 1943, 1944, or 
1945. It probably was about 1944, 1 think. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you married at the time you moved to Los 
Angeles ? 

Mr. Herzig. Happily married. 

Mr. Taa^enner. Was your wife a member of the legal profession 
also? 

Mr. Herzig. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. Upon your arrival at Los Angeles, or soon there- 
after, did you have occasion again to wander into the Communist 
Party, as you mentioned ? 

Mr. Herzig. I understand that someone approached me, or my wife, 
and said, in effect, we had been "transferred down here," which I re- 
member was a little shock to me. 

Mr. Tavenner. Is that the first connection, as far as you know, that 
you or your wife had with the Communist Party at Los Angeles ? 

Mr. Herzig. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. As a result of this information that you had been 
transferred to Los Angeles, what was done there? "Wliat followed? 

Mr. Herzig. We were asked to attend a meeting at, if I recall, Ben 
Margolis' house. It was to be an educational meeting, as I under- 
stood it. 

We attended, I think, that meeting, or a subsequent one, anyway, and 
several thereafter. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you recall the other places where you met with 
that group ? 

Mr. Herzig. I hadn't recalled until today that we had met, I think — 
now, hearing Mr. Aaron — at Marburg Yerkes' home, and I think at 
Charlie Katz' home. 

I don't recall a meeting at our home, although it is possible, because 
the members of the group were encouraged to be sociable and permit 
the group to alternate. 

. Mr. Tavenner. Do you recall what occurred at this first meeting 
that you attended when you went to the home of Ben Margolis as a 
transferee to Los Angeles? 

Mr. Herzig. The first meeting doesn't particularly register with me. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long did you continue to attend meetings of 
that group ? 

Mr. Herzig. I would say in Los Angeles approximately a couple 
of years off and on. There was a marked rigid adherence of a schedule 
of the meetings. 

95008— 52— pt. 1- 7 



2530 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

My recollection is — I may be wrong about every week. I think it 
was every couple of weeks ; something like that. 

Mr. Tavenner. The meetings that you attended were of the same 
group as that which Mr. Aaron described ahead of you; is that not 
true? 

Mr. Herzig. I remember Dave at a couple of meetings. He didn't 
seem particularly interested. It must have been that group that he is 
referring to, although he mentioned an awful lot of people that I have 
never seen in that group. 

Mr. Tavenner. It was testified by Mr. Aaron that the group was 
broken up into smaller units. Are you acquainted with that? 

Mr. Herzig. I recall something about that, but I don't know the 
details, and it must have happened before I arrived in Los Angeles be- 
cause I don't recall the group that I was in being broken up, and, at 
best, it was approximately, I would say, 8 to 12 people. 

Mr. Tavenner. That is, while you were in attendance? 

Mr. Herzig. Yes. I don't recall more than about 15 people at any 
time in that particular group. 

Mr. Tavenner. You mentioned Mr. Margolis as being one of those 
in whose homes you met? 

Mr. Herzig. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. Who were the other persons that you mentioned? 

Mr. Herzig. You mean in whose homes we met ? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes. 

Mr. Herzig. As I say, Dave refreshed my recollection that we prob- 
ably met in Marburg's home, Marburg Yerkes'. I remember he had 
a rather extensive religious library, and I remember we discussed 
religion in a sort of back room, 'while the meeting was going on, 
part of it. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you recall whether or not John Porter was one 
of those who attended the meetings with you ? 

Mr. Herzig. Yes ; John was there. 

Mr. Tavenner. As a member of your group ? 

Mr. Herzig. Well, he was at the meetings. I assume he was a 
member. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was Milton Tyre one of those who attended? 

Mr. Herzig. Yes; Milt was one of the group. He wasn't always 
there, either, but he came from time to time. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you acquainted with Victor Kaplan ? 

Mr. Herzig. Vic was one of the group. 

(Representative Francis E. Walter entered the hearing room at this 
point. ) 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you acquainted with Charles Katz ? 

Mr. Herzig. Yes. Charlie came in occasionally as a sort of a gesture 
of condescension, I would say — to utter some pearls 

Mr. Tavenner. Pearls of wisdom ? 

Mr. Herzig. Pearls. 

Mr. Tavenner. On what general subject? 

Mr. Herzig. It was hard to define, even after the speech. It must 
have been on his view of something like Littleton and Pope, and it 
was Charlie on top of that. It was Charlie's view of Marxism, I 
guess, or the "dialectical process," which is something I think nobody 
could get. But I think Charlie must have known it. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2531 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you recall whether you ever met in a Communist 
Party meeting at the home of Charles Katz ? 

Mr. Herzig. I recall, I think, one meeting m a rather nice home ; 

ves. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you identify him as one of the members of the 

group of the Communist Party ? , . • i 

Mr. Herzig. I couldn't quite identify Charlie as anything particular. 
He came occasionally, but only in a prima donna capacity, to have 
something to say usually. . rr^i . • 

I think he was invited to say something occasionally, ihat is my 

""GCollGCtlOIl 

Mr. Ta\^nner. Were you acquainted with Selma Bachelis? 

Mr. Herzig. Yes. Selma was there. 

Mr. Tavenner. When you say "there," what do you mean? 

Mr. Herzig. In the group meetings. 

Mr. Tavenner. Of this section of the Communist Party to which 

rou belonged ? 
Mr. Herzig. This so-called educational group, or class, as it was. 

ef erred to; yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. You referred a moment ago to Mr. Marburg Yerkes. 
iVere you acquainted with his wife, Martha Yerkes ? 

Mr. Herzig. Yes, I knew Martha. 

Mr. Ta\t:nner. Was she a member of the legal profession ? 

Mr. Herzig. I understand she was. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was she a member of this group or class to which 
/ou have referred ? 

Mr. Herzig. I think she was a sort of a member. I don't remember 
ler too clearly, but I remember her at a few meetings. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you have occasion to meet a person by the 
name of Fred Steinmetz ? 

Mr. Herzig. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. What were the circumstances under which you 
knew him ? 

Mr. Herzig. In the group. .. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you remember any particular function or part 
that Fred Steinmetz performed in the group meetings ? 

Mr. Herzig. No, I don't recall any official position that he might 
have had, unless he might have distributed some of the literature. 

(Representative Donald L. Jackson entered the hearing room at 
this point.) 

Mr. Tavenner. Tell us what you know about the distribution of 
literature. 

Mr. Herzig. It was like Dave said. There was a lot of junk brought 
in and distributed on a table, and anybody who wanted to pick out 
stuff they were interested in would go to the table and pick it out and 
pay for it. 

Mr. Tavenner. What kind of "stuff" — as you called it — was this 
that you are referring to ? 

Mr. Herzig. It was a lot of red hot literature about the dialectial 
materialism, as I recall, and about current events; little pamphlets 
of various kinds, which were quite numerous. 

I think they were a dime a throw, or something like that. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did they relate to the subject of communism ? 



2532 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. Herzig. Yes, in its various phases. 

Mr. Tavenner. What was the nature of the discussions held at 
these group meetings? 

Mr. Herzig. Well, it was mostly a bull session, as I recall, on the 
nature of dialectical materialism, the theories that were propounded 
by various writers in this magazine, the name of which escapes me, 
that I have mentioned. 

Mr. Tavenner. Political Affairs ? 

Mr. Herzig. Yes, Political Affairs. 

It was, it seems to me, an attempt to expose the attorneys to the 
various theories of Marx, Marxism, and Browder, and some of the 
contemporary theories on Marx; with current events interpersed 
from time to time. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was your membership in this group kept secret, or 
did they endeavor to keep it secret ? 

Mr. Herzig. Oh, until Bill, your investigator, called me as the first 
phone call of 1952, and said, "This is Bill Wheeler, of the Un-American 
Activities Committee" — I almost asked him what patent he had in 
oaind — I thought it was secret. 

Mr. Jackson. It is a common mistake. 

Mr. Tavenner. What was the purpose, as far as you could deter- 
mine, of the giving of this course of instruction or indoctrination in 
Marxism, if the fact of your membership in it was to be kept secret? 

Mr. Herzig. I understood that the pinnacle of intellectual success 
was to become a Marxist, and we strove, in our various ways, there 
with our individual limitations, to understand what it would be to 
be a Marxist. Some may have found out. 

Mr. Tavenner. Who took the lead in this group in indoctrinating 
the members in Marxian philosophy ? 

Mr. Herzig. It was an attempt to scramble the egg, more or less. 
Everyone was supposed to participate and was assigned reading 
matter. 

- In the assignment of that particular matter, you were supposed 
to report on what was said in the article, and everyone else was pre- 
sumed to haye read it; which too often did not turn out to be the case. 

And then we were supposed to discuss it pro and con, and when 
it was all over, we were supposed to have seen the connection of that 
speech or piece of literature with the "immutable" laws of Marx. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you have an assignment of that character 
from time to time? 

Mr. Herzig. Yes, I remember one time I had an assignment like 
that. 

Mr. Tavenner. What was the nature of it ? 

Mr. Herzig. I was supposed to be read something. It must have 
been on imperialism, I think. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did that require the making of a study of the doc- 
trines of Marx and Lenin with regard to imperialism ? 

Mr. Herzig. It was supposed to have the basis in that kind of a 
study, but I merely read the article, I think, and tried to present my 
view on what the article meant and whether I agreed with it or not. 

I remember disagreeing with it. There was something in there 
about "inevitable capitalist expansion," or something like that, and 
I took issue with that. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2533 

I didn't think anything was inevitable. Some of the fellows sided 
with me and some opposed me. The controversy raged rather vio- 
lently. In fact, you might say they put the meeting on wheels and 
it adjourned. Thereafter I was asked to leave. 

Mr. Wood. Did you have any further assignment? 

Mr. Herzig. No, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. You say you were asked to leave. Do you mean 
you were asked to leave this particular meeting? 

Mr. Herzig. Well, it was evident that I was invited to leave the 
meeting, which I didn't do, and it w^as also evident thereafter that I 
was invited not to come again, which I didn't adhere to religiously 
because I had some views that I thought they might be interested in 
from time to time. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did those views accord with the general conception 
of the subject matter by the members of this group? 

Mr. Herzig. They agreed with some of them, and they didn't agree 
with others. A lot of the fellows felt as I did. A lot of the fellows 
thought they had a— well, "I am Sir Oracle; when I open my lips 
let no dog bark" attitude. 

There weren't many of those. I think they were all rather in- 
quiring, in a rather inquiring frame of mind, and some of them were 
interested in hearing argument. But I think it was what was de- 
scribed as "disruptive," considered disruptive. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you ever hear it described as being a deviation- 
ist movement ? 

Mr. Herzig. It was definitely that. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was deviation from the party line tolerated in that 
group ? 

Mr, Herzig. Unfortunately, it was not tolerated, and that was one 
of the criticisms that many of the fellows haci that after it was all 
said, that there was no room for difference of opinion. 

Let me qualify that. When I say no room for difference of opinion, 
I know some of the fellows held differences of opinion, but there was 
no room for expressed difference of opinion. 

Mr. Potter. It is something like when you train in the service. You 
are asked to make recommendations on certain tactical situations and 
they always have a school solution. It is all right to have opinions, 
but you must accept the school solution. 

Tiiat is very similar to your case, I suppose. 

Mr. Herzig. Tacit acceptance; yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. We have heard a great deal before this committee 
said about "democratic centralization." 

Mr. Herzig. "Democratic centralism" is the term I remember. 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes; what was your experience with democratic 
centralism ? 

Mr. Herzig. There didn't appear to be any, or I had misconstrued 
the term, I understood, when I went into the group, that there was 
here a group of — I hesitate to say — intellectual lawyers, who were in- 
terested in, and who had been in the past probably in college in 
philosophy and economics and politics, and who could exchange their 
views, as it were, in a congenial atmosphere of good fellowship, se- 
crecy, tolerance, but having in mind the study of Marxism at the 
same time, and that, as a result of their study, if they found out what 



2534 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

it was all about, they would then possibly take positions in accordance 
with their views and the views of the group. 

Now, when I say take positions, there weren't any positions taken, 
that I know of. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you mean in your meetings ? 

Mr. Herzig. In our meetings. 

As far as I know, they never got to that stage. We were rather 
taking, shall we say — we were attempting to arrive at concepts, shall 
we say, which would be useful in appraising the world situations and 
in appraising everything. 

Understand, Marxism is a science ; so that you can arrive at the same 
conclusion in Baltimore or Chicago or Moscow, or any place, at the 
same time, without any mental communication. 

Mr, Jackson. They do arrive at the same conclusions ; do they not ? 

Mr. Herzig. Apparently they do. 

There is a mystic nexus that escapes me in the j)rocess. 

Mr. Walter. I do not think "conclusion" is the proper term. 
It comes as a result of direction. 

Mr. Herzig. That is what I am beginning to find out. I only sus- 
pected it in the group. All I could sense was that there was not a 
free opinion freely arrived at. Rather, there was a predetermined 
opinion, it seemed to me. 

I cannot put my finger on it. It is like trying to pick up a piece of 
quicksilver. It just seemed that there should be final agreement, that 
the truth had been stated in the article which was read and that it 
would be finally arrived at. That is about it. 

I mean when you say it was given to us, I don't know. I just don't 
know how it happened. I talked to a lot of people to find out. 

Mr. Walter. Unlike in logic, where you build up a syllogism and 
then reach a conclusion after laying the premises, what happened 
here was that the conclusion was stated and then justification for that 
conclusion is what you talked about. 

Mr. Herzig. Yes. I think that that would probably be true of al- 
most any discussion we had in the debating societies. You would 
read an article. The only trouble is that the conclusion was supposed 
to be arrived at. That is something I could not accept myself. 

Mr. Tavenner. Can you give us an illustration or recall an incident 
in which the conclusion was brought before you and placed before 
you when there was actually a disagreement as to the matter? 

Mr. Herzig. There is one that I have obviously clearest in mind. 
It is this argument we had over imperialism, as I remember. It ended 
in disagreement, but anybody who was supposed to be intelligent 
enough to understand the proposition was presumed to have arrived 
at the conclusion, whether they said so, or not, and pass on to the next 
subject. 

Mr. Tavenner. I wish you would tell us more about that situation. 
Who were the parties that took a leading part in that discussion? 

Mr. Herzig. Personalities are a kind of distasteful thing, and I am 
candid to say that I had personal clashes as well as ideological clashes, 
and that it was a combination of the two that caused the sparks to fly. 

It might have happened with either factor alone, but it happened 
with a combination. 

I remember I called upon various people that I thought would be 
congenial to my view of what I had read, and people would try to 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2535 

break in and set forth their view to sit them down. They would ac- 
cuse me of various and sundry things. Others would laugh. 

It was a regular knock-down-and-drag-out, as you have seen your- 
self many times, that is about all. The voices became faster and 
louder, and I was practically ousted from the chairmanship. 

Mr. Potter. Who was the big dissenter ? 

Mr. Herzig. There were quite a number, a lot of argument, a lot of 
conversation, and a lot of clash in personality. 

I might say this, that I don't remember when it was, but it may have 
been after the — No, I can't remember. I was trying to place it in 
time, but I can't. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you recall any occasion on which you were ad- 
dressed by a functionary of the Communist Party of the higher level, 
in which you were impressed with the same principle that was spoken 
of? 

Mr. Herzig. Just once. There was a rather nice looking girl came 
to the meeting at one time, who seemed quite intelligent and who 
explained that. I don't remember how much she explained or how 
much had gone before, but she was there to answer questions, as I 
gathered it, to correct — Now, this is just my impression — to correct 
the erroneous philosophy which had originated with one Browder 
and which believed that capitalism and communism could coexist; 
that there could be complete freedom in a Communist state. 

And they handed us the Communist Constitution as one of the 
things to read, and I may say that it is a model document. Very little 
distinguishes it from the American Constitution except for the de- 
emphasis on property rights and a greater emphasis on the rights of 
person. 

All these things had been thrown at us in the past; this was the 
idealistic society that we had been seeking. 

And I felt that she w^as an intruder. I mean. What does this person, 
who has not participated in the discussion of this group and camiot 
have known what conclusions we arrived at, presume to tell us what 
to think or answer questions for us ? 

Did we have questions? Yes, we had questions. We had lots of 
questions. 

And the party went on wheels for a while there from that period 
forward. That was the period when I gathered that this was not a 
democratic little club, somebody must be pulling strings somewhere, 
and a lot of fellows resented it. 

Mr. Tavenner. Who was the person who was sent to your group 
meeting ? 

Mr. Herzig. I didn't know who she was at that time. It was the 
first time I saw her. I understood later that she was Dorothy Healy. 
_Mr. Tavenner. A functionary of the Communist Party on a much 
higher level? 

Mr. Herzig. That is what I heard. I don't know what kind of a 
level she was on. 

Mr. Tavenner. What part did Ben Margolis play in the meetings 
which you attended? 

Mr. Herzig. Well, he was just a smart fellow in the group. I 
thought he was, I guess he was, by general consensus and concession 
and hj power of expression, considered the smartest in the group and 
possibly most "hep to the jive." 



2536 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. Tavenner. Was lie present at all the meetings that you 
attended ? 

Mr. Herzig. I wouldn't say all. I don't know. He was present at 
a number of them. 

Mr. Tavenner. Who acted as chairman of most of the meetings 
that you attended ? 

Mr. Herzig. I think it rotated quite a bit. I think it was an inten- 
tion to rotate it, because this was a democratic group, you understand. 
Everyone had an equal opportunity to be president. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you purposely limiting the opportunity to that 
of being president ? 

Mr. Herzig. When I say "president," I guess I mean chairman. 

I don't know what we called these others, except some people tried 
to call each other comrade, which is something that struck in a lot 
of people's craws ; they thought we were at an Anierican Legion meet- 
ing or something. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you pay dues? 

Mr. Herzig. I think I paid dues ; yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you recall to whom you paid them ? 

Mr. Herzig. No, I don't. Dave says I paid them to him. I must 
have paid them to liim, I guess ; but I don't recall. I remember we 
paid them to somebody. 

Mr. Tavenner. How were your dues arrived at? That is, the 
amount ? 

Mr. Herzig. I think Dave is right. I didn't recall, but I remember 
something about having been based upon income. We were supposed 
to believe this was the "magnum opus summa cum laude" that we were 
in now and we had to give for our ideals as much as we could afford, 
basd upon our income, which we were happy to do on the assmnption 
that it was what we thought it was — speaking for myself, and some 
of the fellows. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you also a member of the National Lawyers' 
Guild? 

Mr. Herzig. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you recall any occasions when this Communist 
Party group of which you were a member sought to use its influence 
in the conduct of the normal business of the guild ? 

Mr. Herzig. I think it was apparent that the group was lawyers 
and that the group of people, as lawyers who were most liberal in 
their views, as a policy, was the Lawyers' Guild. 

There was talk, as I remember, from time to time, of participating 
in the group. Nobody was given orders. If they had given orders, 
I think, in that group, there wouldn't have been a group. They had 
to give the appearance of democracy. 

So we discussed whether we should have the group pass this or 
that resolution, or something; started to discuss that. I admit it 
was rather tough sledding in the group, because a lot of fellows 
don't go for this business of a preliminary caucus to arrive at some- 
thing that you cram down the other fellow's neck. 

So this group, as I recall, did not undertake to establish guild 
policy as such. The fellows were supposed to participate, if they 
could, were supposed to become active in the guild. 

I remember Dave mentioned this morning — and it was news to me 
this morning — that there were, in fact, meetings — in other words, 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2537 

meetings within the meetings, secrets from the group itself, which 
may have determined guild policy. 

If it does, I thoroughly resent it now, and I thoroughly resented it 
then. But I don't know anything about that. I wasn't invited to 
participate in any of those kind of undertakings, in view of our obvious 
attitude. I am sure some of the other fellows in the group weren't, 
either. 

Mr. Wood. At that point, Mr. Counsel, may I ask a question ? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Wood. Did you join the guild after you became a member of the 
Communist Party, Mr. Herzig ? 

Mr. Herzig. I think I joined the guild first, is my best recollection. 

Mr. Wood. Before you left San Francisco ? 

Mr. Herzig. Yes. I believe I did join in San Francisco. 

I can go further, if you wish. 

I and a lot of fellows with me used to belong to various debating 
clubs at the university, and we used to talk about politics and econom- 
ics, and we thought many times of putting our principles into prac- 
tice. And it was quite natural that when we got into the law we looked 
for a group that would express a liberal point of view, which I may 
say to you gentlemen, I still possess, and I may say that a lot of people 
possess it in the group that maybe are now in it, or maybe are out. 

But there is a strong liberal sentiment there. 

By "liberal" I mean democratic sentiments, sentiment for improved 
democracy, for increasing the standards of living of the population of 
this country ; of trying to obtain and maintain peace, to help people 
who are without means for legal advice, and things that are recognized 
as quite proper in any society. 

We took something of a motto that, I think, Blackstone said it, 
that we wanted a maximum of liberty and we wanted to be curtailed 
in our liberty only to the extent that, as he said, as part of the con- 
sideration for living in a civilized society, man must give up a portion 
of his natural liberties. 

Well, we were willing to have some liberties given up, but not all, 
and only to the extent that it was clearly pointed out that those liber- 
ties would have to be abridged in consideration of a goal which is to 
be achieved by their abridgment, which is worth the candle. 

Now, in the search for a group to join, I went to technocracy. I 
still remember, unhappily, that I sent 35 cents through the mails to get 
a book on technocracy, and still have not received it. 

I attended some meetings on a street in Civic Center in San Fran- 
cisco for about a year or two trying to find out what Scott was talking 
about. 

Scott was the head of this technocratic group. And after that pe- 
riod of time, I began to express myself in meetings that I thought his 
concept of one human having "peck" rights on another human was 
slightly cockeyed — because chickens have "peck" rights on other 
chickens or something — and that certain members of the human race 
or geographical areas were not indigenous to the North American Con- 
tinent where this millenium was to take place, and then a statement in 
his book that democracy was a sham or a nonsense, or something like 
that. 

Well, they kicked me out there, too. I remember one girl saying "I 
think this fellow is deliberately coming into this group to destroy it, 
and I think he should be excluded." 



2538 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS '' 

I was excluded. 

And so, in the course of that search from there, I think maybe at that 
time I was in the guild. And thereafter I was snooping around for 
other organizations that seemed to be more active in their participation 
and more philosophical in their approach, with a basis in the oneness 
of the whole, or whatever is back of philosophy. 

And I talked to a lot of people who mentioned the Communist Party 
at that time, which was engaged in the war effort, stood for a "united 
front." 

I remember Churchill referred to our valiant Russian allies ; Roose- 
velt talked about ''Uncle Joe," and it seemed like a likely thing to do. 

So I wandered into the party in trying to find the answers to some 
of my questions there. 

And, as I pointed out to you, in the course of learning what the 
party was, I learned that was not the answer to my questions by a 
long way. 

Mr. Tavenner. As a result of your experience in the party, which 
you have described to us, what did you do about it ? 

Mr. Herzig. What did I do in the party ? 

Mr. Tavenner. No, I meant to say after you arrived at the con- 
clusion which 

Mr. Herzig. I never arrived at the conclusion ; I am still looking 
for it. 

Mr. Tavenner. I mean your conclusion that it was not the answer 
to your questions. What did you do about it ? 

Mr. Herzig. Well, I left. 

Mr. Tavenner. Tell us the exact circumstances under which you 
left. 

Mr. Herzig. I think I mentioned them to you, that we had a 
battle, which was just one of many battles. I mean this battle had 
more venom in it than the other battles, because I think I was in a 
position to give forth venom because I was nominal chairman — 
"nominal" chairman. 

Mr. Tavenner. What do you mean by nominal chairman ? 

Mr. Herzig. I mean permissive chairman. You know what I mean. 

Mr. Tavenner. I think I do. 

Mr. Herzig. I mean I was supposed to be chairman, and maybe I 
was and maybe I wasn't. Wlien it ended up, I wasn't. 

Mr. Tavenner. When you use the word "permissive," that con- 
templates that there was someone whose consent was necessary for 
you to occupy that position. 

Mr. Herzig. If I had been able to put my finger on anybody who had 
to give consent, I would have left the group much sooner and with 
much greater heat. It was something intangible. I felt that there 
was something sub rosa here, as many of the fellows I talked to felt. 
I mean Dave Aaron ; I talked to him afterward at many meetings. He 
used to express discontent with many of the things that were said. 

I remember talking to Marburg, who, when you hear him, was noth- 
ing more than a philosopher. I don't think he has ever been a 
Communist. He went there to look and find out the difference be- 
tween natural law and ecclesiastical law and the law of — he's got words 
for it. 



COMMUNISM EST LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2539 

Then, to come back to an answer to your question after this digres- 
sion : I didn't know of anybody there that I have to ask permission to 
do anything, and if I had, I certainly shouldn't have asked permission. 

It was just a feeling, "Somebody seems to have already arrived at 
the conclusion here," you see. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did anyone solicit your return to the party? 

Mr. Herzig. Definitely not. 

Mr. Tavenner. Have you ever had any connection with the Com- 
munist Party or any affiliation with it, of any kind, since? 

Mr. Herzig. No, I have not, to my knowledge. 

Now, when you say since, I don't mean to imply that I cut off on 
that last-mentioned debacle all relationship with the people involved 
or with the meetings. I wandered into several more. I had many 
arguments with people there and with others about it, and I would 
say I began to feel that something was necessary in the way of dis- 
tinguishing between the real and the unreal — if you wish — which I 
felt many of these fellows were suffering under, and having been 
given nothing but just propaganda they read, they couldn't see the 
other side of the debate and many of them were quite bluntly con- 
fused. 

And when a Communist speaks of somebody being confused, he is 
not kidding, by way of criticism; that is just what happens. 

Mr. Tavenner. You have spoken of dialectical materialism. Who 
was it that expounded on that subject to your group ? 

Mr. Herzig. I don't remember. 

Now, when you say who, everybody took a turn at it, took a shot 
at it. All I remember is a book. There was a book, a David some- 
body, a textbook about dialectical materialism which distinguished 
realism from dialectical materialism and surrealism and Berkeleian 
philosophy of the nature of God and the notion that the world existed 
in the mind of God. 

They tried to distinguish all that from dialectical materialism. 

Of course, I got quite confused. We expounded that subject in 
the class. Everybody got confused. Charlie made a speech once in 
which he seemed to be talking about it, but he had some marvelously 
long words and well-turned phrases, and nobody understood what 
he was talking about after he got through, I don't think. 

Mr. Tavenner. Charlie who ? 

Mr. Herzig. Charlie Katz. 

I am not going to sit here and swear that Charlie spoke on dialec- 
tical materialism that night. I don't know what he was talking about, 
and I don't understand what he was talking about, and I hope Charlie 
didn't. 

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

(Representative Charles E. Potter left the hearing room at this 
point.) 

Mr. Wood. Mr. Walter. 

Mr. Walter. Did anybody at any of these meetings discuss the 
possibility of resorting to force and violence in order to bring about 
their ideas ? 

Mr. Herzig. I would like to explain that, if I may. 

Mr. Walter. Yes. 



2540 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. Herzig. If they had, I don't know who would have been in 
that group, of this group of lawyers. I couldn't put my finger on 
any one person in that group that ever expounded force and violence. 
I don't think that anybody who believed in it would have dared men- 
tion it in the group. 

We talked about — at that time the theory was that there wasn't force 
and violence, that the capitalistic states and communistic could co- 
exist; they were allies in the war; there was perpetual peace; they 
gained by each other's experience; communism would run from cap- 
italism and capitalism from communism. 

Now, there was a concept of democracy; there was a concept of 
anything but force and violence, anything but. 

I remember raising the point, just as you do now, to the members 
of the group, in discussing what this is all about: "What is this 
business about the Communist Party advocating force and violence or 
revolution and dictatorship of the proletariat? Is that what they 
stand for?" 

And I was answered that they did not, definitely ; that that was an 
old, outmoded doctrine; it was found, as I recall, in Lenin's works; 
and it was something that the Russian revolution had in it ; but it was 
part of Marx's mistake in believing the Communist revolution had to 
come in a capitalist country that was highly developed, where here in 
Russia they had fallen on their face on that theory because Russia was 
highly developed as a state. 

So the theory was then that they were saying that a lot of these 
things that were said were wrong, "We don't stand for that any 
more." 

Browcler was somewhat of a scholarly fellow; and, while I didn't 
subscribe to his rigid adherence to the Russian party line, I couldn't 
say he had a pipeline there; I don't know whether he had or not. 

But putting two and two together, there seemed to be very close 
correspondence, like two edges of a torn piece of paper, between the 
party line and that. 

But it was specifically pointed out that there would be no such a 
concept. They said this : 

A possibility of a conflict would arise only in this situation : If, democratically 
speaking, the people decided that they wanted refomns which other people 
in the country were not willing to concede, even though it came through a 
democratic process, there might be a clash of arms over that issue. It might 
even be conceivable that the people would vote, as they did in Britain, on so- 
cialism, and that it would come in and that, instead of giving way, the Tories 
would have to put up a battle, and if that were the case there would be a clash 
of anns. 

But that is all I recall about it. There was no one in the group 
who ever expounded a theory like that, and that is one of the reasons 
why, until I found out what kind of a sensible committee you have — 
I thought it was sensible, if you don't mind my saying so. It wasn't 
screaming at the people and calling them names, at which kind of a 
hearing I certainly would not be sitting here and testifying. 

I decided it was all right to talk about it. 

Mr. Walter. Do you know whether or not the same line that was 
sold to less intelligent people than that group you are talking about? 

Mr. Herzig. I don't think this group had a particularly high I. Q. 

Mr. Walter. Well, I will concede that. Let us put it on the basis 
of education. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2541 

Mr. Herzig. It probably was. I would assume it was. 

Mr. Walter. The same line? 

Mr. Herzig. Yes. I thought that the Communist Party had there- 
tofore been working with people who worked with their hands, who 
were sort of under the heel of the problem of existence and trying to 
raise themselves, working hard, whereas the intellectuals, I under- 
stood, were just called into the party in this time to educate them, to 
give them an appreciation of the problems that were involved. 

And I assumed that that type of an education of the middle-class 
or average individual would have been sold the same way to everyone. 

Mr. Walter. It is hard for me to understand how people who have 
gone beyond the fourth grade in school could remain members of an 
organization which has as its purpose the overthrow by force of this 
Government. 

Mr. Herzig. Let me say, in answer to that, I agree with you and I 
think many of the fellows — I am not speaking for all of them, but I 
think many of the fellows would agree with you if that was the overt 
purpose. Yet, mind you this : Here we are sitting as individuals and 
perhaps we have known each other for a long time. We are in a group 
now, just like this. 

I say, "I don't agree with you, Mr. Walter, exactly, but if you really 
believe what you say, if you really think that, I will certainly give 
it every consideration." 

And if you say to me that you don't believe in force and violence and 
that you are not buying that line of force and violence, I will go 
along with it. 

In other words, I think Lincoln put his finger on it when he said : 

I will stand by any man that stands right. I will stand with him while he is 
right, and I will part with him when he goes wrong. 

It takes a long time to understand people. It has been said, "The 
Devil knoweth not the mind of man." 

What was in that group took time to come out. What was in the 
party was a very complex thing. I don't know what it is all about, 
and I am sure I would say that the majority of the fellows in the 
group didn't know what it was all about. 

And, if this committee does anything, it will shock many of the 
fellows who were both in and who were out to find out these things 
that have been coming out in this meeting. 

The things that Max Silver has told me privately, he said, "You 
are a baby." He said, "You thought the Communist Party was demo- 
cratic." He said, "The Communist Party works like this [indicating] ." 

That explains the whole thing in a nutshell. The whole thing he 
told me astounded me. It will astound many other people in the 
group. 

Mr. Walter. You are thoroughly convinced now, are you not, that 
the activities of all of these cells in the United States and all over the 
world receive direct communication from the Kremlin ? 

Mr. Herzig. I would say that the evidence certainly points that way. 

I mean they take a lousy position on the atomic energy thing; they 
are taking a lousy position on the U. N. They are taking a wrong posi- 
tion when they talk about this democratic centralism which apparently 
means dictatorship from the top. They are taking wrong positions all 
the way down the line. 



2542 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

And if the party line stands for that, I say the party line is all wet, 
and I think it is all wet because we are moving into a war situation, or 
potential war situation, which I hope never becomes one. 

Mr. Walter. We are pretty close to it. 

Mr. Herzig. That is right. 

Mr. Wood. Mr. Doyle. 

Mr. Doyle. Mr. Herzig, when you used the term "dialectical mate- 
rialism," did you use it in the sense, as I understand it, from my 
meager personal knowledge, as the Communist term or phrase for 
their theory of a social change ? 

Mr. Herzig. Yes, I think so. 

Mr. Doyle. Is that the sense in which you use it? 

Mr. Herzig. Yes, I think so. This is my understanding of it: I 
think it refers to the fact that, I think, economic factors are the 
predominant force in history rather than political or other things. 

Of course, I will say this : That the Communist Party in Russia is 
belying their own conception that it is controlled by economics if they 
are trying, as they apparently are now, to dominate the world. That 
is political ; that is not economic, as far as I can understand it. 

Mr. Doyle. I was starting to say that one reason why I asked that 
question as my first question is that I noticed, in answer to our coun- 
sel's question, you volunteered, I think, in a way, your observation on 
Charlie Katz, that you were not testifying that he spoke on the subject 
of dialectical materialism. That leads me to ask you if you remember, 
in whole or part, the substance of whatever Charlie did talk to you 
about when he came into your meeting in a sort of a prima donna 
capacity. 

Mr. Herzig. Well, I shouldn't have said prima donna. I guess it has 
that flavor, but if you have heard Charlie you will know what I mean. 
He uses sentences, long words, very involved expressions. They are 
very beautiful to listen to, but I don't always follow them. And I can't 
say what he was talking about. I assume it was the dialectical mate- 
rialism. 

Mr. Doyle. You also said that he was supposed to have been invited 
to come to speak. 

Mr. Herzig. I supposed he was, yes, because he was speaking and 
he had not been to a lot of meetings before that. 

Mr. Doyle. Did I understand that he was a member of the group ? 

Mr. Herzig. I understood he was, but, as I say, his visits were very 
infrequent. 

(Kepresentative Donald L. Jackson left the hearing room at this 
point.) 

Mr. Doyle. I was interested in your observation that you came to 
the conclusion that there was some force or some way in which the 
destiny of the thinking of your lawyers was being shaped. I mean 
your discretion was being shaped without you folks controlling it. 

Mr. Herzig. That was my feeling. 

Mr, Doyle, Where could that force come from ? 

Mr. Herzig. I assume it came directly from party officials who 
knew what they were doing, I assume. 

Judging from the discussions I had with Max, it was just part of 
the program of using people who were congenial to views that you 
pretend you are also congenial to, and for which you can get a lot 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2543 

of support from a lot of thinking, thoughtful, and well-meaning 
people. 

(Representative Bernard W. Kearney left the hearing room at 
this point.) 

Mr. Doyle. In that particular group of lawyers that you remem- 
ber, did you come to any conclusion as to the one, two, three, and 
four members thereof who were definitely preshaping the finality of 
your discussions? 

Mr. Herzig. Well, it was done very well, I would say, if it was 
done deliberately. I don't know whether I could put a finger on any- 
body or not on that. I assume that my inference would merely be an 
inference, and I think you gentlemen can draw the same inferences 
that I can on that. 

Mr. Doyle. I know you were present all throughout this day in 
the hours that we were questioning Mr. Aaron. 

Mr. Herzig. I was here. 

Mr. Doyle. I laiow you heard all that testimony. I assume, there- 
fore, that you heard me ask him whether or not this lawyers' group, 
of which you were a member, undertook in any way to influence the 
election or defeat of any officers of the Los Angeles Bar Association, 
directly or indirectly. Did that come into the meetings in any way? 

Mr. Herzig. I don't recall it. 

Mr. Doyle. Or the election or defeat of any officers of the Los 
Angeles Lawyers' Guild ? 

Mr. Herzig. Only in the sense that we have already discussed it, as 
Mr. Aaron has pointed out, of which I was not too well aware before. 

Mr. Doyle. 1 know you heard it. 

My final question is with reference to Public Law 601, which was 
my final question to Mr. Aaron. 

Mr. Herzig. What is that ? 

Mr. Doyle. That is the statute under which this committee func- 
tions. Have you any suggestion or, I may say, counsel to this com- 
mittee as to any way in which you believe the Federal statute should 
be changed, modified, repealed, or that it can in any way be improved, 
or any new legislation which should be enacted by Congress in this 
field of communistic conspiracy ? 

Mr. Herzig. Doesn't the law now read that force and violence is 
improper, or something? 

Mr. Doyle. No; not in the statute under which we operate. I 
will read you the one paragraph : 

The Committee on Un-American Activities, as a whole or by subcommittee, 
is authorized to make, from time to time, investigations to the extent, char- 
acter, and objects of un-American propaganda activities in the United States, 
the diffusion within the United States of subversive and un-American pro- 
paganda that is instigated from foreign countries or of domestic origin and 
attaclcs the principles of the form of government as guaranteed by our Con- 
stitution, and all other questions in relation thereto that would aid Congress 
in any necessary remedial legislation. 

That is the substance. 

Mr. Herzig. I should certainly think there would be something, 
and I think there is something on force and violence in the statutes 
already and I think there is something about registering as a foreign 
agent. 

Mr. Doyle. That is right. 



2544 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. Herzig. Those are the two things, I think, apart from free 
speech ; a part of which I agree with and part of which I don't, but, 
nevertheless, which I think should prevail. 

I think the maximum of freedom within the confines of the democ- 
racy to contain it, to stand it, with a reasonable margin of error, 
of safety, should be given, because I think when the truth comes 
out, this type of thing happens, just what is happening here, a lot 
of people are educated. 

(Representative Donald L. Jackson returned to the hearing room 
at this point.) 

Mr. Doyle. May I ask you this: You heard me ask Mr. Aaron 
the same question, substantially. I know you heard me identify 
myself as a member of the California bar, the same as you are, and 
the same as he is. Are you sensitive, in your meeting with this com- 
mittee today, of any sense of unfair or unjust treatment at the 
hands of the committee? 

Mr. Herzig. I think the committee's attitude and approach has 
been eminently fair. 

I did suffer at first from the thought of exposing, by naming, a 
lot of people who I felt had been just as much unaware of some of 
the implications, as they have turned out, of that group, as I was, 
and who have gone their way, as Dave Aaron has, made a place for 
themselves in our society and trying to be a good citizen. 

I felt it was too bad that they had to be named. 

And, of course, it is a matter of judgment whether that type of 
thing is necessary, in view of the problem that is presented. 

And that is certainly a valued judgment, which, if somebody ar- 
rives at fairly and candidly, I would not quarrel with it. 

Mr. Doyle. Do you consider it a fair question, have you felt that 
it was fair and just, as far as you are concerned, that you cooperate 
with the committee ? 

Mr. Herzig. For my own part, I have nothing to hide and don't 
desire to hide anything, and am relieved once again to be able to 
express myself. 

Mr. Doyle. I am sure of that, and, as a member of the committee, 
I thank you for so doing. 

Mr. Wood. Mr. Jackson. 

Mr. Jackson. Mr. Herzig, I am sorry that I was not here for the 
whole of your testimony. Perhaps this question has been answered, 
but who was generally considered to be the "Grand Pooh Bah" of your 
group in matters of final settlement of disagreements or of having the 
last word ? 

The moving picture industry had its John Howard Lawson, who 
rationalized and gave the final answer. 

Mr. Herzig. Ben Margolis knew an awful lot about it, as I men- 
tioned before. Others probably thought they knew a lot about it, and 
did a lot of rattling, but nobody paid much attention to them. 

I would say Ben was the acknowledged leader of the group in the 
sense that he was the smartest, from that standpoint, and the most 
experienced. 

But I wouldn't say that he was the dictator of the group. I don't 
think the group, as I mentioned before, would have tolerated a dicta- 
tor as such if he appeared as a dictator. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2545 

Mr. Jackson. Do you believe, in light of your experience in the 
party, and since you have left the party, that the average Communist, 
the active member of the Communist Party, owes an allegiance, 
through an allegiance to the philosophy, to the Soviet Union ? 

Mr. Herzig. Do they owe allegiance to the Soviet Union over the 
United States? 
Mr. Jackson. Yes. 

Mr. Herzig. I don't know whether they do, or not, but I sure don't, 
and I know Dave doesn't, who spoke to you here. 
And I know some of the others don't. 
As between the two countries ? Ridiculous. 

Mr. Jackson. I am not speaking of one who left the party. I am 
speaking of one who is in the party. 

Mr. Herzig. If the fellows who are in the party know all the things 
that I have been learning since January 2, they won't be in the party 
very long. 

Mr. Jackson. I hope you are right. 

Mr. Herzig. I think I am. I say that sincerely. 

Mr. Jackson. I hope that more will show the courage that you 
have shown, and that others are sliowing. There has been a great deal 
said about informers. I think it is well to remember that, in order 
to inform, one must give information on something criminal in nature. 
That is to say, that no one ever informs on the Boy Scouts. 

I think it sometimes takes a great deal more courage to appear 
before a committee of this sort and to give testimony such as you have 
given, than it does to remain silent or intransigent or arrogant, as so 
many other witnesses have done. I think that sum total of the knowl- 
edge which the American people have today of the nature of the Com- 
munist conspiracy is due in large part to the courage of such individ- 
uals as Mr. Silver, yourself, and Mr. Aaron. 

Mr. Herzig. Well, Max knows an awful lot about it. 

Mr. Jackson. Each little bit adds something to the sum total of the 
knowledge of the American people. 

Would you say that, from the standpoint of the Communist Party, 
that the allegiance or the discipline which is expected from an attorney 
is any less than the strict adherence and the discipline that is ex- 
pected from, let us say, a day laborer ? 

Mr. Herzig. I wouldn't be able to answer that. 

As I said before, at the time I was in it, it looked like a type^of good 
red wine. But while the label on the bottle is the same, it has turned 
out to be vinegar. 

And I don't know who is drinking the vinegar and how they like it. 

As far as I personally am concerned, I just don't know the answer. 

Mr. Jackson. As one who has tried everything except Hadacol, your 
opinions are extremely valuable. 

And that is no advertisement. 

I have no further questions. 

Mr. Wood. Mr. Herzig, a moment ago you expressed an opinion that 
if those in the party at the present time had been informed of matters 
that you have learned since January 2  

Mr. Herzig. What was that, sir? 

Mr. Wood. I understood you to say a moment ago that members of 
the Communist Party at present who are informed of the things that 

95008— 52— pt. 1 8 



2546 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

you have learned since January 2, in your opinion, could no longer 
remain in the party and also be loyal to the United States. 

Mr. Herzig. I don't see how they could. 

Mr. Wood. Wliat is the significance of that date ? 

Mr. Herzig. January 2 is the day that Bill Wheeler called me on 
the phone. I have been out of this thing for years, and all of a sudden, 
out of a clear sky, when I was trying to practice my profession, at 
10 o'clock, on January 2, the first phone call of the new year was Bill 
Wlieeler announcing that he was an investigator for the Un-American 
Activities Committee, and could he come up to see me. I was, frankly, 
stunned at the evidence that he presented and what he knew about me. 

He told me where I joined, when I went in and when I went out, and 
that I had had a bad time in the party. And he told me about a couple 
of other people in the party who are having a domestic quarrel, and 
I thought, "They sure know an awful lot." 

And I may say I was stunned. And out of this political vacuum 
I have been in ever since leaving in disgust and disillusionment, I 
would say, this thing coming along made me wonder what it is all 
about, whether all the things I have been hearing are true, whether 
the group is still the way I remember it as a group. It had its defects, 
but not the ones that are mentioned now in view of what I understand 
is the "Foster line." And what Max told me was inaugurated by the 
Duclos letter, which I had heard for the first time also since January 
2, all these things are amazing to me, that there could have been a 
conspiracy among people I considered friends. 

Does that answer the question ? 

Mr. Wood. I believe it does. 

I was just wondering what the significance of that date was. 

Mr. Herzig. I have not slept very many nights since that date, nor 
had very many good working days since that date, I can assure you 
of that. 

Mr. Wood. I know it is not a pleasant task. But, after all, loyal 
Americans are engaged in a fight for world freedom and dignity of 
the individual. 

Mr. Herzig. I think that is paramount. 

Mr. Wood. And those of you, and us, can do no less than to give 
what we have in the accomplishment of that cause. 

You are to be congratulated that you went into it, and you have 
the thanks of this committee for your help. 

If there are no questions, Mr. Counsel, I will excuse him. 

Mr. Tavenner. We would like the witness to stay for an executive 
session. 

-Mr. Wood. I will ask you to remain, Mr. Herzig, for a few moments. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Chairman, we think we can conserve the time 
of the committee and the witnesses better by going on into executive 
session now. 

Mr. Wood. Very well, the subcommittee that has been set up previ- 
ously I will ask to take over now, and that subcommittee will go into 
executive session at this time. 

The full committee will meet at 10 : 30 in the morning. 

(Whereupon, at 3 : 40 p. m., the committee proceeded to executive 
session.) 



COMMUNIST ACTIVITIES AMONG PKOFESSIONAL GEOUPS 
IN THE LOS ANGELES AKEA— PAET 1 



THURSDAY, JANUARY 24, 1952 
United States House of Representatives, 

SURCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON Un-AmERICAN ACTIVITIES, 

Washington^ D. C. 

PUBLIC HEARING 

A subcommittee of the Committee on Un-American Activities met 
pursuant to adjournment, at 2 : 28 p. m., in room 226, Old House Office 
Building, Hon. John S. Wood (chairman) presiding. 

Committee members present : Representatives John S. Wood, Clyde 
Doyle, Bernard W. Kearney, Donald L. Jackson, and Charles E. 
Potter. 

Staff members present: Frank S. Tavenner, Jr., counsel; Thomas 
W. Beale, Sr., assistant counsel ; John W. Carrington, clerk ; Raphael 
1. Nixon, director of research; Courtney E. Owens and William A. 
Wheeler, investigators ; and A. S. Poore, editor. 

Mr. Wood. Let the committee be in order. 

For the purposes of the hearing this afternoon, acting under the 
authority and resolution establishing this committee, I, as chairman, 
set up the subcommittee composed of the following members : Messrs. 
Doyle, Kearney, Potter, and Wood, and they are all present. 

Who do you have for the first witness, Mr. Counsel ? 

(Whereupon William Pomerance was called and sworn in. Since 
his testimony does not refer to the legal profession, it will be found in 
another volume.) ^ 

Mr. Tavenner. Our next witness is Mr. Yerkes. 

Mr. Wood. Mr. Yerkes, will you hold up your right hand and be 
sworn? 

Do you solemnly swear that the evidence you will give this subcom- 
mittee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, 
so help you God ? 

Mr. Yerkes. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Wood. Have a seat, sir. 

TESTIMONY OF A. MARBURG YERKES, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS 

COUNSEL, MARTIN GANG^ 

Mr. Tavenner. What is your full name, please, sir? 
Mr. Yerkes. My full name is A. Marburg, M-a-r-b-u-r-g, Yerkes, 
Y-e-r-k-e-s. 



1 Communist Infiltration of Hollywood Motion-Picture Industry — Part 7. 

2 Martin Gang, while not seated by his client, A. Marburg Yerkes, at witness table, was 
present in the room. 

2547 



2548 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you represented by counsel ? 

Mr. Yerkes. Yes, sir, I am represented by Mr. Martin Gang of the 
Los Angeles bar. 

Mr. Tavenner. I notice that he is not sitting by you, and I want 
to take this opportunity to say that if you have occasion to consult 
your counsel you are perfectly at liberty to do it in the course of the 
hearing. 

When and where were you born, Mr. Yerkes ? 

Mr. Yerkes. I was born in New York City, N. Y., in June of 1912. 

Mr. Wood. Mr. Yerkes, before we proceed further, may I call your 
attention to the fact that the acoustics of this building do not lend 
themselves to very good hearing. 

Please raise your voice. 

Mr. Yerkes. I will. 

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

Mr. Yerkes. I attended and graduated from the Collegiate School 
for Boys, a private preparatory school in the city of New York. I 
have a bachelor of arts from Washburn College, and a bachelor of laws 
from Washburn College, and a master of laws from Stanford Uni- 
versity. 

I was baptized in the Protestant Episcopal Church and have long 
been a member of it. 

I am a member of the American Bar Association and the Los Angeles 
Bar Association. 

Mr. Tavenner. You are a practicing lawyer ? 

Mr. Yerkes. I am practicing law in the city of Los Angeles. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Yerkes, the committee is interested in obtaining 
information concerning the Communist infiltration of various pro- 
fessions, and the effect, if any, that the Communist philosophies have 
had on these professions. 

In this connection the committee has made an investigation of Com- 
munist activities in California, particularly in the legal profession. 
During the course of the investigation the committee received infor- 
mation that you were at one time a member of a group or cell of the 
Communist Party organized exclusively within the legal profession. 
Is that correct ? 

Mr. Yerkes. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Wlien did you become a member of the Commu- 
nist Party? 

Mr. Yerkes. That is a little hard to place the date, but I would 
say the early part of 1946. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long did you remain in the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Yerkes. Again the date is a little hard to recall, but I would 
say in the winter of 1948-49, somewhere in that range, and my depar- 
ture was of no particular ceremonial significance, so I cannot place 
it in my own mind. 

Mr. Ta\^nner. Have you made a full and complete withdrawal 
from the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Yerkes. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Before entering into a discussion of your partici- 
pation in Communist Party affairs, the committee is interested in 
learning what led you to your affiliation with the Communist Party. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2549 

Mr. Yerkes, In the first instance, I had long been a member of the 
American Bar Association, and I had previously joined the Los 
Angeles Bar Association, and over a period of 1943, 1944, and 1945 
I became increasingly interested in the field of civil liberties and 
human rights. And that concern for those high ideals that I pos- 
sessed led me to join the National Lawyers' Guild. 

I joined that organization. I cannot recall the date, but I would say 
in the winter of 1945-46. That would be on record in the files. 

Mr. Tavenner. How soon after you joined the Lawyers' Guild was 
it that you became a member of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Yerkes. I cannot recall the date, but perhaps if I related the 
circumstances, that would describe it more accurately. 

I had been aware of the significance, or the then seeming signifi- 
cance, with me of the National Lawyers' Guild in a courageous fight 
for human liberties. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you raise your voice a little bit? 

Mr. Yerkes. And in the fight for human rights. I felt that I 
could best further achieve this by looking for an association in the 
practice of law in a more controversial law practice. I had previously 
been associated with a very conservative law firm in southern Cali- 
fornia, exclusively in commercial practice. 

This led me to join the guild and a second association with a firm 
that had relationships with trade-unions and civil liberties cases. In 
that connection, after I had shortly joined the guild, I was asked to 
make a report or study and report of a meeting held by, or under the 
auspices of Gerald L. K. Smith in Los Angeles. And when I was 
asked by one of the officers of the guild, whose name I cannot recall, 
to make such a report, I did make a study of the facts including police 
arrests that took place at the time. 

When I concluded my report and delivered it to the meeting of the 
Los Angeles chapter of the guild, it was well received, and at that 
point I was approached by Mr. Ben Margolis, who asked me if I would 
like a job with his firm, Katz, Gallagher & Margolis. 

Mr. Tavenner. Prior to that time, had you met Mr. Ben Margolis ? 

Mr. Yerkes. I had never met him prior to that time. That is, I 
shouldn't say I never had, at least I wasn't aware of the fact that I 
had met him at other guild meetings. I may have, but I doubt it very 
much. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you attribute the favorable action that you 
received from Mr. Margolis to the article which you had prepared and 
delivered at this guild meeting? 

Mr. Yerkes. Well, there was no doubt in my mind that he liked 
what I had said and he liked the report. And I recall that he rose in 
the back of the guild meeting and came right up to me and was very 
friendly and asked me if I would like to work for his firm. 

I don't know whether it was at that guild meeting that we discussed 
terms and conditions, but immediately thereafter, Mr. Margolis offered 
to double my compensation which I was receiving with this other firm, 
and he offered to, he assured me, that I would have no concern or in- 
volvement with the trade-union matters, with which I had had no 
experience. In effect, it was represented to me, and in fact it was 
that I was going to take care of the commercial and business practice. 

There was a good bit of it in connection with many clients that they 
had. Since they were, so far as I can best recall — I know that this 



2550 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

was represented to me — at that time regional counsel for the CIO I had 
every reason to believe I would see a vital and stimulating law prac- 
tice that I could enjoy, and which would better fulfill my desire to 
carry on the high ideals that I had in mind. 

Shortly after I had come into the firm — parenthetically, I may say 
that I had heard of Mr. Margolis in connection with the famous 
Sleepy Lagoon case. 

Mr. Wood. Wliat case was that ? 

Mr. Yerkes. The Sleepy Lagoon case. That is a very famous case, 
Judge, in which I think the trial court was reversed because of some 
problem that occurred procedurally. 

Mr. Wood. I am familiar with it. 

Mr. Yerkes. And at that time was when Mr. Margolis was, I un- 
derstand, in a defense committee. I don't know the details of it. I 
had heard of it. I knew he was interested in these cases. 

Shortly after I had gone to work for the firm, I cannot recall 
(Whether it was a day or 3 days — it is hard to appraise it now in 
retrospect — Mr. Margolis stated that the firm represented the Com- 
munist Party, and asked me if I had any objection to this. I don't 
know whether he pointed out, I cannot recall now whether he pointed 
out that Mr. Wendell Willkie had represented a Commmiist, or 
whether someone else pointed this out, but that representation or that 
statement occurred; and I replied that this didn't disturb me. It 
did not disturb me because I had long felt that everyone is entitled to 
representation in the courts and while I was — my -curiosity was 
aroused, it wasn't of such a character as to make me terminate my 
association at that time. I had already met the men in the firm, and 
they were a] 1 very fine chaps, as far as I could see, and I still feel they 
are. I had not read or heard very much of communism prior to this 
association, except what one reads in the newspapers. 

I don't know whether that answers the question, counsel. 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes. How long was it after your association in 
the practice of law with Mr, Margolis before you were approached 
on the subject of communism in the sense of uniting or joining with 
the others in the promotion of the work of the party? 

Mr. Yerkes. Well, at a later date, after coming to work for the 
firm — I tried to remember how soon, my best appraisal now would 
be about a month or 2 months after having been with the firm — the 
first approach or the first mention of the Communist Party other than 
that of a client was by Mr. Victor Kaplan. 

Mr. Kaplan asked me if I would like to know more about the Com- 
munist Party. At that point I wasn't too much interested in knowing 
more about it, because I was involved in handling a new variety of 
litigation with which I was not too familiar. 

And also all of my associates were new there. This led me to feel 
a little unsure of myself. And I was writing a brief, as I recall, on 
restrictive-covenant cases then pending before the California Supreme 
Court. Mr. Margolis' office represented some Negro defendants in an 
injunction proceeding and there were other Negro defendants who 
had other counsel, and my brief was of the amicus curiae variety. 

After Mr. Kaplan had mentioned this to me, perhaps a week, that is 
my best recollection, thereafter, Mr. Margolis asked me whether I 
would like to attend the meeting of lawyers to discuss legal matters at 
the home of one of the other partnei^ of the firm, Mr. John McTernan. 



COMACUNISM EST LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2551 

Mr.TA\'ENNER. Will you spell the name McTernan ? 

Mr. Yerkes. John M-c-T-e-r-n-a-n. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was Mr. Victor Kaplan also a member of the legal 
profession ? 

Mr. Yerkes. Yes, oh, yes; IVIr. Kaplan was a member of the bar, 
and so was ]Mr. McTernan. and Mr. Margolis as well. 

Mr. Margolis, as I recall, was seriously interested in my attending, 
and to my best recollection, he suggested I bring along my wife, 
Martha Yerkes. 

Mr. Tavenner. Let me interrupt you at that point. You mentioned 
the name of your wife. What is your wife's first name? 

Mr. Yerkes. Martha. 

Mr. Tavenner. Normally I do not question a witness regarding an 
alleged participation by his wife in party meetings. I have proceeded 
usually on the theory that if their participation was of any importance 
we could prove it by someone other than the husband. But since you 
have mentioned your wife, you are at liberty, of course, without my 
questioning you, to explain her activities in the party if you desire. 
But I am not going to ask you any questions about her. 

Mr. Yerkes. May I say this. Counsel, both on behalf of myself and 
wife : I consider it a duty as a citizen to appear before this committee, 
and as a member of the legal profession to appear before this commit- 
tee, and my wife joins me in the sentiments, and I am most happy 
to do what I can in terms of relating her experiences. 1 do so in her 
behalf and with the full purpose of being of assistance to the com- 
mittee. 

Mr. Tavenner. Very well. You were telling us that Mr. Margolis 
asked you to bring your wife with you to this meeting. Will you pro- 
ceed from there ? 

Mr. Yerkes. Well, we went to the meeting. I have no way of 
recalling how many people were there at the time. My guess would 
range from 15 to 20. Everyone there was a stranger with the exception 
of persons who had been members of the firm, or who had been asso- 
ciated with the firm that I had previously met in the firm. And, 
parenthetically, not all members of the firm were there, not all persons 
in the firm were there. Everyone there was represented to be a member 
of the bar. I cannot recall that it was referred to as a Communist 
Party meeting. I somehow doubt that it was. 

Mr. Tavenner. You mean you doubt that it was called or referred 
to as a meeting? 

Mr. Yerkes. That is right, I doubted if it was referred to as a 
Communist Party meeting. 

Mr. Wood. At that point may I interpose a question ? 

Is your wife a member of the bar? 

Mr. Yerkes. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was there any doubt at that time in your mind that 
it was a Communist Party meeting? 

Mr. Yerkes. Yes ; there was some doubt, Counsel. It had not been 
stated to me by Mr. Margolis that he had linked this up with Mr. 
Kaplan's question, so there was still some doubt. I was pretty new in 
the firm, mind you, and it occurred to me these might be lawyers just 
discussing lawyers' problems involving civil liberties. 

I was welcomed by all the persons there, and so was my wife. I 
have no recollection of anything that was said at the time, no present 



2552 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

recollection. The meeting was almost social in character, a matter of 
almost like a reception, in a sense, although it wasn't formal, it was 
informal. 

It was some weeks after that that another such meeting was had, 
I cannot recall the time, but it was anticipated that I would come, and 
it is hard to pin this down. I suppose that one might say that several 
persons had spoken to me about it in the interval before the next one, 
and I do not recall who, but thereafter meetings continued on an aver- 
age of once or twice a month during the year 1946. And sometime 
along that period of time, it was suggested that they would like to 
meet in my home, and I was most happy to have them as my guests. 
The discussions at that time were that of a typical debating society, it 
seemed to me, as I look back, concerned with legal issues and legal 
problems, civil liberties cases, with a good bit of discussion of socialism. 

The term "Communist Party" was often raised. I don't mean to 
infer that it wasn't. But the character of this meeting was a pretty 
leisurely one. There was not much sense of organization about it, as 
I recall. 

My attendance. Counsel, at these meetings, was stimulated by two 
considerations : One of these was Mr. Margolis' assumption that I 
would attend. I don't mean by that that I would have refused, be- 
cause I did want to go. But it is quite apparent that he wanted me 
to go. And the other thing that stimulated me in attendance was 
that all these people seemed sincerely concerned with high ideals — 
ideals that to me have been characteristically represented by the 
thought of the brotherhood of man, the further carrying on of the 
courageous fight of human beings to better the lot of society and mem- 
bers of society. 

I had a feeling that it is the duty of every citizen to explore and 
examine all of the ramificaions of society as we have it. And any 
group of people who did so interested me. 

This was not the only meeting I attended, by the way. I would 
attend meetings of various church groups, and I would attend meet- 
ings, of I think I attended a meeting of the Socialist Labor Party 
at one time, I don't recall where. 

These were no closed types of meetings, however, they were open 
meetings in some public place. And so I was interested in that sort 
of thing. 

And we discussed initial topics in the field of law and as I say, we 
touched upon socialism, and the trade-union movement was certainly 
a topic of conversation. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did a time arrive when you began to feel that these 
meetings were something more than a casual debating meeting which 
you first mentioned ? 

Mr. Yerkes. Yes, sir ; there came that time. This is my best recol- 
lection : Along about the tail end of the year 1946 there was a pro- 
posal raised — and I cannot recall who raised it — that a discussion 
course be given based upon a textbook entitled "Political Economy," 
by an author whose name I have not been able to recall until I re- 
freshed my recollection, Leontiev. It was proposed that this discus- 
sion group be had. It was a green cloth bound book, not too large. 
It was proposed that this discussion group be had, and that any other 
lawyer who wanted to learn about socialism and about political 
economy might be invited to attend, and I do not recall the method 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2553 

by which the decision was made that other lawyers, particular in- 
dividual lawyers were to be invited, but somehow half a dozen lawyers' 
names came up and they were invited. And that decision was not 
made in one evening, but over a period of several weeks. 

At that point it became quite apparent to me that this first group 
of people was a group which could fairly be appraised as being a 
Communist group. Of course, one could readily imagine this earlier, 
but it did not appear to me apparent from the evidence that this was 
so until that time. That is my recollection. 

Mr. Tavenner. You say other lawyers were invited to attend this 
course ? 

Mr. Yerkes. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did other lawyers come ? 

Mr. Yerkes. Yes, sir. At the moment I cannot recall who they were, 
except I believe Mr. David Aaron was one of those invited, the gentle- 
man who testified yesterday. And may I add parenthetically here, 
that so far as I can recall, no cards or any evidence of membership in 
this group or in the Communist Party were ever issued, to my knowl- 
edge. I have no recollection of any cards being issued. I have no 
recollection of ever having signed a card to join the Communist Party. 
It is always possible that I did so in that at that time I was doing the 
things which were done. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you pay dues? 

Mr. Yerkes. Oh, yes. Now, that brings up another point. 

In the early part of, or the middle of, 1946, collection of money was 
not an issue, and money that was collected was not dues in that sense 
of the term, as I recall it. The collection of money was apparently 
done elsewhere collaterally, not in the meeting. 

But later on in the year 1946, about the time that this discussion 
group took place, there was a formalization of this collection of 
money. Parenthetically, I may say, that while the collection of money 
was formalized, no one ever took an oath of communism or anything 
of that character, as I recall. 

Mr. Tavenner. But when you arrived at the stage where you were 
paying dues you recognized you were paying them as organizational 
dues ? 

Mr. Yerkes. That is right, it was organized and then they were 
dues. 

I don't know where the initiative came from, or from what person 
it came in relation to determining the amount of dues, or the fact that 
they should or should not be paid. 

Frankly, while I didn't particularly care for the idea, I was willing 
to do so. I felt these people had very high ideals, and I was willing 
to explore the Communist Party and see what it stood for. I had no 
reluctance about this, because I feel, as I have told you previously, 
that an American liberal has a right to explore all these things and 
find out for himself. 

Incidentally, as best I recall now, the initiative to commence these 
discussion groups — I wasn't able to recall it a moment ago — but I 
think it came from several lawyers, included in which would be Mr. 
McTernan and Mr. Steinmetz, Fred Steinmetz. Mr. Steinmetz was 
particularly inclined to study, to think, to discuss nonlegal subjects, 
but perhaps not to the exclusion of legal subjects, but to discuss, shall 
we say, social subjects. 



2554 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. Tavenner. Let me at that point explore a little bit further this 
matter of payment of dues. Do you know how the dues were assessed, 
on what basis they were assessed ? 

Mr. Yerkes. I don't know, sir. I rather suspect they were set up 
on the basis of income. I know that I was told that I should pay 
dues in a sum greater than I cared to do, and I demurred to that, and 
thereafter, I think the matter was set at $4 a month. 

Mr. Taa^nner. Do you recall whether other members paid dues in 
excess of that amount ? 

Mr. Yerkes. I have no knowledge of that, Counsel. I would sus- 
pect that a good many did, and a good many paid less, but I have no 
knowledge of that. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you recall to whom you paid your dues ? 

Mr. Yerkes. Yes. By and large, payment of dues was made to 
J. Allan Frankel, a member of the Los Angeles bar. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you spell that last name, please, and repeat 
the initials ? 

Mr. Yerkes. J. Allan, A-1-l-a-n, Frankel, F-r-a-n-k-e-1. 

I may have paid dues to the other people, I don't recall who. Mr. 
Aaron stated, I believe, in his testimony yesterday, that he collected 
dues, and if I paid any at that time, I probably paid him. 

Mr. Kearney. What was the original amount asked of you in the 
way of payment? 

Mr. Yerkes. I have no recollection, Mr. Kearney. I suppose not 
too high, because I was a salaried employee of the firm, and I would 
doubt very much if it went over $7 or $8 a month. I don't recall. It 
was settled at $4, anyway. 

Incidentally, my wife, so far as I can recall, has never paid any 
dues to the Communist Party. 

I firmly said I didn't think she should, and as I recall, she did not. 

Mr. Tavenner. Let us return for a moment to the occasion when 
other lawyers were invited to attend, and I believe you said they 
did attend, the course which was proposed to be given on the book 
relating to, I believe, political economy, you said. 

(Representative Bernard W. Kearney left the hearing room at this 
point.) 

Mr. Yerkes. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you recall whether or not those lawyers who 
attended, upon invitation, remained members of the group and con- 
tinued in their attendance at meetings after this time? 

Mr. Yerkes. Frankly 

Mr. Tavenner. For a period of time ? 

Mr. Yerkes. Frankly, Counsel, I cannot recall that they all stayed. 
My recollection, my best recollection, is that some did stay and some 
left. They had never been at a Communist Party meeting. They 
were at the discussion class and they left. Others stayed. And the 
procedure that, as I recall that was followed, was that those who 
evidenced an interest in that sort of thing, to wit, general liberal causes 
of lawyers, were then discussed. But I have no detailed recollection 
of any discussions of that sort. 

The membership of the group did suddenly expand to about 30, 
as I recall, at that time, as a result of this course. I may be wrong 
in terms of precise numbers. It might have been 29 or 31, but some- 
where in that vicinity. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2555 

Mr. Tavenner. I am trying to get clearly the distinction, if there 
is any, between a sort of a lecture course and that of a Communist 
Party meeting, 

Mr, Yerkes. Frankly, Mr, Tavenner, at that time there wasn't too 
much difference, except that in the discussion groups the topic of 
communism was treated rather gently. 

In the group of lawyers, which was clearly now a Communist Party 
group, the discussion of communism was frankly approached and 
sought to be analyzed. 

Mr. Tavenner. Then, at these strictly Communist Party meetings, 
was Communist Party literature distributed? 

Mr, Yerkes. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was that same thing true of the lecture courses 
that were given ? 

Mr. Yerkes. No, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Then there was a distinction between some of the 
meetings which you would attend? 

Mr. Yerkes. Oh, yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. Some being more of lecture courses ? 

Mr. Yerkes. They weren't lectures, sir, they were discussions. The 
technique was socratic in nature. You asked a question and someone 
else asked a question, and this continued around eventually to every- 
one in the group. 

When I say a course, it was a discussion variety, not of a lecture 
variety. Nobody purported, as I recall, to be an authority on this. 

As soon as this discussion group had brought about the joining of 
the lawyers' group, the Communist group of additional lawyers, it was 
abandoned, to my best recollection, and thereafter, a lot of the Com- 
munist Party meeting time was involved with the same type of dis- 
cussion. There was little formalization of communism in this period 
in 1946. We had a lot of discussions of lawsuits in the field of human 
rights. There were long protracted discussions of socialism and com- 
munism. And I don't think that at that time I felt that any lawyer 
there really knew too much about it. I recall that was then my ap- 
praisal of the situation. However, it was quite clear that this pur- 
ported to be a Communist Party meeting. And I was very much 
interested in seeing what people thought of these things and to learn 
what I could. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you recall the character of the Communist 
Party literature that was displayed in your Communist Party meet- 
ings? 

Mr. Yerkes. Well, I think Mr. Aaron has described it and Mr. 
Herzig, rather well. Let me say that in 1946 there wasn't too much 
literature, it was not officially managed, as I recall. Occasionally 
somebody bought a pocketful of something, but later on, in 1947, 
there was more of a formalization of this. 

Mr. Tavenner. Who was in charge of the literature which was 
distributed, if anyone? 

Mr. Yerkes. That was one of their problems. Nobody would take 
the responsibility. I think, generally speaking, literature was in 
charge of — pardon me, literature was brought to the meetings by 
J. Allan Frankel, but this wasn't always so. I remember situations 
when Robert D. Katz brought literature to meetings, and I can recall 
situations when others did, but I cannot recall the names. 



2556 coivoiuNisM in los angeles professional groups 

Mr. Tavenner. Was Mr. Eobert Katz a member of this group, this 
Communist group? 

Mr. Yerkes. Yes, sir. 

I might say that at the time of these discussions which were Com- 
munist Party discussions, I found I couldn't agree with the theories 
advanced. I don't mean by this that I disagreed, but I just wasn't 
able to agree in my own approach. I am of a long Republican back- 
ground. My family is a conservative one. My father was a Quaker 
and my mother a Methodist. My whole background has been a con- 
servative one. I just was unable to accept a lot of socialism, as such. 
And yet I could see a lot of validity in it that seemed valid to me, 
and I think there is still a lot of virtue in it. 

My own theory of capitalistic economy was at variance with the 
tenor of the discussions. That wasn't what concerned me at the time; 
it didn't concern me. What concerned me was high ideals for human 
welfare and the welfare of man. That was the primary thing I was 
interested in. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you sense a fact indicating that the Communist 
Party principles as set forth in Lenin's writings and Stalin's com- 
mentaries on Lenin and the general Marxian theory were being worked 
in, and that you were gradually being indoctrinated in those things ? 

Mr. Yerkes. That is hard to answer, Mr. Tavenner. I suppose that 
in a sense I was becoming receptive to those things. That must be 
frankly admitted. 

On the other hand, let me state very firmly that I always had a re- 
served right to myself in my own judgment to remove myself from 
any group of people — not just Communists, any group. I reserved 
that right as an independent citizen. 

Mr. Tavenner. You reserved that in your own mind ? 

Mr. Yerkes. I reserved that in my own mind in mv discussions 
with these people. And I don't mean to infer by that that I was in- 
sincere in being with them, because I was sincere. I tried my best to 
understand what they were talking about. I did not seek to interpose 
my ideas against theirs. For example, among the books that we con- 
sidered — we considered them in a rather desultory fashion without 
too much organized effort — was the History of the'Communist Party 
of the Soviet Union. That is a tremendous work. I don't think that 
I would have ever read more than a small portion of it. It was the 
practice to assign segments of it to read. I think that was described 
yesterday by one of the witnesses. 

We also read, or were supposed to read. State and Revolution, by 
Lenin. That book, I tried to read cryptically. It was a smaller book, 
and a book which I thought I might better understand. And as I 
remember it, I think I did understand some of it. But in retrospect, I 
am not sure I did at all. 

Another book was one which was mentioned by, I think, Mr. Herzig, 
Dialectical Materialism, by Guest, who, I understand, was killed in 
Spain at the time of the civil war in Spain. It is a little blue book. 
I tried to understand Dialectical Materialism, I understand the prin- 
ciples of dialectics, and I understand, I think, the principles of ma- 
terialism, but I couldn't relate it to the economy successfully. I 
couldn't relate it to the law at all. But it was a stimulating book. 

One other thing that I recall, later in 1947, there was a lot of litera- 
ture available, as was pointed out by one of the witnesses. It was 



COMMUNISM m LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2557 

spread out on tables, and that sort of thing. One of the other things 
that was discussed was a pamphlet or a mimeographed document by 
William Z. Foster. I don't think I have a copy of that. I don't think 
I could hnd it. And it is apparently a rather rare document, entitled 
or somehow captioned, "Work of the Communist Party among pro- 
fessionals." And that document, I think, was an attempt to explain, 
as I recall, what the professional did in the Communist Party. Again 
I was unable to form any conclusions from this. It was a vigorous 
topic of discussion frequently — not frequently but occasionally — and 
when it was discussed we vigorously argued about it. 

Mr. Tavenner. Over the period of several years of participation in 
this work, you must have come to a conclusion as to who were the 
leaders among this group of approximately 30 lawyers. 

Mr. Yerkes. Well, my relationship with them from the winter of 
1945-46, maybe the spring of 1946, up to the winter of 1948-49 left 
me in some doubt, Mr. Tavenner, as to who were the leaders, because 
of this problem : Everybody was, in a sense, a leader, in that he tried 
to help in the discussions. But there were more people who seemed 
to understand better, or some people who seemed to understand better 
than others. I cannot recall who they were particularly. I rather 
suspect that the people who understood better- — and I am trying to 
sincerely appraise them — were Mr. Steinmetz, Mr. Margolis, possibly 
Mr. JMcTernan — although I am uncertain about this — and one or two 
others whom I cannot now recall. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you take any part in Communist activities as 
a result of your membership with this group, other than the general 
matters that you have already described? 

Mr. Yerkes. Well, no, sir ; not during that period of time that I 
first was in the group. I would attend these meetings of lawyers, and 
my wife would come and she would sit in the corner and seldom say 
anything, but listen. And I would engage in discussions. I think on 
several occasions I was asked to lead a discussion, but that was the 
limit of my leadership or taking part in Communist activities then, 
in the lawyers' group. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did your work lead later to your assignment to 
Communist Party activities outside of this immediate group '^ 

Mr. Yerkes. Yes, sir. A very sudden change took place in my 
relationship to the Communist Party in the fall or winter of 1947 and 
1948. In some manner which I cannot now recall, I was selected by 
the lawyers to, probably by an election of some sort 

Mr. Wood. Just a minute. Let the record show what lawyers. 

Mr. Yerkes. The Communist lawyers. 

Mr. Wood. All right. 

Mr. Yerkes. Probably an election of some sort — to attend a con- 
ference, I suppose it could be fairly appraised a conference, at a pri- 
vate home near Culver City. I don't recall the place, and I couldn't 
locate it today. I was only there once. 

At that time, the only other lawyer who was present was Mr. Victor 
Kaplan. I suppose in a sense we were delegates, the representatives of 
the lawyers. I don't recall whether it was formalized that way. 

At that meeting, there was a young lady named Dorothy Foster. 

(Representative Donald L. Jackson entered the hearing room at this 
point. ) 

Mr. Tavenner. F-o-s-t-e-r ? 



2558 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. Yerkes. That is right. And she was, in a sense, in charge of 
the meeting. At that meeting, as I recall, I said nothing. I recall I 
sat on the floor in the corner. And there was a good bit of discussion 
in the nature of which I cannot now recall, but at the conclusion of 
this, apparently I was selected, and it was stated that I had been 
selected to serve on a board to work with four or five or six other 
people in community work. No one asked me in particular whether 
I wanted to serve on this board; it was assumed that I did. And 
Dorothy Foster recommended me for the board. 

She is a delightful person, as I recall her, and apparently had a 
good bit of persuasive effect upon me at the time, because I agreed 
then that I would go on the board. 

Thereafter, this board met, I don't recall whether it was once a week 
or once every 2 weeks, at private homes. Most of the meetings took 
place at the home of Dorothy Foster. 

Mr. Tavenner. Speak a little bit louder. 

Mr. Yerkes. Most of the meetings took place at the home of Dorothy 
Foster. I cannot recall where, precisely, that home was. It was 
somewhere in the northeastern section of Los Angeles. 

Dorothy Foster stated that she was paid by the Communist Party as 
a salaried person by the Communist Party. And it became apparent 
to me that this board was some sort of a coordinating body between 
the lawyers and some community groups of five or six clubs or groups. 

Mr. Tavenner. Is this what is commonly referred to as a fraction 
meeting ? 

Mr. Yerkes. I don't know, sir. I have been asked that several times 
in the last day or two, and I don't know what a fraction is. But per- 
haps that is as good a term to apply to it as any. It was a liaison 
group. 

Mr. Tavenner. It was made up of Communist Party representa- 
tives from the different professions, was it not ? 

Mr. Yerkes. No, sir, it was made up of community people, nonpro- 
fessional people, and one lawyer by himself. 

Mr. Tavenner. So it was broader than just professional? 

Mr. Yerkes. That is right. 

The board was operated or guided by this young lady I mentioned, 
Dorothy Foster, in an executive fashion. She was in charge. I at- 
tempted to understand what was being said. I was a busy lawyer in 
practice, and was often late in arriving and early in leaving. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long did you continue to work with that 
group ? 

Mr. Yerkes. Well, I cannot recall how long, probably until the late 
spring of 1948 or summer of 1948. 

Mr. Tavenner. Can you recall any particular work that your com- 
mittee or group did ? 

Mr. Yerkes. No, I cannot recall very well. In the first place, I 
didn't do any work on it, and they told me so later, I wasn't much 
good. Oh, I wouldn't put it that way, they said I obviously didn't 
participate in the work, and they thought I had better leave it. 

There was the same type of protracted wrangling on the thousand 
and one problems that took place in the lawyers' group, except that 
these were people who did not have the professional background, con- 
sequently I often didn't say much. I didn't feel that I could effectively 
talk their language, in one sense, and I was interested in learning. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2559 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you recall whether this group was visited by 
Communist functionaries or Communists of the higher level? 

Mr. Yerkes. I don't know how high a level or whether they were 
functionaries, but we were visited occasionally by a tall gentleman 
named John Stapp, S-t-a-p-p. He probably visited us six times, 
maybe four times, that is about all. 

He didn't come and address meetings of this Board. He sort of 
came to visit and he would talk to one side with the few members of 
it. I don't suppose that I had more than a dozen words with him, to 
my recollection, anyway. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were there any theatrical people or Hollywood 
people represented in that group ? 

Mr. Yerkes. I don't know that there were any represented. I cer- 
tainly never heard of any, and I have the impression — it is only a 
general impression — that these were purely community housewife, 
ordinary clerk, store clerk, types of people. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were there any other functions of the Communist 
Party which you attended, and which were promoted by Miss Foster, 
Dorothy Foster ? 

Mr. Yerkes. Yes, there were three other functions, and my recol- 
lection of them is pretty fuzzy. One of them was a meeting in the 
Hollywood Hills area. I couldn't possibly recall the place nor the 
date. There were no other lawyers present, and I would suppose 
that these were community-type people. It is the only time I ever 
saw community people, apparently, in the Communist Party. I never 
visited any community clubs, so far as I can recall, but this one meet- 
ing I did visit, and these people were present. Nothing much was 
done or said, it was mostly of a social character. 

Mr. Tavenner. You say that was one. Now, what others were 
there ? 

Mr. Yerkes. I attended another meeting, and this must have been 
in the summer of 1948, early summer of 1948, which took place on one 
of the cross streets, either Melrose or Santa Monica or Sunset Boule- 
vard. I cannot tell you what intersection it is there. I have no clear 
recollection of that at all at the present time. 

Tliat was a meeting attended by about 50 people, as I now recall. 
There were other lawyers present, counsel, Mr. Victor Kaplan, Mr. 
Robert Katz, and I am not certain, but I believe Esther Shandler was 
there. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know Miss Esther Shandler as a member 
of the Communist Party? 

Mr. Yerkes. Yes, sir, in the lawyers' group. And I believe my 
recollection serves me well, I took my wife along to this meeting. I 
am not certain about that, but I think so. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you recall any other persons present at that 
meeting whom you knew to be members of the Commmiist Party ? 

Mr. Yerkes. Well, there was a Dr. Max Schoen, who had occasion- 
ally visited this board that I was with — not very often, just a few 
times. And as I now recall, he was present at this meeting in 1948 
with about 50 people. 

Mr. Tavenner. What was the over-all purpose of this meeting ? 

Mr. Yerkes. Well, I am not sure. I am not certain in my recol- 
lection of it now. The main topic of conversation that I recall was 
the Wallace campaign for President, but I am reasonably certain that 
was not the sole concern. 



2560 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. Tavenner. Was this a Communist Party meeting ? 

Mr, Yerkes. It was so represented to me, yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. How did you receive your instructions to be present ? 

Mr. Yerkes. Dorothy Foster told me to go and said that I was 
supposed to be there, and I, of course, went along, definitely. 

Mr. Tavenner. Is there anything else you can tell us about that 
meeting ? 

Mr. Yerkes. It was about that time that Dorothy Foster said that 
I wasn't doing much good in terms of being in her group of people. 
That is my present recollection of it. And I remember very clearly 
she looked at me and said she really wondered who I really was and 
who I stood for, and I replied that — as I recall, I didn't reply at 
that time. And later, we engaged in some discussion over the rights 
of man, and that sort of thing. 

Mr. Tavenner. You have described in a general way two Com- 
munist functions which you attended which had been arranged by 
Dorothy Foster. I believe you said there were three. 

Mr. Yerkes. Yes, sir. There w^as a third which was pretty much of 
a shock to me. I shouldn't say it that way, perhaps, it distressed me 
a little bit. 

I went to a meeting, a Communist Party meeting, which was held 
in Los Angeles in the summer of 1948 at a place called the Park 
Manor. This was on Western Avenue near Sixth Street. That meet- 
ing was an overwhelming sort of thing. There were lots of people 
who were present. I would estimate to my best recollection 150 people. 
There was endless speech making and endless milling about of people 
whom I had never met before. 

Mr. Tavenner. What explanation, if any, had been given you by 
Dorothy Foster or any other person as to the character of this meet- 
ing? 

Mr. Yerkes. It was some kind of a conference or convention. I 
cannot recall now that she ever specified this. 

I appeared to be, in a sense, one of two lawyers present. The other 
lawyer, as I recall, as Mr. Victor Kaplan. It was, I suppose you call 
it, a convention or delegation or group of people gathered together 
to discuss things. And, frankly, I was so profoundly disturbed by it 
that I began to feel that this Communist Party — which I can see 
now — did not represent me in any sense of the word. Not that they 
weren't apparently interested in the things that I consider of value, the 
rights of man and human liberty and better working conditions and 
better housing, but it seemed to me that these things had now become 
sort of a byproduct. 
Mr. Tavenner. Seemed to be what? 

Mr. Yerkes. To have become sort of a byproduct, and that there 
was a great deal of organization for organization's sake, which I think 
was sincere, but I couldn't feel that this was a part of my program 
or of me. 

I might add that during the time of that meeting, I sat a good 
bit of the time facing the window looking out, and I could see the 
tower of my church only about three blocks away. And I sat philos- 
ophizing and meditating a long time about the fact that this wasn't for 
me, and I just wondered what the Communist Party stood for. It 
seemed to have developed a different character. It is hard for me to 
define, but a different character than it had. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2561 

As I watched the church tower quite some time, I determined to be- 
come more active in my church. This was j^erhaps, after all, where I 
belonged. 

By reason of this concern, I didn't pay much attention to what went 
on at this meeting. There were books and papers there and stacks 
of things. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you recall the names of any of the speakers? 

Mr. Yerkes. That is very difficult to remember, INIr. Tavenner. I 
do remember a few people. Dorothy Healy was there, and a chap 
whom I have never met, but whom I have seen, and identified as Fran 
Specter. Ben Dobbs was one of those whom I met. This Dorothy 
Foster was present, and John Stapp, this chap I mentioned earlier, and 
a red-headed girl — it is very clear in my mind — a red-headed girl 
named Elizabeth Glenn. Beyond that, I cannot recall. There were 
just lots of people there. 

Mr. Tavenner. What was it that disturbed you mentally about the 
Comnmnist Party at that time? 

' Mr. Yerkes. Frankly, Mr. Tavenner, I wasn't happy, I wasn't 
happy there with what I had seen there. Now, it wasn't as though I 
could articulate a particular thing. 1 just was profoundly disturbed. 
And I had not been meeting with the lawyers for some time. 

During the time I was with this board, I don't think I saw the law- 
year's group more than once every 2 or 3 months, and that would only 
have been once or twice during- that period of time. 

And after I left that meeting that I have described, I went back 
to the lawyers group. I wanted to find out in retrospect how to relate 
this to the lawyers. 

Mr. Ta\t:nner. What did you find out? 

Mr. Yerkes. Well, in the first place, 1 fell rather silent at the 
meetings. I didn't say much after that. I continued to attend the 
lawyers' group. I sat silently with them. It seemed to me that the 
ideals that I had had were now not properly placed in this group of 
lawyers, although they still articulated those ideas. 

I then made a rather firm effort, which I had not theretofore made, 
other than tlie times I was silent, I tried to make a firm effort to ad- 
vance concepts of religion, of natural law, divine law, and that philos- 
ophy of the law. I tried to advance concepts of ethics and morality to 
the arguments or discussions that these lawyers had. And 1 will say, 
frankly, a good many people agreed with me among the lawyers, but 
others didn't. And I cannot say which ones didn't. But in general 
I was rather summarily disposed of when I advanced these arguments. 

For example, by way of one illustration, if a given issue were raised, 
I would say that a thing was right or wrong or good or bad or evil, 
and I would be corrected as not using proper terminology. So I would 
fall silent. 

Also, at that point I was so profoundly disturbed that I ceased giv- 
ing money, paying dues. And I don't know just when this was, but I 
think it was after this meeting in the summer of 1948 ; and I was fre- 
quently asked by, particularly by Mr. Margolis, what I thought about 
something in these discussions, and I couldn't answer them. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you urged by anyone to attend these meetings ? 

Mr. Yerkes. Yes, sir, I was. I was urged by a lot of the members 

95008— 52— pt. 1 9 



2562 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

of the lawyers' group. I would meet these people — they were all per- 
sonally splendid people in terms of their personalities, and genuine and 
sincere, so far as I could tell, and I believe they are sincere. And I was 
urged frequently, privately — I would meet them in the courthouse or 
meet them somewhere else on the street — and I would be urged to at- 
tend. My attendance was diminishing rapidly, as I recall, in the lat- 
ter part of 1948, and through that moving into the wintertime. 

Mr. Ta\tenner. What was the final result of the experiences you 
were having in the party? 

Mr. Yerkes. Well, the result was a gradual thing. Just as my ad- 
mission to this group of Communist lawyers was a social, informal sort 
of thing, so my departure was equally informal. No attempt was 
made to have me formally resign, no attempt w^as made to exclude me. 
I recall Mr. Herzig's incident that he testified to yesterday that he was 
excluded, and no such process was engaged in in my case. I just 
stopped going. And I cannot recall when I last attended. 

The first thing I did, as I recall, was stop inviting them to my home, 
and not because I didn't like these people, but because I felt so dis- 
turbed about it. And so I no longer invited them to my home. The 
high ideals which I had felt were sincerely in their minds were still 
there in them as people, but not as a group, as I now determined it. Be- 
cause I am an idealist and not a materialist — I don't think I am a ma- 
terialist — it seemed to me that the idealism that meant a lot to me was 
missing somehow. 

During the last lawyers' meetings discussions frequently turned to 
recent decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States. There 
was a good bit of discussion of the "Clear and present danger test," and 
a good bit of discussion on the Smith Act, of the constitutionality of 
the Smith Act, and matters of that character. 

Now, I perhaps haven't responded to your question, counsel, as to 
why I left these people. Let me say this: That I have the highest 
respect for them as human beings and the integrity of their minds as 
they see things. 

First of all, I felt that the concern with high ideals that I had had, 
and still have, was being submerged with a concern for the Com- 
munist Party, as such. 

Frequently the discussion among the lawyers turned upon this 
question, the Communist Party and what it stood for. 

Another reason was, that while the meetings in 1946 and 1947 had 
seemed democratic, the meetings in the year of 1948, after I got back 
to the lawyers' group, did not seem democratic to me. I mentioned 
and touched upon earlier the fact that I had advanced concepts of 
ethics and morality and these were not tolerated. 

And, in short, I felt as though at this point I was required to aban- 
don the freedom to think for myself, as an individual. 

I don't feel that way about human thought. I feel that the great 
spirit of American liberalism permits a synthesis of many points of 
view, and I didn't feel that the synthesis was tolerated.' 

The third possible reason — and I tried to be sincere about it, and 
I trust the committee will understand my sincerity — is that there 
was a great deal of prolonged, endless wrangling. Every Communist 
meeting I attended was concerned with a vast amount of wrangling 
between people over who should do what, when, where, and why, and 
what for. '  " - 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2563 

And in this endless cycle of organization, I began to feel that it was 
an endless search. So I determined to return to the church. 

I had been going to church intermittently all during this time, but 
I now firmly determined I would go back to church on a regular basis 
and that I would have my children baptized and tliat here perhaps 
I was more happy and better fitted. 

One last reason for leaving — and I don't recall whether this was 
before I last attended a lawyers' group meeting, or whether it was 
after — if you will recall, that in 1948 there was published by Mac- 
millan & Co. a textbook. The Law of the Soviet State, by Vishinsky, 
who, I believe, was professor of law in the University of Moscow, as 
well as his activities in the foreign fields of the Soviet Union. I 
wanted to discuss that book with these lawyers. I wanted to talk 
about that. I wanted to probe into it. 

And I think it is fair to say that I asked at least 15 or 30 times why 
we didn't discuss this book, only to be told that there was no time to 
discuss it, that it was of no concern to us. And it was shunted to- one 
side. 

There is one other reason why I felt distressed. And, then, lastly, 
on or about this time, there arose a discussion of the trial in New 
York City, of the 11 Communist leaders, and at that time, I recall 
tliat I was profundly distressed by what seemed to me to be techni- 
cally an incorrect approach by lawyers trying a lawsuit in that it 
was made particularly difficult for the defendants to get a fair chance 
at what was going on at the trial, and particularly difficidt for the 
bench to appraise the thing fairly. 

So, that from a procedural point of view, I was distressed. And 
I also felt and said I was disturbed that it was improper in a pro- 
fessional sense. 

But when I would mention this — not very often, perhaps one or 
two people, perhaps three or four at the most — my observations were 
ignored. 

As I say, I don't know whether I mentioned it to these Communists 
after I left the Communist group and last attended a meeting, or 
before ; but, in any event, it was ignored, and my views weren't con- 
sidered, so far as I could tell. 

Mv. Tavenner. That explains, then, the reason for your leaving 
the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Yerkes. Perhaps there is another reason, Mr. Tavenner. I 
should be very frank with the committee. 

When I went into it in 1945 and 1946, if you refresh your recollec- 
tion a moment, it was a time when the Soviet Union and the United 
States were considered great allies. I think most of the American 
public had a feeling that this was true. 

I don't mean to infer, now, that I left it in 1948 because I felt the 
Soviet Union and the United States were going to be foes, because 
I don't know. I don't think anyone knows this. There certainly is a 
cold war on, and I am not going to try to appraise it. 

But I had a feeling that if there was any possibility that I would be 
required to take a stand, either intellectually or physically against the 
United States, that I was with the United States and I was a loyal 
American citizen and I would remain such. So I felt a lot easier 
about it when I left these lawyers and had nothing further to do with 
these people. 



2564 COMxMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

I mio-lit add that my wife has the same sentiments in this matter. 

Mr Tavenner. Was there ever a period of substantial disagree- 
ment among the members of the Lawyers' gi'oups as to the functions 
that they should perform in the representation of cases m court, in 
which the Communist Party had a particular stake or interest ? 

Mr. Yerkes. I don't know whether this is wholly responsive to 
the question, but I think you are referring to the role of Communist 
lawyers in defending unpopular defendants; is that correct? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes. x i 1 1 ^ ^ 

Mr. Yerkes. Yes ; there was such a discussion. It had been touched 
upon frequently in Communist lawyer group meetings, and there was 
a sincere concern about how one could represent unpopular defendants. 

There developed the feeling— and I can only recall the date ; it was 
the latter part of 1948, to my best recollection— it was after I re- 
turned to the lawyers' group from this other period of time when I 
was with the nonlawyers. 

Along about that time there arose a discussion of how best Com- 
munist lawyers could represent unpopular defendants in criminal 
cases and in the defense of civil liberties. -at 

As I say, all these people seemed sincerely concerned m this. And 
I have no recollection of where this particular meeting took place; 
whether it took place in home A or home B ; I just can't remember that. 
Somewhere in Hollywood. 

In any event, considerable discussion was under way. 

Mr. Tavenner. Now, this is a discussion in a Communist Party 

meeting ? 

Mr. Yerkes. In a Communist lawyers' group meeting. 

Mr. Tavenner. I want to make it perfectly plain that I am not ask- 
ing for any answer which might involve the question of professional 
connection between attorney and client, or between firms of attorneys. 

Mr. Yerkes. That is right, sir. I know you are not, and I couldn't 
tell you if you did. I appreciate your respecting that. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you describing what occurred with respect to 
the Communist Party meetings ? 

Mr. Yerkes. That is right, sir. 

This was a Communist Party meeting, and there was a sincere con- 
cern about how to secure the services of all the lawyers to defend civil 
liberties cases. 

As I recall, the first concrete idea that came out of this was a state- 
ment by Mr. Margolis that more lawyers should be trained to handle 
civil liberties cases in terms of learning the procedure that should be 
followed. There was no discussion of the details of the procedure, 
but just the procedure that had to be mastered, and it was pointed 
out by Mr. Margolis that many of the lawyers in this Communist 
Party group had not had enough experience to handle a complicated 
criminal case. 

As I recall, Mr. Frank Pestana replied that it was very obvious why 
very few Communist lawyers were able to effectively handle this 
kind of litigation, and that was that Mr. Margolis got all the fee -cases 
and that a few other lawyers got all the free cases — I forget now 
whom he named — and nobody else got anything but charity work, so 
to speak. 

And I think Mr. Pestana 's observation was fundamentally sound. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2565 

Mr. Margolis replied, as I recall, that only lie and the lawyers 
who were trained could adequately handle this kind of work; and in 
that he was correct, and they deserved the fees. 

Now, please understand, there was no discussion of specific cases 
or specific fees; it was just a general discussion. 

I don't recall Mr. Pestana's ow^n words with any accuracy. I can 
only give you the substance of this. But tliere was an inference which 
one could gather from Mr. Pestana's remarks — at least I gathered 
them at that time — that perhaps there was a motive on the part of 
some lawyers — and I don't recall that he named any — to monopolize 
the fee cases perhaps for the purpose of not permitting competition to 
develop. 

That was an inference that I gathered. I don't know whether that 
was so stated. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know whether there was anyone on a higher 
level in the Communist Party who was called in to settle the question 
or to give any advice in regard to the solution of the problem ? 

Mr. Yerkes. I know of no such person, Mr. Tavenner. All I know 
is that the lawyers pretty much decided, apparently by themselves, 
how they would handle a lawsuit. 

Mr. Tavenner. In the course of your experience in the party, did 
you learn of any similar situation that developed back in 1939, when 
a high Connnunist functionai-y had to be called in to settle a similar 
question? 

Mr. Yerkes. No. I don't recall of anyone having come into settle 
it. 

I will say this: That in this particular controversy dealing with 
the problem, Mr. Fred Steinmetz acted in the role of a peacemaker. 
If memory serves me well, he expressed some accord with Mr. 
Pestana's views, and though I am not certain of how this was done 
specifically, I seem to recall that there was a decision to create a 
panel of lawyers for the purpose of training other lawyers to handle 
civil-liberties -cases. 

And this was not just to train Communist lawyers; this was to 
train all lawyers who were interested in defending civil-liberties 
cases. 

And the panel — I don't know whether it was so stated on this par- 
ticular date, but it soon became apparent — was to be under the super- 
vision of the Civil Eights Congress. And I think such a panel was 
formed. I know nothing about the formation of that panel other 
than that it was discussed in the Communist Party meeting. 

I don't think tliat anyone from a higher level, so to speak, had any- 
think to do with this. I think it was a decision by the lawyers, and I 
do recall that it was decided that a committee of three lawyers from 
the Communist Party group would be formed to consult with non- 
Communist lawj'Crs, as I recall, as to how these lawyers were to be 
trained. 

And that is about all I can recall, except that I was asked whether 
I wanted to be on such a panel, that is, not on the guiding panel, but 
to serve on the panel that represents such defendants, and I flatly 
said "No." 

Mr. Tavenner. Who invited you ? 

Mr, Yerkes. I frankly cannot recall. 



2566 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

I said "No" for, basically, the reason that I have never done much 
criminal work and I would feel highly doubtful that I could do much 
of a job on it. At that time, as I mentioned previously, I had serious 
doubts about the Communist Party and felt that I was not interested 
in doing anything of this sort. 

I later was asked by mail by the Civil Rights Congress to join their 
lawyers' defense panel, and I didn't answer the letters. 

INIr. Potter. Was this panel of three established while you were 
identified with this group ? 

Mr. Yerkes. They were three Communist lawyers, as I now recall, 
that were to be on the panel, but they were to join our Communist 
lawyers in an effort to coordinate a training schedule. 

Mr. Potter. Do you know who the three were ? 

Mr. Yerkes. I cannot recall exactly. I am reasonably certain that 
Margolis was on it. Beyond that, I have no recollection, no present 
recollection. At the time, I knew who they were, but that slipped my 
mind. 

Mr. TA^^NNER. Did you and other members of your group in the 
Communist Party, the Communist group within the legal profession, 
engage in any other activities outside of your own organization and 
in organizations that may be determined to be Communist fronts ? 

Mr. Yerkes. I don't know what the other lawyers did, because I 
wasn't much interested. I suppose others did join other organiza- 
tions. I think it will be a matter of public record as to what they 
were members of. 

I refused to join any other organization other than professional 
organizations. 

As I mentioned earlier, I joined the National Lawyers' Guild in 
the winter of 1945 and 1946, and I naturally was interested in that 



organization. 



Mr. Tavenner. I believe you said that you had joined the National 
Lawyers' Guild prior to your employment by Mr. Margolis. 

Mr. Yerkes. That is correct. I joined the National Lawyers' Guild 
when I was still with this conservative law firm, for the reason that I 
had felt the guild had a long, glorious record of defending civil 
liberties and being sincerely concerned with matters with which the 
American Bar Association, as I recall, had not been concerned. 

Let me say here that I have the greatest respect for the American 
Bar Association. I am quite proud of my membership in it. I think 
it is a splendid organization and, by all means, every lawyer should 
support it. But it didn't play a role in the field of civil liberties the 
way the guild did. 

Mr. Tavenner The way the Lawyers' Guild did ? 

Mr. Yerkes. The Lawyers' Guild did ; that is right. 

Mr. Wood. Do you now retain membership in the Lawyers' Guild? 

Mr. Yerkes. No, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. It developed in the testimony yesterday that your 
wife held a position in the Lawyers' Guild. Do you desire to com- 
ment upon that? 

Mr. Yerkes. Yes, sir. I think that that should be clarified; and 
here I am calling on only my best recollection. 

Just after I had gone to work for Mr. Margolis' firm, the young 
lady who had been the secretary, or the executive secretary, of the 
National Lawyers' Guild, had wanted to resign, by reason, as I recall 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2567 

now, of approaching marriage. This girl's name I cannot recall at 
the present time. She was sort of a junior law clerk who was ad- 
mitted to the board with some lawyer, who is not a Communist, so far 
as I know ; nor was she. 

But that left a vacancy in the National Lawyers' Guild. 

Mr. Tavenner. In what position ? 

Mr. Yerkes. The position of an executive secretary. 

As I recall, it was just after I had gone to work for Mr. Margolis' 
firm and before anyone had mentioned the Communist Party to me, 
in the sense that Mr. Kaplan had ; that Mr. Margolis asked me whether 
my wife would be willing to act as executive secretary of the guild. 

And this was quite early in 1946, as I recall. It would be a matter 
of record when she became executive secretary. 

And Mrs. Yerkes and I talked about it, and we decided that she 
would do so only upon two conditions : 

One, tliat the post would be remunerative and that a salary would 
be paid. 

Two, that an office would be provided for the guild, because the 
guild had, as I had been able to observe, theretofore operated out of 
the offices of lawyers who were officers. If lawyer A was the presi- 
dent of the guild, the guild was operated out of his office. If lawyer 
B was president, it was operated out of his office. 

And what little I had seen of the guild in the short time I had been 
in it, I felt this was imp)roper, and Mrs. Yerkes felt this way about 
it. 

So this was one of the conditions. It was not a condition which 
was met right away. I think later there was an office of sorts es- 
tablished. 

Now, this was, as I recall, before Mr. Margolis and Mr. Kaplan had 
spoken to me about the Communist Party. Mrs. Yerkes worked or 
was employed by the guild as executive secretary for a period, roughly, 
of a year. During that time, so far as I can recall, she did attend 
Communist Party meetings with me. She never participated much 
in Communist Party meetings and she received very little help from 
Communist lawyers in her efforts to work with the guild. 

Actually, I think she dealt with and talked to and worked with 
more non-Communist lawyers than Communist lawyers. 

And I don't thinli: that anyone told her to. I talked to her about 
it, and I am reasonably confident there was no direction in this. We 
were concerned in the bar association with developing it, but, at 
that time, we were in this Communist lawyers' group also. 

Mr. Tavenner. Can you tell the committee the degree of control 
that the Communist Party exercised or attempted to exercise over 
the Lawyers' Guild ? 

Mr. Yerkes. In tlie first place, Mr. Tavenner, I knew nothing 
about the national organization of the guild. 

Mr. Tavenner. I mean your group in Los Angeles. 

Mr. Yerkes. Yes, sir. I only know about Los Angeles and that 
area. 

I don't recall any organized effort among Communist lawyers to 
manage the Lawyers' Guild. I think the committee should know 
this. I don't recall a management effort. There were times when 
it was discussed in a Communist meeting, but there was no plan laid 
that I could detect, that I ever observed, to manage the guild. 



2568 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

What did happen was that some Communist lawyers were mem- 
bers of the executive board of the guild. 

Mr. Tavenner. Who were members of the executive board? 

Mr. Yerkes. The most frequent member was Mr. McTernan; oc- 
casionally others would be. 

This is a matter of record, as to who was on the executive board of 
the ouild at various times. 

Mr. Tavenner. Is it your opinion that your Communist Party 
group was very well i-epresented on the executive board ? 

Mr. Yerkes. Not numerically, but argumentatively so ; yes. 

Let's put it this way : There would be 15 members of an executive 
board, perhaps 3 or 4 Communists, 3 or 4 vigorous anti-Communists 
would be on the board, and there were such persons in the guild 
vigorously anti-Communist, and then the balance of the members of 
the board consisted of people who just didn't seem to care one way or 
the other whether it was pro-Communist or anti-Communist, but they 
were concerned with the guild as a liberal bar association. 

The only evidence that I could see, the only thing I could touch 
upon that would be helpful is that at board meetings, whenever any 
issue arose — and I didn't attend all the board meetings, by any means, 
but part of this I think Mrs. Yerkes will confirm, and I can confirm 
for her — at board meetings, when issues would arise with respect to 
policies of the National Lawyers' Guild, or resolutions — resolutions 
for the State bar convention, resolutions on international affairs, the 
typical business of a bar association, articulate people carried the 
rest of the members of the board with them. And there is not the 
slightest doubt in my mind that the vote, which was usually pretty 
close, to my recollection, of the board — usually it was one vote either 
way — Avould result in the adoption of a Communist viewpoint. 

It was as though the other members of the board, who were Com- 
munists, just didn't disagree, and the non-Communist lawyers went 
along with it; the anti-Communist lawyers did not. They fought it. 

But they didn't have enough votes in the sense to overcome the 
lethargy of those who were willing to go along either way. 

So that that is the only evidence I have seen. 

Mr. Jackson. May I ask a question at that point, Mr. Chairman 'i 

Mr. Wood. Mr. Jackson. 

Mr. Jackson. The position or the policy that was to be decided upon 
at the board meeting, I assume, was previously discussed within the 
Connnunist Party branch. Is that correct, that these matters which 
were to come up as matters of policy or as actions to be taken by the 
board directly were matters of discussion preliminary to the action 
of the board ? 

Mr. Yerkes. No, sir. Strangely enough, that wasn't the case. I can 
recall innumerable times when Mr. Margolis, for example, would 
reply, when someone tried to raise these problems in the CommunisL 
lawyers' group, Mr. Margolis would reply, "This isn't the place to 
raise guilcl problems; this is a Communist Party meeting. The place 
to raise guild problems is in the National Lawyers' Guild." 

Now, it is true that any member of a bar association will talk to 
any other member of a bar association privately and there probably 
is a good interchange of views; but that is speculation on my part; 
very few people talked to me about it. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2569 

Mr. Jackson. Did the Communist Party membei-s vote in a block 
on matters which came before the board of directors for action? 

Mr. Yerkes. Yes, sir. 

Of course, I am purely calling on my recollection. I have no records 
of this. 

I would say that universally, uniformly, they w^ere in accord. 

Mr. Jackson. But without previous deliberation? 

Mr. Yerkes. Apparently without previous deliberation. 

Now there may have been private deliberation, and I have reason 
to feel there might have been; but it very seldom was discussed with 
me. 

Mr. Jackson. There has been evidence in the record of meetings 
within meetings, and inner sanctums within organizations, of which 
the average member had no knowledge. 

I believe you will recall yesterday such an example was cited. 

Mr. Yerkes. Yes, sir. Was that the meeting that Mr. Aaron testi- 
fied to ? 

Mr. Jackson. I believe it was, Mr. Aaron. 

Mr. Yerkes. Yes, I attended that meeting also; and I would like 
to clarify that. 

This was a meeting which took place, in point of time, at the time 
of the regional conference of the National Lawyers' Guild, which was 
held in Santa Monica. I don't remember the date, but the date is a 
matter of record. 

The regional conference was organized by the guild, and mostly 
non-Communists Avere involved in working it up. My association 
with the conference was not intimate. I attended, but I didn't partici- 
pate in its organization. 

But on or about the same day, or the day before — I am sure it wasn't 
the day after — I received word, and I cannot recall now who told me 
this, that there was to be a meeting at the home of John McTernan, 
at which there would be someone there who would talk to us about 
Communist lawyers. I attended that meeting. It is the one Aaron 
mentioned. 

I think his recollection is faulty in the number that were there, be- 
cause my recollection is that there must have been, oh, 10 or 12, perhaps 
14. But he is correct when he appraises it as a group that was not 
to include all Communist lawyers, because I was also told this. 

And at that meeting we were addressed by this chap Mr. Aaron 
mentioned. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you recall the name? 

Mr. Yerkes. It was Silberstein. 

I cannot recall what he said. It is a very strange thing. I just 
cannot recall anything that he said, but it was a forceful, vigorous, 
competent, capable sort of a talk. 

Mr. Tavenner. That is Mr. Robert Silberstein? 

Mr. Yerkes. That is right, sir. Although I did not know it at the 
time and had never met him. He was later identified as an officer of 
the National Lawyers' Guild. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know where he was from? 

Mr. Yerkes. He stated he was from Washington, D. C. I believe 
that is the occasion, because I know of a guild officer here and the 
fact that there was such an executive secretary. 



2570 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. Tavenner. In liis appearance before this group, did he in any 
way identify his purpose in appearing, or whether or not he himself 
was a member of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Yerkes. I don't think he said, "I am a Communist." People 
don't say that, as a rule, in such groups. They rather talk about the 
C :)mmunist Party and act as thought they are a part of it. 

And there was no doubt in my mind that he was a member of the 
Communist Party, from what he had said and the way the meeting 
was conducted. 

But I had no way of knowing whether he was in a sense an inter- 
loper or whether he was a high authority, or something of that char- 
acter. I know that I felt some distress of the fact that I was invited 
to a meeting with strangers. 

I don't remember the year this was — it is a matter of record of the 
guild conference — but I reconciled myself to this as a part of a 
pattern. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was this in every respect a closed meeting of the 
Communist Party ? 

Mr. Yerkes. Yes, sir ; it was definitely closed. Not all members of 
the Communist Party who were lawyers were to be told about it. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you advised or directed as to whether or not 
you should keep the meeting secret, or whether you would be per- 
mitted to tell even other Communist Party members oJ the meeting? 

Mr. Yerkes. Let's put it this way : I was told — and I cannot recall 
by whom — that it was not to be mentioned by other Communist 
lawyers. That was about all that was said. 

Mr. Jackson. Asking a man at a meeting of that sort whether or not 
he was Communist would be like asking a man in a Knights of Colum- 
bus closed session if he was a Catholic. 

Mr. Yerkes. That is right. It wouldn't be a sensible question to 
ask a person at such a meeting. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you ever approached with respect to accepting 
a position within the Lawyers' Guild? 

Mr. Yerkes. Yes, sir ; I was. 

At this point, I think, I should preliminarily state something. 

I have been a member of the Los Angeles Bar Association for quite 
a number of years before I joined the guild and was interested in the 
Los Angeles Bar Association. I felt it was a very fine bar association, 
and I have long felt that it performed a valuable public service. 

I had been a member on the committee on the divorce court, as I. 
recall, and I don't remember the year. And after my activity in the 
Los Angeles Bar Association that year, several of the Communist 
lawyers in effect said to me, "Why don't you get out of that organiza- 
tion?" And while I can't recall the words of my reply, I definitely 
took the view — and I so stated — that I was not going to leave the Los 
Angeles Bar Association; it was an important professional group; I 
had been a member of it long before I ever met these fellows, and I 
was going to remain a member of it and I felt I could perform a 
valuable service to the bar as a member of various committees. 

In this the Communist lawyers thoroughly disagreed with me. 

There was a time — and I cannot recall when it was — that several 
Communist lawyers resigned from the Los Angeles Bar Association, 
very vigorously. Whether they ever said anything about it, I don't 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2571 

know. They asked me to, and I declined to resign. I said, "No, I 
just can't go along with you on this. I want to be a member of it." 

I felt it performed an important function — not that I wanted to in 
any sense be a Communist in the Los Angeles Bar Association. I 
wanted to perform a service as a member of the bar in the bar associa- 
tion, which could do this service. 

So thereafter there was some suggestion that I ought to work more 
in guild committees ; that I should help the guild more. I had worked 
in guild committees, but I had an experience which convinced me there 
wasn't much purpose in it. 

A typical guild committee meeting had been attended by six or seven 
lawyers, of whom two or three would be Communists and two or three 
anti-Communists and two or three who were middle-of-the-roaders, 
liberals, who had no particular point of view. 

And invariably these committee meetings would deteriorate into 
a wrangling process and nothing much was achieved. It was much 
more pleasant to me to work on a Los Angeles Bar Association com- 
mittee, where this problem never arose. So there I was. I didn't 
work much on guild committees. 

Now, in the fall of 1948 — and this is getting to the point which you 
are asking about — in the fall of 1948, Mr. McTernan recommended 
that I go on the executive board of the National Lawyers' Guild. I 
had not been an officer in it, or a member of the executive board. I 
flatly declined to serve as a member of the executive board of the 
National Lawyers' Guild. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you still a member of the Communist Party 
at that time? 

Mr. Yerkes. I was still attending Communist Party lawyers' meet- 
ings, though my attendance was less frequent, and I still considered 
myself a member of the Communist Party, in the sense that I have 
described it. 

I declined to serve on the executive board of the guild. I said that 
I felt that no purpose would be served. 

He then countered with the suggestion that I try to help both Com- 
munist and non-Communist lawyers work in committees of the guild, 
t,o coordinate and make the committees work, in a private capacity, 
not, in an official capacity. I declhied to do this, in the sense that I 
take any responsibility for it, though I did try to work on more guild 
committees. 

Then after I had left the Communist Party meetings — at least, I • 
believe it was after I had ceased attending them — and considered 
myself no longer a part of this Communist Party lawyers' group, 
there were several non-Communist lawyers wlio approached me about 
working in the National Lawyers' Guild. Communist lawyers also 
approached me on this. It seemed to be unanimous from all sides. 

At that point, I agreed with the finance committee of the guild that 
I would assist the president of the guild, the local guild chapter, Mr. 
Robert Morris, in an informal capacity. I declined to serve as execu- 
tive secretary. I said I would assist Mr. Morris as an assistant. 

And this was a result of both Communist and non-Communist 
solicitation or interest. 

Mr. Potter. Did you have much success in welding the two factions 
together ? 



2572 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. Yerkes. That was a real experience, sir. I tried to weld these 
elements in the National Lawyers' Guild, because I had become con- 
vinced, as I said, that the Communist Party was not for me. Yet, at 
the same time, I had also felt that the National Lawyers' Guild could 
be made into a pretty good organization, in terms of liberal thought 
at the bar. 

I had had a conclusion, which I had drawn from a previous expe- 
rience up to this time that, tragically, the non-Communist lawyers 
had abandoned the guild to the Communists. This I was convinced 
of at the time. That is the reason I understood this as my purpose, 
to see if I couldn't interest non-Communist lawyers. And it didn't 
make much difference to me then whether the Communist point of 
view prevailed, or not. 

I was interested in getting non-Conununist lawyers into the guild. 

At that point, it didn't work. The guild, as I recall, was composed 
of around 150 members in Los Angeles. At that time there were two 
chapters of it; there was a Los Angeles chapter and a Hollywood- 
Beverly Hills Chapter. I have no knowledge of working with the 
Hollywood-Beverly Hills Chapter. I was solely confined to Los 
Angeles. 

At that time, the anti-Communist lawyers in the guild was vigor- 
ously my course of action. I would seek to oppose every Communist 
recommendation, or recommendation which I thought was of that 
origin, and then there was the Communist approach and idea, and 
then there was the middle-of-the-road type of lawyer again, the true 
liberal, who didn't care much one way or the other. At least, that was 
my appraisal of it. 

For about 9 months I tried to Avork with guild committees. I tried 
to engineer this committee and that committee and the otli^r com- 
mittee, and called them together and worked with them sincerely — all 
to no avail practically. 

They did do some things. I remember, for example, there was an 
attempt to get a resolution prepared for the conference of State bar 
delegates. And these were way delinquent; the committees just didn't 
grind this stuff out. 

So, finally, my experience led me to this conclusion : That ratlier 
than the liberal lawyers deserting the National Lawyers' Guild, the 
Comnuinist lawyers forced the liberal lawyers out. This isn't entirely 
true, because there are still many lawyers who are not Communists 
•in the guild, but, for all practical purposes, in working on tlie com- 
mittees, it is true. 

So the guild — parenthetically, I should have said — the guild made a 
financial arrangement with me when this time began — I forget the 
exact date ; it is a matter of record — that they would pay me $200 a 
month to carry a secretary, who would do all tlie paper work in con- 
nection with my assistance in getting Mr. Morris and the committees 
to working. 

The guild fell delinquent in those payments, and no membership 
drive, or no financial drive Avas engaged in. Every time we talked 
about a membership drive it seemed to bog down in a sea of nothing ; 
words only. 

So I came to the conclusion that it was a fruitless effort, and finally 
bundled up all the guild files and took them over to the office of the 
president, Mr. Robert Morris. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2573 

I, frankly, at that point, was through with the National Lawyers' 
Guild insofar as any activity is concerned. 

Mr. Potter. At approximately what time was that ? 

Mr. Yj:rkes. I tried to recall that, Mr. Potter, and I am not able 
to pin it down. It is a matter of record in my checks, receipts I re- 
ceived from the guild. 

It was after I had left the Communist Party meetings. I would 
say a fair appraisal would be throughout most of 1949. 

Having ceased that, my interest then turned back to the Los Angeles 
Bar Association. 

Mr. Potter. Could I ask just one more question, Mr. Chairman? 

Mr, Wood. Yes. 

Mr. Poi'TER. Is it your contention that the membership in the guild 
has dwindled down considerably from what it was when you were 
first active in it ? 

Mr. Yerkes. It is not a contention, sir; it is an observation that I 
have. Of course, I wasn't with the guild very long. I didn't know 
it in the thirties or in the early forties. I did know it in 1945 or 1946, 
at that time. 

I think the activity of liberal lawyers was much diminished from 
1945 and 1946 up to the present time. 

Mr. Potter. Do you have any idea of the number of attorneys in 
the Lawyers' Guild in Los Angeles now ? 

Mr. Yerkes. The Los Angeles chapter, I think the names would 
include about 150; of which I would say half would be active. That 
would leave 75 active, and that would give you, roughly, 30 Commu- 
nist and would give you the rest non-Communists. 

Mr. Potter. From your observation after you left the guild, do 
you believe the Communist element that drove the liberals out, are 
they in control of the guild today ? 

Mr. Yerkes. I don't know about the guild today, Mr. Potter. I 
washed my hands of it in the sense that I took the files over to Mr. 
Morris. I feel that I have made a sincere effort, in the light of my 
own ideals, to build a liberal bar association, and it was a one-man 
job and wouldn't work. 

As I look back in retrospect, it was pretty much a waste of time. 
I learned a lot and am a lot wiser man now than I was 5 years ago. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Yerkes, your observation was that the total 
membership of the guild was approximately 150 'i 

Mr. Yerkes. That is my recollection. 

Mr. Tavenner. And about half of them attending regularly. That 
would make 75, as you suggest ? 

Mr. Yerkes. Well, not attending regularly, but were active in the 
organization. 

This is my recollection of the Los Angeles chapter. I don't know 
about the Hollywood-Beverly Hills chapter, Mr. Tavenner. 

Mr. Ta\'t:nner. Yes, we are speaking of the Los Angeles chapter. 

The number of Communist members were 30, you say approxi- 
mately ? 

Mr. Yerkes. They weren't all in the Los Angeles chapter. Many 
of them were in the Hollywood-Beverly Hills area and would attend 
the other meetings. 



2574 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. Tavenner. How many would you think were in the Los Angeles 
chapter ? 

Mr. Yerkes. I would have to guess. Fifteen. 

Incidentally, in reference to the National Lawyers' Guild, after I 
had felt that my work was terminated, I subsequently received notice 
that I had been dropped from membership ; was no longer accepted 
in it. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Yerkes, you have, in the course of your testi- 
mony, mentioned a number of lawyers in Los Angeles who were known 
to you to be members of the Communist Party. I want to check 
over those names with you as I have noted them during the course of 
your testimony, and I want you to state again whether or not each 
was known to you to be a member of the Communist Party : 

Mr. John McTernan. 

Mr. Yerkes. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Albert Herzig. 

Mr. Yereies. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Fred Steinmetz? 

Mr. Yerkes. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Frank Pestana ? 

Mr. Yerkes. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Jack Frankel ? 

Mr. Yerkes. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Miss Esther Shandler? 

Mr. Yerkes. Yes; she was. 

Mr. Tavenner. Your wife, Martha Yerkes? 

Mr. Yerkes. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. And yourself? 

Mr. Yerkes. That is right. 

Mr. Tavenner. Also Mr. David Aaron. 

Mr. Yerkes. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Ta'\':enner. Now, were there other members of the legal pro- 
fession who were members of this Communist group ? 

Mr. Yerkes. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was Mr. John Porter one of them ? 

Mr. Yerkes. Yes, sir. 

I might add, with respect to Mr. Porter, that he didn't come to 
meetings very often. He would come maybe once every 2 or 3 months. 
I don't know why he didn't. He just wasn't there as often. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was Mr. Milton Tyre one of the members? 

Mr. Yerkes. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. On what do you base your statement ? 

Mr. Yerkes. I saw Mr. Tyre there. 

Mr. Tavenner. You have previously mentioned Mr. Victor Kaplan ? 
• Mr. Yerkes. Yes, sir ; he was there. 

Mr. Tavenner. I believe you also mentioned Mr. Eobert Katz. 

Mr. Yerkes. Yes, sir ; he was there. 

Mr. Tavenner. Thelma Herzig? 

Mr. Yerkes. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. The wife of Mr. Herzig ? 

Mr. Yerkes. She was there. 

Mr. Tavenner. Seymour Mandell, was he a member of your group ? 

Mr. Yerkes. He was a member of the Communist lawyers' group. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2575 

Mr. Tavenner. Was Mr. William Esterman a member of the Com- 
munist Party? 

Mr. Yerkes. Well, Mr. Esterman was, but I might say that he was in 
and out all the time. He wouldn't come for 6 months, and then he 
would come 3 or 4 times, and then he would be gone again. But he 
was identified and stated that he was a Communist. 

Mr. Tavenner, I would like to interrupt at this point and say that 
if any of these persons left the Communist Party prior to your leaving 
I would be very glad for you to state if they did. 

Mr. Yerkes. Very well. Mr. Herzig did. Mrs. Herzig did. 

Well, go ahead with the names. Then perhaps I can recall them. 

Mr. Tavenner. Let me go over the names that I have already called, 
to get that point clear. 

Mr. Yerkes. All right. 

Mr. Tavenner. John McTernan. 

Mr. Yerkes. He did not leave when I was there with them. 

Mr. Ta\t:nner. John Porter. 

Mr. Yerkes. He did not leave when I was with them. At least I 
know not of his leaving. 

Mr. Tavenner. INIilton Tyre ? 

Mr. Yerkes. I don't recall about Mr. Tyre. I have been since in- 
formed by him that he has left, as I recall, but I just don't know. 
He was in the group at that time. 

Mr. Tavenner. Victor Kaplan. 

Mr. Yerkes. So far as I know he was in the party when I left 
it. 

Mr. Tavenner. Robert Katz. 

Mr. Yerkes. He was in the party when I left it. 

JNIr. Tavenner. I asked you about Seymour Mandell. 

Mr. Yerkes. He was in the party when I left it. 

Mr. Ta-\t:nner. Mr. Fred Steinmetz. 

Mr. Yerives. He was in when I left. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Frank Pestana. 

Mr. Yerkes. He was in when I left. 

Mr. Tavenner. Jack Frankel. 

Mr. Yerkes. He was there when I left. 

Mr. Tavenner. William Esterman. • 

Mr. Yerkes. Well, I don't know about William Esterman. He was 
identified at meetings that he was a Communist, but I don't know 
whether he left or not. He just wasn't around much when I was 
through, 

Mr. Tavenner, Esther Shandler. 

Mr. Yerkes. She was there when I left. 

Mr. Tavenner. David Aaron. 

Mr. Yerkes. He had left previous to my leaving. 

Mr. Tavenner, Was Jack Tenner a member of the Communist 
Party group? 

Mr. Yerkes. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was he there when you left ? 

Mr. Yerkes. As I now recall ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Ben Margolis. 

Mr. Yerkes. Yes, sir ; he was. 

Mr, Tavenner. And was he still a member when you left? 

Mr, Yerkes. Yes, sir. 



2576 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. Tavenner. Jane Grodzins? 

Mr. Yerkes. Yes, sir ; she was. I don't know whether she was a 
member when I left, but I don't know that she wasn't, so I can't an- 
swer specifically there. 

Mr, Tavenner. Selma Bachelis. 

Mr. Yerkes. Mrs. Bachelis was a member of the Communist law- 
yers' group, but she was not a frequent attender of it. She would 
come infrequently, I would say. Oh, every third time or fourth 
time. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was she still attending, as far as you know, at the 
time that you left the party ? 

Mr. Yerkes. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Charles Katz. 

Mr. Yerkes. Well, Charles Katz is unique as a person. He was 
identified and was a part of this Communist lawyers' group; there 
isn't the slightest doubt of that. 

But, on the other hand, he would be away for long extended periods 
of time. He would come back and attend meetings, and then he would 
be gone again. And when he would come the character of the meet- 
ing changed. 

Mr. Katz, as I appraise him, is a philosopher and a poet in many re- 
spects, and when he was there it wasn't usually on political or legal 
subjects, the discussion, but there wasn't the slightest doubt in my 
mind. 

Mr. Tavenner. AYas that because of the lead that he took in the 
meeting ? I mean w^as the change in character of the meeting due to 
his own personality and the lead that he took in the conversations and 
expressions ? 

Mr. Yerkes. That is just Charles J. Katz. I mean that is true in 
a lawsuit; that is true anywhere you meet the fellow. He is a charm- 
ing pereon, and he has a brilliant mind. 

Mr. Tavenner. Sam Houston Allen. 

Mr. Yerkes. He attended the Communist lawyers' group meetings. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was he still in the group at the time you left? 

Mr. Yerkes. I don't know. I hadn't seen him, frankly, for some 
time prior to my departure. 

Mr. Tavenner. Jean Pestana. 

Mr. Yerkes. She was in the Communist lawyers' group, but I don't 
know whether she was in it when I left. I couldn't answer that 
question. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was she the wife of Frank Pestana ? 

Mr. Yerkes. She was the wife of Frank Pestana. 

Mr. Tavenner. William M. Samuels. 

Mr. YerKes. He was a member of the Communist lawyers' group. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was he still at the time that you left it? 

Mr. Yerkes. So far as I know. 

Mr. Tavi^nner. Fred M. Snider. 

Mr. Yerkes. Yes, sir; I believe he was still in when I left. He was 
identified and was a Communist. Mr. Snider came into the lawyers' 
grouj) somewhat later than most of these lawyers. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was he in the group at the time that you left, to 
your knowledge? 

Mr. Yerkes. I think so. I don't know. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2577 

May I add her^, Mr. Tavenner, that the hitter part of the time that 
I was with the hiwyers was infrequent, in the hitter part of 1948, and 
at that time they didn't all meet together at all times. 

Sometimes there would be a meeting of 15 instead of 30, or 10 instead 
of 30. So that my knowledge of these people is subject to that 
limitation. 

Mr. Tavenner. You mean your knowledge as to whether or not 
they were in the party at the time you left^ 

Mr. Yerkes. That is right. I just wouldn't know, beginning in 
December of 1948 through to the time I was through. 

Mr. Tavenner. In answer to these questions, you are in effect say- 
ing tliat they have not left the party to your knowledge? 

Mr. Yerkes. To my knowledge, they had not left. On the other 
hand, I did not know whether they were still in, with one or two ex- 
cejitions that I have noted, 

Mr. Tavenner. Leon Turrett, T-u-r-r-e-t-t. 

Mr. Yerkes. His name is Turrett, Mr. Tavenner. He was not a 
Communist when I left. He had dropped out earlier. That is my 
best recollection. 

Mr. Tavenner, He had been a member of the Communist Party, to 
your knowledge? 

Mr. Yerkes. That is right. 

Mr. Tavenner. And you had met with liim? 

Mr. Yerkes, Oh, yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. Nancy Reeves. 

Mr. Yerkes. I don't know whether she is presently a Communist 
or not. I haven't seen hei' for a long time. She attended Communist 
lawyers' meetings. I never heard her state she was a Communist. 
But then, again, she was there. I never had talked with her, and I 
haven't seen her for a long time. She disappeared while I was still 
with the lawyers. 

Mr. Tavenner. Aubrey Finn. 

Mr. Yerkes. Yes; he was a member of the Conmiunist lawyers' 
group. 

Mr. Tavenner. George Altman. 

Mr. Yerkes. Mr. Altman was a member of the Communist lawyers' 
group. But there, too, I am sure he has withdrawn from the party. 
I no longer saw him, as I recall, for some time prior to my departure. 
I just don't know about this, but I am pretty sure he is out of it. 

Mr. Tavenner. Pauline Epstein. 

Mr. Yerkes. She was with the Communist laAvyers' group, 

Mr, Tavtsnner. Matt Richman. 

Mr. Yerkes. Richman was with the Communist lawyers' group, 
but he, too, I am confident, pulled out. I would hesitate to appraise 
the time, but quite some time before I did, and I never saw him there 
after that. 

Mr. Tavenner. Rose Rosenberg. 

Ml'. Yerkes. She attended the Communist Party groups. 

Mr. Tavenner. Lawrence Sperber. 

Mr. Yerkes, He attended, 

Mr. Ta\t5nner. Was he at one time the executive secretaiy of the 
Lawyers' Guild ? 

Mr. Yerkes. I think he is now ; I don't know. It is a matter of 
record, whoever is. 

95008— 52— pt. 1 10 



2578 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. Tavenner. Are there any other lawyers who were members of 
the Communist Party group whom you can recall ^ 

Mr. Yerkes. You have been clown the list, Mr. Tavenner. I don't 
recall any more at the moment. It is awfully hard to pull these 
names out in recollection because I was at that time involved with 
many guild lawyers, too, and if I Avere to see a list of the board of 
governors of the State bar and a list of the trustees in the American 
Bar Association or the Los Angeles Bar Association and a third list, 
and then you took all this away, it would be hard to remember which 
names are on which list. 

Mr. Tavenner. At the present time you are unable to recall; is 
that right? 

Mr. Yerkes. I presently cannot recall any more ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Since your break with the Communist Party and 
your disaffiliation with the National Lawyers' Guild, have you become 
active in other legal organizations? 

Mr. Yerkes. Yes, sir. As soon as I abandoned the guild, I naturally 
sought to be of service at the bar, and I was urged by several people 
to become active on the Los Angeles Bar Association committee. So 
I was appointed to the committee on legal ethics in 1950, and I have 
been a member of that committee for 1950 and 1951 and am still a 
member of that committee. 

Mr. Tavenner. Your withdrawal from the Communist Party in 
1948 has been a full and complete sevefance of your connection with 
the Communist Party ; is that true ? 

Mr. Yerkes. Yes, sir. As I say, there was no formal disassociation, 
no ceremonial aspect to this, but, confirmatory of it, there are one or 
two incidents which I might relate. 

Some time after I terminated the attendance at meetings, I believe 
it was Mr. Eobert Katz said he knew I was happier away from them, 
and I believe once Mr. McTernan asked me what I thought about the 
Communist Party, and I said I didn't want to be in it. And that is 
about it. 

Mr. Ta\^nner. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Wood. Mr. Doyle. 

Mr. Doyle. Mr. Yerkes, some of these organizations that you men- 
tioned are quite familiar to me because I am also a member of the 
California bar. I was pleased to hear you say, "I consider it a duty — 
and my wife joins me in the sentiment — to appear before this com- 
mittee and assist it in its work." 

You stated about that, in substance. 

Mr. Yerkes. Yes, sir ; and I believe that, sir. 

Mr. Doyle. I wrote it down because I was very pleased to hear you 
say it. 

Why did you come to that conclusion, that you consider it a duty to 
come here and cooperate with this committee as you have? What 
impelled you to do that ? 

Mr. Yerkes. Well, of course, this is subjective to me as a person. I 
feel, first of all, that it is the duty of a citizen to do the best he can in 
performing the role of citizenship, and I visualize and am firmly of 
the belief that one of these responsibilities is to assist my Government 
in any way it seeks to determine what and why and how of any issue 
of the day, and this issue of communism is an important one. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2579 

I am not going to sit in judgment of Communists; I cannot do this; 
I don't know enough about it. And neither am I going to take a posi- 
tion for them. I am just not able to appraise this beyond my own 
personal experience with it. 

But I feel the committee has a right to examine all these things ; and, 
as a citizen, I could not refuse, in honesty and dignity, to come. 

Furthermore, as a member of the bar and being aware of the nature 
of the committee's inquiry at this time, I think here, too, the committee 
is entitled to know what I know, for what it is worth. 

Mr. Doyle. Thank you very much. 

I noticed part of your answer where you said the committee was 
entitled to examine to an extent. I call your attention to Public Law 
601, which is the statute under which this committee operates in Con- 
gress. Have you ever had the opportunity to read it? 

Mr. Yekkes. No, sir. 

Mr. Tavennfr. It is very short: 

The Committee on Un-American Activities as a whole or by subcommittee, is 
authorized to make, from time to time, investigations of — 

1. The extent, character, and objects of un-American propaganda activities in 
the United States ; 

2. A diffusion within the United States of subversive and un-American propa- 
ganda that is instigated from foreign countries or of a domestic origin and which 
attacks the principles of the form of government as guaranteed by our Consti- 
tution ; and 

3. All other questions in relation thereto that would aid Congress in any 
necessary remedial legislation. 

That is one of the three paragraphs. The others are not pertinent 
to the purpose of this question. 

Have you, in connection with your coming here, or your testimony 
today, felt any sense of coercion ? 

Mr. Yerkes. Coercion in coming before the committee? 

Mr. DoYLE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Yerkes. Well, let me say that if the committee had asked me 
privately, I would just as gladly have stated my views as publicly; 
only in the sense that this is a formal appearance. I don't feel that 
I am under any duress or constraint of any sort. 

Mr. Doyle. Do you feel under a sense of punishment ? Do you feel 
the committee, in its attitude in the hearing here today, is, by its ques- 
tioning of counsel or any member of the committee, that it has been 
in any way trying to punish you, as a matter of public record, for 
whatever your beliefs have been in connection with this ? 

Mr. Yerkes. May I give an expanded answer? 

Mr. Doyle. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Yerkes. I don't feel as though I have done anything wrong. 
I want to make that quite clear to the committee. I have done what 
seemed to me best. I may make errors in judgment, but even this I 
will not concede, because my life is not yet lived and I don't know what 
experience I have gained. 

But, in this sense, not feeling that I have done anything wrong or 
committed any crime, I don't feel that I am subject to punishment in 
any sense of the word, and I don't feel the committee feels that way 
about it. 

Mr. Doyle. May I interpolate that. Granting that the committee 
feels that way, do you, as a result of our questioning, especially by 



2580 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

our distinguished counsel, feel that we have given you a feeling that 
we are undertaking to punish you by public pillory or otherwise? 

Mr. Yerkes. I don't feel that the committee is undertaking to 
punish me. 

Mr. Doyle. That is what the question was. 

Mr. Yerkes. Bdt I would like to make this observation, if I might, 
for what it is worth : I have a feeling that in the Communist Party 
have been many sincere liberals who have gone in the Communist 
Party in an effort to find out about society. 

My own experience is that these people are misled. I think some 
device might be considered which would avoid a per se labeling of a 
person as a Communist, because there is now a current stigma attached 
to that concept. 

I would like to see — and I have given some thought to it — some sort 
of legislation which would involve an administrative procedure of 
a nonpolice character, an administrative semi judicial procedure, 
whereby a person could go into a Federal agency and disaffirm his 
relationship with the Communist Party. 

May 1 use an analogy in the law of contract ? If a man goes into 
a contract under fraud or duress or mistake, he is allowed to come into 
equity and I'escind as though the contract did not exist. 

And I feel firmly that there are many persons in the Communist 
Party who would be entitled to such procedural approach, where they 
may come in to a Federal agency and rescind that which has been 
done. 

Mr. Wood. Is there any higher authority than the legislative com- 
mittees of Congress? 

Mr. Yerkes. I am sure there is no higher authority, but I am not 
sure, because of the magnitude of the problem, that the committee 
would care to undertake it. 

Mr. Wood. Will you yield for just a moment, Mr. Doyle? 
Mr. Doyle. Yes, sir. 

Mr. AVuOD. This committee has had an open standing invitation 
to every man in America who may have gone into a situation of this 
sort, who was sincerely thinking he was seeking the correct answer and 
was disillusioned about it, to come before this committee at any time, 
whether he had been named by anybody, or not, and in the best public 
forum I know, disavow his relationship. 

Mr. Yerkes. May I say I appreciate the sincerity of the committee, 
and I welcome the opportunity to come here. 

I don't think that, for example, I did not realize, honestly did not 
realize, that the committee wanted people affirmatively to come. I 
really mean this. 

Mr. Wood. That is what we are seeking above all. 
Mr. Yerkes. I have not read of this. Perhaps I overlooked it. 
Mr. Wood. I announced publicly over the radio. 
Mr. Yerkes. I have no doubt about that, sir, and I am very glad 
you did. 

Mr. Doyle. I appreciate your making that offer and suggestion, 
your ideas on this subject or perhaps how to get more cooperation 
from Communists who want to renounce, because that is point 3 
which I read to you, which is the subject of concern with this 
committee. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2581 

Now may I ask you this : Because of your experience here, do you 
apprehend that you are going to be any less anxious or useful as 
a member of the legal profession, in your determination to represent 
in court, if need be, if that comes to you, any person who might be 
charged with something that is unpopular, such as the Civil Rights 
Congress is undertaking to represent, shall I say ? 

In other words, do you feel yourself that you are going to be any 
less anxious to carry out your high ideals as a member of the bar? 

Mr. Yerkes. No, sir. My ideals for the bar have not been altered 
one whit. I am not the kind of a lawyer that has taken controversial 
cases; but subject to that limitation, I wouldn't feel any different 
about it now than I ever have. 

Mr. Doyle. I want to compliment you, not in the sense of preach- 
ing to you, because I don't mean that. I feel perhaps I am just a 
little bit older at the bar than you, and it is refreshing, sir, to me, 
as an older member of the California bar and as a present member 
of the California State Bar Committee on Legislation — which I am 
and have been for 3 years — it is refreshing to have you come and 
testify to the high ideas and interest in human individuals, as con- 
trasted to the "dialectical materialism'" which is a term you have used 
and others have used, representing social change. 

Now, may I ask you about just a couple of factual matters here? 

When was that Connnunist Party meeting in Holywood, to which 
you related you went? 

Mr. Yerkes. February 2. There was one on a cross-street, which 
I and several other lawyers attended. That was in the middle of 
1948, December of 1948. 

There was a prior one which I mentioned, which was composed of 
all strangers, with the exception of this Dorothy. 

Mr. Doyle. That is the one I referred to. 

Mr. Yerkes. That must have been, oh, 2 months before that. I 
would say, my best guess now is April of 1948. 

Mr. Doyle. Who introduced the president of the National Law- 
yers' Guild at the meeting, when the national president spoke ? Who 
introduced him to the group of Communist lawyers ? 

Mr. Yerkes. This wasn't the national president. This was Mr. 
Silberstein. 

Mr. Doyle. Now, Silberstein, from Washington? 

Mr. Yerkes. He was national executive secretary. 

Mr. DoYi,E. Yes. Who introduced him at that meeting? 

Mr. YERiiEs. Well, I think he sort of introduced himself, after 
he had been milling around with everybody there. I could not recall 
anybody presented him. 

Mr. DoYLE. Was there someone who acted as sort of an informal 
chairman ? 

Mr. Yerkes. Well, it was in Mr. McTernan's home, and he was 
the host. That is about the way it would be. 

Mr. Doyle. You said at some of these Connnunist lawyers' meet- 
ings the subject of the Smith Act and the subject of The Present 
Danger — apparently referring to the Supreme Court decision 

Mr. Yerkes. That was prior to the Dennis decision. 

Mr. Doyle. Prior to that? 

Mr. Yerkes. Yes, sir. 



2582 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. Doyle. And similar subjects were discussed. 

I know it would not be embarrassing to you if I asked if the sub- 
ject of the Un-American Activities functions was discussed, this com- 
mittee ? 

Mr. Yerkes. I don't recall it, sir. I think I would have, if it 
did take place. It might have been referred to, but not discussed as a 
topic, 

Mr. DoTLE. I made a note here that you said something similar 
to this : 

I felt tbat American liberalism didn't permit the synthesis which I held, 
which was that there should be different viewpoints debated. No difference 
of opinion was tolerated by the Communist lawyers' group. 

How could that be, in a group of lawyers ? 

Mr. Yerkes. That is one of the strange things about it, Mr. Doyle. 

Let me rephrase what I think my statement was. 

I think that our great American heritage not only tolerates but 
requires that many points of view be synthesized into the rule of 
the majority, but that this take place by the process of tolerance of 
these ideas and the weighing of them and the merits. In Communist 
meetings I did not sense this tolerance of ideas. If anything, ideas 
which were not materialistic or not acceptable to some vague, in- 
definable source, these ideas were rejected; they were not considered 
on their merits. 

Now, as to how this occurred, it is very hard to say. It seems to 
be a move — may I say parenthetically that I think a certain amount 
of desperation, not in a conspiratorial sense, but an emotional sense, 
with a person who is a Communist devotedly, and I think that 
from this desperation comes a rejection of other points of view. 

Mr. Doyle. I have one further question. 

You said, in substance : 

I felt that if there was any possibility of having to take a stand as between 
the United States and the Soviet Union, I was with the United States. 

Mr. Yerkes. Yes, sir. I always felt that way about it. 

Mr. Doyle. To what exent was it called to your attention, if any, 
in these Communist lawj'ers' meeting, that it might be necessary to 
take a stand against the United States for the Soviet Union? 

Mr. Yerkes. Never in a Communist lawyer meeting, sir. This 
was a thing that became apparent in the press in the general tenor 
of our times. 

Let me say this on Communist lawyer meetings : Never once have 
I heard any lawyer in these groups ever advocate any violence of 
any kind, or ever advocate the violation of the court order, or of 
any other kind of ethics, or of any other standards laid down by the 
State bar of California, or the State bar rules. In fact, just the 
opposite was always stated : That a lawyer is an orderly member of 
society ; that he performs his function as a member of the bar ; that 
he obeys the laws; that he advises his client to obe}^ the law, and at 
no time was this raised. 

Now, in terms of discussion of these textbooks, there was discussion 
of what was said therein, but it wasn't related to lawyers. 

Mr. Doyle. Yet there was a committee of three, or a guidance panel 
of three Communist lawyers chosen, according to your words, to inter- 
view non-Communist lawyers in order that people they felt were being 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2583 

prosecuted in violation of civil rights should have defense, if possible, 
by Communist lawyers. '' 

Mr. Yerkes. That is right, sir. 

Perhaps I misunderstand the question, but I don't see how that is 
inconsistent with this firm position that I have always taken, so far 
as I know — maybe a person takes it and didn't ever tell me about it — 
this firm position that a lawyer has a duty to his client in court, and 
he must be effectively trained to do this, procedurally and substan- 
tively. 

Mr. Doyle. I must not take all the time. Other members have 
questions. Thank you. 

Mr. Wood. Mr. Jackson. 

Mr. Jackson. Mr. Yerkes, how did the lawyers in this group ra- 
tionalize the implicit nature of violence, as set forth by the prophets 
and the allahs of communism, or was there any attempt made to 
rationalize these statements, these positive statements, that violence 
is essential ? 

]\Ir. Yerkes. May I say that there was no real attempt to define 
this, but in the discussions that took place, I can remember, for ex- 
ample, very vividly, this situation : In this magazine called Political 
Affairs, there was an article — and I believe it must have been in 1947 
or 1948 — in relation to what took place in Poland after the last war. 

That article had, as its thesis, as I recall, the fact that when a state 
structure collapsed there was a governmental void, and that the people 
would then form a new government. 

Now, at that time I tried to bring up this very thing that you raised, 
when that article was discussed : Where are we in terms of this concept 
of violence, vigorous, powerful action ? And I never got an answer. 

But there wasn't discussion, in any formal sense, ever raised. 

Mr. Jackson. Did the Communist lawyers in your group relate to 
themselves in any way the activities of the attorneys — I think you 
mentioned — in the Dennis trial ? 

You said that the entire emphasis was ethics, upon comporting one's 
self in a dignified manner consistent with the rules and laws and 
regulations of court procedure. 

Did none of you relate to yourselves the activities of the other Com- 
munist attorneys in that court trial ? 

Mr. Yerkes. That is exactly what I did, because at that point I 
raised, for the first time, in my own mind, the question — as I say, I 
don't recall whether I had stopped attending Communist meetings at 
that time, or not, because that trial began in November of 1948, I 
think it was, and then moved into early 1949 — I raised in my own mind 
at that time the question : Well, what about this seeming sincere ad- 
herence to every good standard of a lawyer, related to that trial ? 

And it profoundly disturbed me, and, as I say, I tried to raise it w^th 
one or two and got no answer. 

But I was on my way out, so they didn't have to answer me. 

Mr. Jackson. I should like to say, Mr. Yerkes, I think your testi- 
mony is extremely helpful. And I call attention again to the fact 
that our distinguished chairman, Judge Wood, has made every effort 
humanly possible to bring this to the attention of the Communists 
who would like to get out from under, who would like to come forward 
and tell not this committee, but the American people what they know 
about the nature and the extent of communism. 



2584 COMiVIUNlSM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Certainly Judge Wood has gone perhaps further than any other 
man in this country, that I know, in offering that opportunity to come 
forward, to either give a vohmtary expression, or to clear themselves, 
if they have been unjustly accused. 

One of the great criticisms of the committee in the past has been 
that people have been smeared by this committee. Very frankly, I 
don't know of anyone who has been smeared. I think if they were 
smeared they were probably smeared in their official activities long 
beforei this committee ever heard of them, which is their reason for 
their being here. 

I think the one thing that is important — and it certainly is impor- 
tant to me, as a member of the committee, is the membership of a 
thing which has the conspiratorial aspect of the Communist Party, 
the essence of the conspiracy. In order to know what, you have to 
know who, first of all. 

I think that is a thing that is generally misunderstood in the minds 
of a great many people. That is why so much stress is laid upon 
the determination of the people who comprise the various groups. It 
is a difficult thing for a lot of people to understand. 

Very fortunately, in this past year particularly, I think probably 
more people have voluntarily come forward — some of them not vol- 
untarily — to disclose their associates. Certainly that isn't a pleasant 
thing to do. It is not a pleasant thing for any of us. 

But, as I say, it seems to me that that is the essence of what we are 
trying to detei'mine in order to find out the things that we must know 
in order to intelligently recommend to the House and to the Congress 
any legislative action. 

We ceitainly hope that others will follow the lead which you and 
the other attorneys from Los Angeles have taken. This thing is very 
close to me, because Los Angeles is my home. 

We certainly hope others will follow the lead that you attorneys 
have taken in helping us to intelligently recommend the legislation. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Yerkes. 

Mr. Wood. Mr". Potter? 

Mr. Potter. Mr. Yerkes, are you still affiliated with the law firm 
of which Mr. Margolis is a partner? 

Mr. Yerkes. No, sir. I left that firm in the winter of 19-1:7-48 for 
reasons I will not go into. 

And I have been in practice by myself since that time. 

Mr. Potter. I was interested in your statement concerning the fact 
that many liberals went into the Communist Party, I think it is 
very true that many people did, particularly during the "sweetheart 
period" when the Soviet Union and the United States were allies. 

But, from your experience, do you think that a person can be a mem- 
ber of the Communist Party today without knowing the difference 
between being a liberal and the true character of the Communist 
Party as an international conspiracy ? 

Mr. Yerkes. I don't know about the national or international level 
of this, since I have had no experience in it. 

In the terms of my own ex])erience, the change which took place 
in the attitude of the lawyers from 194(5 to 1948 was such as to make 
it very clear to me that it was not what I thought it was. And judging 
solely from that experience, I felt that, if my own particular uniform- 
ity of thought was imposed upon the people involved, I would say 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2585 

that any other ])eople should be able to get that same reaction. Maybe 
they haven't. Maybe it will come later. But they ou^ht to. 

On the conspirjicy aspect of the matter, I have read the decision 
in the Dennis case very cautiously, and I am now in accord with the 
concurring views of Justice Jackson. I think the conspiracy is the 
basic element there, and I am in accord with the expressed approach 
to it. But I have seen very little evidence of this myself. 

Mr. Potter. I think probably that is true. One of the purposes, 
one of the jobs of this connnittee, I think, is a means of bringing 
information to the people as to the true nature of the international 
communism and how the various groups fit into the over-all pattern, 
over-all structure. 

I believe that the American people today are much better informed 
on the true aspects of connnunism than they have been in the past 
year. 

Mr. Yerkes. I believe they are. 

Mr. Potter. I was also interested in your testimony. Apparently 
you are a man of religious background, and you have maintained that 
to the ])resent time. It is interesting to me, knowing that a person 
believes in God and believes in the dignity of man, how that can be 
overthrown, or how that can be compromised with a society in which 
man loses his identity as an individual. 

Mr. Yerkes. It can't be compromised. Either one or the other, 
I think, must prevail. 

Of course, in a real sense, that was my problem. Among the lawyers 
I didn't detect this as a problem for a long time, but when I attended 
these other meetings and this large meeting that I mentioned, this 
came to me very quickly as I sat looking at the crowds in the church. 
It is just as you stated, that this is not the high ideal and the brother- 
hood of man. 

The Golden Rule may have been observed in practice to some extent 
by these people, and sincerely so, but I didn't feel they would effect 
the achievement of it. 

Mr. Potter. I wish to join my colleagues, Mr. Yerkes, in our thanks 
to you for your help, not to us — we have a job that has been assigned 
to us to do — but to the American people. I hope that possibly civili- 
zation as well profits by all the information that we can get, so that 
people can better understand this international communism as it 
exists. 

You certainly have done your part, and I wish to commend you 
for it. 

Mr. Yerkes. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Potter. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Wood. Mr. Yerkes, we have heard many witnesses before this 
committee since I have been privileged to work with it, explain the 
purposes and objectives of the Comnnmist Party in America, and what 
we can expect of it in the event certain catastrophies arise. 

But I believe the strongest indictment I have heard against it was 
the last reason that you gave for your departure from the party, and 
that was that you feared that ultimately you might have to make a 
choice between loyalty to the American Government and the govern- 
ment of some other country. 

Outstanding is the fact that you sought seriously to obtain the best 
information you could to enable you to make a valued contribution to 



2586 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

the development and security of the country, for the happiness and 
prosperity of the people, and that yon found yourself in an organi- 
zation to which you went for the purpose of seeking that light and 
that information. You found yourself in the position where you felt 
you were ultimately going to be called upon, in your own conscience 
and in your own mind, to make a choice. 

There is no wonder in my mind that you left it at that point. 

I join the other members of this committee in expressing our grati- 
tude to you for coming here. I hope it has not caused you too much 
inconvenience. 

You deserve the congratulations of the American people for coming 
before us. 

Mr. Yerkes. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Wood. Our sincere thanks. 

Are there any further questions, or is there any other reason, Mr. 
Counsel, why the witness should not be excused ? 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Chairman, there is one other question. 

I would like to ask the witness if he is acquainted with Samuel 
Rosenwein. 

Mr. Yerkes. Yes, indeed. He attended Communist meetings in Los 
Angeles, but he came awfully late. 

Mr. TA^^ENNER, He was a member of this particular group of which 
you were a member ? 

Mr. Yerkes. I am reasonably certain of that. He is a lawyer. I 
don't know whether he is a member of the California bar, because I 
don't think he has practiced. But he was a member of this group of 
Communist lawyers. I have never heard it said that he was a Com- 
munist, but again, he has talked about communism and been a member 
of this group of people. 

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

Mr. Wood. There is no further reason, then, is there, why the wit- 
ness should not be excused ? 

Mr. Tavenner. No, sir. 

Mr. Wood. Mr. Yerkes, you are excused from further attendance on 
the committee, with our sincere thanks. 

Mr, Yerkes. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Wood. The committee will stand in recess until 10 : 30 tomorrow 
morning. 

(Thereupon, at 5 : 03 p. m., the committee recessed, to reconvene at 
10 : 30 a. m., Friday, January 25, 1952.) 



COMMUNIST ACTIVITIES AMONG PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 
IN THE LOS ANGELES AREA— PART 1 



FRIDAY, JANUARY 25, 1953 

United States House or Representatives, 

Committee on Un-American Activities, 

Washington^ D. G. 

public hearing 

The Committee on Un-American Activities met, pursuant to ad- 
journment, at 10 : 50 a. m., in room 226, Old House Office Building, 
Hon. John S. Wood (chairman) presiding. 

Committee members present: Representatives John S. Wood, Fran- 
cis E. Walter, Morgan M. Moulder. Clyde Doyle, James B. Frazier, Jr., 
Bernard W. Kearny, Donald L. Jackson, and Charles E. Potter. 

Staff members present: Frank S. Tavenner, Jr., counsel; Thomas 
W. Beale, Sr., assistant counsel ; John W. Carrington, clerk ; Raphael 
I. Nixon, director of research ; William A. Wheeler, investigator ; and 
A. S. Poore, editor. 

Mr. Wood. The committee will be in order. 

Let the record disclose that there are present on the committee, in 
addition to the chairman, the following members : 

Messrs. Moulder, Doyle, Frazier, Kearney, Jackson, and Potter. 

Are you ready to proceed, Counsel % 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes, sir. 

I would like to call Mr. Milton S. Tyre. 

Mr. Wood. Will you raise your right hand and be sworn, please ? 

Do you solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give the com- 
mittee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the triith? 

Mr. Tyre. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF MILTON S. TYRE 

Mr. Tavenner. You are Milton S. Tyre ? 

Mr. Tyre. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. When and where were you born, Mr. Tyre ? 

Mr. Tyre. Boston, Mass., June 20, 1917. 

. Mr. Wood. Would you elevate your voice a little bit so that we can 
hear you up here ? 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you represented here by counsel? 

Mr. Tyre. I am not at the moment represented by counsel. I am 
aware, however, Mr. Tavenner, that I have my rights to counsel. 

Mr. Tavenner. In what business are you engaged, or profession ? 

Mr. Tyre. I am a lawyer. 

Mr. Tavenner. You are now engaged in the practice of law ? 

2587 



2588 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. Tyre. Yes, I am. 

Mr. Tavenner. In Los Angeles? 

Mr. Tyre. Yes, sir. 

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

Mr. Tyre. I was graduated from the University of California, at 
Los Angeles, and the Harvard Law School. 

Mr. Tavenner. When did you begin the practice of law in Los 
Angeles ? 

Mr. Tyre. I was admitted to the bar either in December of 1940 or 
January of 1941, and I have been practicing continually since that 
date. 

Mr. Tavenner. The committee, as you are aware, I am sure, is in- 
vestigating the extent of Communist infiltration not only into the 
moving-picture industry in Hollywood, but in the professional field in 
Los Angeles. 

(Kepresentative Francis E. Walter entered the hearing room at this 
point.) 

Mr. Tavenner. The committee has evidence that a cell or group of 
the Communist Party had been formed within the medical profession, 
and at least one such group in the legal profession. 

It has come to the attention of the staff, and the committee too, 
through the introduction of witnesses and due to presentations of wit- 
nesses, that you were a member of a group organized within the legal 
profession, that is, a group of the Communist Party, and we would like 
your cooperation in telling the committee what you knew about its 
organization, its purposes, and what part you had in the work of that 
group, if you did. 

Is it true that you were a member of the group, that is, the Com- 
munist Party group established within the legal profession in Los 
Angeles ? 

Mr. Tyre. Is that a question, Mr. Tavenner, relating to the present ? 

Mr. Tavenner. I said "Were you?" I believe my question was 
"Were you?" 

Mr. Tyre. I wasn't sure. 

Mr. Tavenner. If not, I will ask you the question now : 

Were you at any time a member of the Communist Party or a Com- 
munist Party group within the legal profession in Los Angeles? 

Mr. Tyre. Mr. Tavenner, and Mr. Chairman, I am sorry, but I must 
refuse to answer the question on the grounds that the answer might 
tend to incriminate me. 

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

Mr. Tyre. No, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Or of any branch ? 

Mr. Tyre. No, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Or group? 

Mr. Tyre. No, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. You are not? 

Mr. Tyre. I am not. 

Mr. Ta\'enner. I understand that you refuse to answer any ques- 
tions relating to your alleged Communist Party activities within the 
Communist group in Los Angeles? 

Mr. TvRE. I don't really want to parry your question, but it is 
broad. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2589 

Mr. Tavennek. I am trying to arrive at a decision in my own mind 
whether or not you are going to cooperate with the connnittee in giving 
such facts as you may have regarding the existence of a Comnumist 
Party cell within the legal profession in Los Angeles. 

Mr. Tyre. I prefer no inference be drawn from my answer, Mr. 
Tavenner, but I believe the answer to your question concerning any 
alleged or purported activities in the past I would refuse to answer 
on the grounds of privilege, which I have, against self-incrimination. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know whether there was an organization or 
group of the Communist Party within the legal profession in Los 
Angeles ? 

Mr. Tyre. I have to refuse to answer, on the same ground. 

JNIr. Tavenner. Are you acquainted with Mr. William Wheeler, an 
investigator of this committee, the gentleman sitting just to my left? 

Mr. Tyre. Yes, I am. 

Mr. TA^'ENNER. Do you recall having met with him and your at- 
torney on December 14, 1951, at room 401, Taft Building, Los xlngeles, 
Calif.? 

Mr. Tyre. Yes, I did. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you at that time make a statement under oath 
to Mr. Wheeler regarding your knowledge of a Communist Party 
group oi; cell within the legal profession in Los Angeles ? 

Mr. Tyre. Mr. Tavenner and Mr. Chairman, in order to insure my 
privilege, I am afraid I must refuse to answer that question on the 
same grounds. 

Mr. Walter. May I suggest that the recollection of the witness be 
refreshed ? 

Mr. Wood. I am going to suggest that if you have that statement, 
submit it to him and ask him if he signed it. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Tyre, I hand you what j)urports to be a tran- 
script of the statement that you gave under oath, prepared by Noon 
& Pratt, reporters, in Los Angeles, and I will ask you to look at it 
and state whether or not you identify it as the sworn statement which 
you gave. 

(Mr. Tyre consulted the document.) 

Mr. TviiE. I will have to refuse to answer that question, Mr. Taven- 
ner, on the same grounds. 

Mr. Wood. Mr. Tyre, you do not have to refuse to answer, you do 
not have to do anything before this committee, sir. 

Mr. Tyre. I understand. 

Mr. Wood. Except tell the truth under the compulsion of your oath. 

The question is : What do you do ? Not what you have to do. You 
are under no compulsion here except the compulsion that your oath 
puts upon you to answer truthfully the questions asked you, or decline 
to answer them if you see fit to do so, for reasons that you may offer. 
But you do not have to refuse to answer them, so please do not answer 
it in that way. 

Your answer was that: "I have to refuse to answer the question." 
That is not literally true. You do not "have to" refuse. 

The question is : Do you answer or do you refuse to answer for the 
reasons given? 

Mr. Tyre. I do refuse, for the reasons given. 

Mv. Tavenner. You identify the occasion, Mr. Tyre, wdien you ap- 
peared at room 401, Taft Building, Los Angeles, Calif., and gave a 



2590 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

sworn statement, I believe. Did you state that you gave a sworn 
statement ? 

Mr. Tyre. I believe the question that I answered affirmatively was 
that I had met with Mr. Wheeler in room 401 of the Taft Building. 

Mr. Moulder. Did you fix the date ? 

Mr. Tyre. December 14, 1951. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was Mr. Martin Gang, your attorney, present on 
that occasion? 

Mr. Tyre. Yes; he was. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was Mr. Fred H. Quail of the reporting firm of 
Noon & Pratt present? 

Mr. Tyre. I don't know. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was there a person present acting as a reporter? 

Mr. Tyre. Yes ; there was. 

Mr. Tavenner. And were you administered an oath ? 

Mr. Tyre. I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that the 
answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Wood. That question, and the subsequent questions that you are 
now being asked, I am going to direct that you answer them, so that 
you will understand that your refusal, if you do refuse, will be at 
your peril. 

Mr. Tyre. I am aware of the legal problems, Mr. Chairnpan. 

Mr. Wood. All right, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Tyre, was this question propounded to you by 
Mr. Wheeler, investigator for the committee, on the occasion men- 
tioned, and at the place mentioned, that is, at room 401 of the Taft 
Building, on December 14, 1951 : 

Mr. Tyre, a witness, appeared before the committee in executive session during 
tlie Hollywood hearings, and testified under oath to the committee that he was a 
member of the Communist Party, and that he was a lawyer, and assigned 
to the lawyers' branch in Los Angeles, and during the course of his testimony 
he identified you as a fellow member of the party. Do you wish to confirm or 
deny that? 

to which question you replied : 

Tliat is correct. 

Was that question ever asked you, and was that answer made by you? 

Mr. Tyre. I decline to answer on the grounds previously stated, 
Mr. Tavenner. 

Mr. Tavenner. Well, were you a member of the Communist Party 
as a lawyer and a member of the lawyers' branch of the Communist 
Party in Los Angeles at any time ? 

Mr. Tyre. I refuse to answer that, on the same grounds. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was this question asked you by Mr. Wheeler: 

When did you first join the Communist Party? 
to which you made this reply : 

I am not sure whether it was 1943 or 1944. 

Was that question asked, and was that answ^er made by you ? 

Mr. Tyre. I refuse to answer on the same grounds. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you join the Communist Party in the year 1943 
or 1944? , 

Mr. Tyre. I refuse to answer, on the same grounds. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2591 

Mr. Tavenner. This question is shown from the record as having 
been asked you by Mr. Wheeler : 

When did you sever your relations with the party? 

Answer. I believe it was in 1949. I know that it was some time after I started 
my own office. I believe it was during that same year, but I am not positive 
of that. 

Was that question asked and was that answer made by you ? 

Mr. Tyre. Would you mind my taking a look at that statement, Mr. 
Tavenner ? 

Mr. Tavenner. I would be very glad to show it to you. It appears 
on page 3 of the transcript. 

(Mr. Tyre consults transcript.) 

Mr. Tyre. I wanted to get the wording of it. I refuse to answer 
that on the same grounds. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you leave the Communist Party in 1949. 

Mr. Tyre. 1 refuse to answer that on the same grounds. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you asked a question by Mr. Wheeler as fol- 
lows — in other words, were you asked this question: 

Do you recall any meetings within the Communist Party group to which you 
were assigned, in which was discussed the policy of members of the Communist 
Party within the National Lawyers' Guild? 

Were you asked that question by Mr. Wheeler ? 

Mr. Tyre. I refuse to answer that question on the same grounds, Mr. 
Tavenner. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you make this reply to that question : 

I will tell you about that on that problem. I can recall that early, during the 
time when I was a member of the Communist Party, the position was that the 
Communist Party lawyers should not discuss or have fractions or in any way 
try to come into a lawyers' guild meeting with any preconceived notions of 
any plan ahead of time as to what they wanted to do. Now, that, I can tell you 
very definitely and positively was the position stated during the first few years 
I was in. Later I can remember that there was a discussion that the Lawyers' 
Guild was too inactive. Meetings were infrequent, very few publications were 
coming out, and that it was dying on its feet, and that unless Communist Party 
members got into the guild — not got into it, because they were in it already — 
but got into it more actively, that the guild would die, and from that point on, 
which was probably after 1946, I imagine — from that point on there was, I would 
say, discussion in the Communist Party lawyei-s' group, pi'obably once every 4 or 
5 months, concerning what was happening in the guild, and this really amounted 
to a review of what people were doing in the guild * * * 

For example, I think I got on a legislative committee, or some such thing, and 
the purpose of the committee was to get before the bar convention certain resolu- 
tions — State bar convention, which was an annual affair, and I held 3 or 4 meet- 
ings of a very large group, which included non-Communists, who were members 
of the guild, and we got together resolutions, and submitted them to the guild. 
A very large meeting was held, I remember, at the Clark Hotel, I think, it might 
have been the Rosslyn. These resolutions were presented there. This was a 
pretty long discussion, and the guild approved them, and they were sent up to the 
convention with the guild delegates, to be put on the floor. Now, believe me — and 
I know this, because I was the man who was in charge of that committee — there 
was absolutely no direction or control or suggestion or influence of any kind from 
the lawyers' group on vrihat ought to happen in this legislative committee. Like- 
wise, with my program committee, while I handled it. Now, this may have been 
due to lack of time to discuss it, or lack of sufficient interest in comparison to 
other interests which the party had. 

Was that answer given by you to the question I read ? 
Mr. Tyre. I refuse to answer that on the same grounds. 



2592 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. Tavenner. What influence did the Communist Party endeavor 
to exert over the activities of the Lawyers' Guild ? 

Mr. Tyre. I refuse to answer that question, on the same grounds. 

Mr. Walter. Do you know this columnist ? 

Mr. Tyre. Pardon me, sir? 

Mr. Walter. Do you know the man whose name was mentioned by 
Mr. Tavenner ? 

Mr. Tyre. I didn't hear him mention any name. 

Mr. Walter. You mentioned a columnist, didn't you ? 

Mr. Tavtsnner. I was just talking about the Lawyers' Guild, rather 
than any particular names. 

Mr. Walter. Were you a member of the Lawyers' Guild ? 

Mr. Tyre. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were there other persons, or were there any persons 
who were members of the Lawyers' Guild who were known to you to be 
members of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Tyre. I refuse to answer that question on the same grounds. 

Mr. Doyle. May I ask a question, Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. Wood. Mr. Doyle. 

Mr. Doyle. You stated you were acquainted with William Wheeler, 
our investigator, a man whom you met in the office, as related in the 
transcript ? 

Mr. Tyre. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Doyle. As identified by you. Did he ask you to take any loyalty 
oath to the United States? 

Mr. Tyre. Mr. Wheeler? 

Mr. Doyle. Yes. 

Mr. Tyre. Mr. Congressman, I say "must refuse." I say this by 
way of retaining my privilege only, and that is the ground upon 
which I refuse to answer the question. 

Mr. Doyle. I am not asking you that. You do not understand 
my question. 

^ I am not asking you in connection with the Communist Party, I am 
just asking you whether or not Mr. Wheeler, the investigator for 
our committee, submitted to you any form of oath to the United States, 
and asked you to sign it or take it. I do not mean in connection 
with your oath when you took the oath, if you did, to tell the truth, 
and nothing but the truth, so help you God. I do not refer to that 
oath. 

Mr. Tyre. The answer to your question, then, is "No." 

Mr. Doyle. Your answer is "No." Has any member of the com- 
mittee ever asked you to ? 

Mr. Tyre. Of the committee present here today ? 

Mr. Doyle. Yes. 

Mr. Tyre. Not to my knowledge. 

Mr. Doyle. Let me tell you frankly why I asked you that ques- 
tion : Because I am a member of the California bar, too. A letter 
has been circulated out in Los Angeles, signed by several lawyers 
whom you and I know, in which there is a paragraph — ^I cannot exact- 
ly quote it — l)ut there is a paragraph by those lawyers to other mem- 
bers of the bar, apparently which states that the committee is ask- 
ing witnesses, asking members of the bar, to take a loyalty oath, and 
of course we know that is not true, you see. That is why I asked you 
that pertinent question, which I feel is pertinent. We have no 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2593 

knowledge of any investigator for this committee asking any lawyer 
to take an oath of loyalty to the United States. We assume that their 
oath to support the Constitution when they took the oath as a lawyer 
in court, and were admitted to the bar, ought to be sufficient. 

But I am glad to find that you are one of the witnesses that per- 
haps these four lawyers who signed that letter had in mind, and that 
evidently you were not offered an opportunity to sign another loyalty 

oath. 

Mr. Ta's^nner. You were asked a question by Mr. Wheeler as to 
whether or not you knew David Aaron to be a member of the Com- 
munist Party. 

Mr. Tyre. I refuse to answer that on the same ground. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you not reply : 

Yes ; it was a long time ago ; I haven't seen him in many years now. 

Did you make that reply ? 

Mr. Tyre. I refuse to answer that on the same grounds. 

Mr. TA^^NNER. Is it not a fact that you did know Da-sdd Aaron 
was a member of the Commimist Party lawyers' group and that you 
sat in meetings with him I 

Mr. Tyre. I refuse to answer that question on the same grounds. 

Mr. Tavenner. You were asked the question, were you not, by Mr. 
Wieeler, as to whether Selma Bachelis was a member of the lawyers' 
gToup in the Communist Party, to which you are alleged to have made 
this reply : 

She was there — 

.which was followed by the question : 

She was in the group? 
Answer. Yes. 

Is that correct ? 

Mr. Tyre. I refuse to answer that question, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was Selma Bachelis a member of the lawyers* 
group within the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Tyre. I refuse to answer that question on the same grounds. I 
believe in my previous answer I neglected to state it was on that same 
ground. 

Mr. Tai'enner. Were you asked this question : 

William Esterman was also identified as a member of this group. Do you 
recall him being present? 

Mr. Tyre. I refuse to answer that question on the same grounds. 

Mr. Tavenner. And the answer attributed to you was "Ye^s." 

Mr. Tyre. I refuse to answer that on same ground. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was William Esterman one of those who partici- 
pated in the meetings of the Communist Party group within the legal 
profession ? 

Mr. Tyre. I refuse to answer that question on the same ground, 
Mr. Tavenner. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was this question asked you by Mr. Wheeler : 

Jack Frankel, F-r-a-n-k-e-1, was likewise identified as a member of the Com- 
munist Party. Do you recall him as a member? 
Answer. Yes; I do. 

95008— 52— pt 1 11 



2594 COMMUOTSM IN" LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Was that question propounded, and was that answer made by you ? 
Mr. Tyke. I refuse to answer on the same ground. 
Mr. TA^'ENNER. Was Mr. Frankel a member of the Communist 
Party ? 

Mr. Ttre. I refuse to answer that on the same ground. 
Mr, Ta\t:nner. This question was asked of you : 

Jane Grodzins was a member of the Communist Party in this group. Do you 
recall her? 
Answer. Yes, I recall her, but very, very few times. 

Was that question propounded to you, and was tliat answer given 
by you ? 

Mr. Tyre. I refuse to answer on the same grounds. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was Jane Grodzins a member of tlie Communist 
Party to j^our knowledge ? 

Mr. Tyre. I refuse to answer on the same grounds. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was this question asked you : 

Albert Herzig was identified as a member of this group. Do you recall Mr. 
Herzig ? 
Answer. For a short time ; yes. 

Was that question propounded to you, and was the answer given by 
you ? 

Mr. Tyre. I refuse to answer that on the same grounds. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you know Mr. Herzig to be a member of the 
Communist Party within the group of hiwyers in Los Angeles ? 

Mr. Tyre. I refuse to answer that question on the same grounds. 

Mr. TA^^NNER. Do you know whether his wife, Thelma Herzig, 
was a lawyer ? 

Mr. Tyre. Yes ; I know that Thelma Herzig was a lawyer. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was she a member of the lawyers' group within the 
Communist Party in Los Angeles ? 

Mr. Tyre. I refuse to answer that question on the grounds pre- 
viously stated. 
- Mr." Walter. Did you say that she was, to Mr. Wheeler? 

Mr. Tyre. That she was a member of the Communist Party, sir ? 

Mr. Walter. Yes. 

Mr. Tyre. I must refuse — j^ardon me — I refuse to answer that ques- 
tion on the same grounds. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was this question asked you by Mr. "Wheeler : 

Victor Kaplan was identified as a member of the Communist Party. Do you 
recall Mr. Kaplan? 
Answer. Yes ; I do. 

Was that question asked, and was that the answer given by you ? 
Mr. Tyre. I refuse to answer that question on the same grounds. 
Mr. Tavenner. Did you know Victor Kaplan as a member of the 
Communist Party ? 

Mr. Tyre. I refuse to answer that question on the same grounds, 
Mr. Tavenner. Was this question asked you : 

Mr. Robert Katz was identified as a member of the Communist Party in the 
lawyers' group. Do you recall Mr. Robert Katz? 
Answer. I do. 

Was that question propounded to you and that answer given by you? 
Mr. Tyre. I refuse to answer on the same grounds. 



COMMUNISM IX LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2595 

Mr. Tavenner. Was Mv. Eobert Katz known to you to be a mem- 
ber of the Communist Party ? 

Mv. Tyre, I decline to answer that question on the same grounds. 
Mr. Tavenner. Was this question asked you by Mr. Wheeler : 

Mr. Charles Katz was identifiecl as a member of the Communist Party also in- 
this lawyers' branch. Do you recall Mr. Katz? 
Answer. I do. 

Was that question asked and the answer attributed to you given 
by you ? 

Mr. Tyre, I refuse to answer that question on the same grounds. 

INIr. Tavenner. Were you acquainted with Mr. Charles Katz ? 

Mv. Tyre. I know Mr. Charles Katz ; yes. 

]\Ir. Tavenner. Was he a member of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Tyre. I refuse to answer that question on the same grounds. 

(Representative Francis E. Walter left the hearing room at this 
point. ) 

Mr. Tavenner (reading) : 

Question. Mr. Ben Margolis was likewise identified as a member of the Com- 
munist Party. Do you recall Mr. Margolis as being a member of this group? 
Answer. Yes ; I do. 

Was that question asked you by Mr. Wheeler ? 

Mr. Tyre. I refuse to answer that question on the same grounds. 

Mr. Tavenner. And w^as the reply attributed to you made by you ? 

Mr. Tyre. The same answer. 

Mr. Tavenner. You knew Mr. Ben Margolis very intimately, did 
you not ? 

Mr. Tyre. That is not true. 

Mr. Tavenner. You did not ? 

Mr. Tyre. No, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. You were acquainted with him? 

Mr. Tyre. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Ta\t.nner. Were you in a position to know whether or not he 
was a member of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Tyre. I refuse to answer that question on the grounds pre- 
viously stated. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was he a person known to you to be a member of 
the Communist Party? 

Mr. Tyre. I refuse to answer that on the same grounds. 

Mr, Tavenner. Was this question asked you by Mr. Wheeler : 

Mr. John McTernan was identified as a member of the Communist Party. Do 
you recall, Mr. McTernan? 
Answer. Yes. 

Was that question asked you and that reply made ? 

Mr. Tyre, I refuse to answer on the same grounds, 

Mr. Tavenner. You were well acquainted with Mr. McTernan, 
Were you not ? 

Mr. Tyre. I knew Mi-. McTernan. 

Mr. Tavenner. You were in a position to know whether or not Mr. 
McTernan was a member of the Communist Party, if he were? 

Mr. Tyre. I refuse to answer that question on the same grounds 
previously stated. 

Mr. Kearney. May I ask a question, Mr. Chairman ? 

Mr. D0Y1.E. May I ask a question? I will yield to the gentleman. 



2596 coMivniNiSM in los angeles professional groups 

Mr. Wood. Mr. Kearney. 

Mr. Kearney. Wlien were you subpenaed, Mr. Tyre, to appear be- 
fore this committee ? 

Mr. Tyre. I assume last montli, sir. I am not sure. I did not per- 
sonally receive it, but acknowledged receipt through an attorney. 

Mr. Kearxey. How long have you been in the city of Washington 
since your receipt of the subpena ? 

Mr. Tyre. Since the date that I was required to be here, sir. 

Mr. Kearney. Have you been present during the time that testi- 
mony was given by some of the other attorneys in your area ? 

Mr. Tyre. I have, sir. 

Mr. Kearney. Have you, since your arrival in Washington, re- 
ceived any telephone calls from any individual or individuals from 
California concerning your testimony before this committee? 

Mr. Tyre. From members of my family and immediate intimates 
only. 

Mr. Kearney. Could I ask what those conversations had to do con- 
cerning your testimony before this committee ? 

Mr. Tyre. Mr. Congressman, I really believe that this is a terribly 
personal matter, and I will say this for the record, if this is what you 
want : None of the names that have been mentioned by Mr. Tavenner 
were telephone calls to me, or on their behalf, so far as I know. 

Mr. Kearney. Were you advised over the telephone by any in- 
dividual or any individuals not to testify before this committee in 
the manner you did when the sworn statement was given ? 

Mr. Tyre. No, sir. 

Mr. Kearney. Have you talked with anyone since your arrival in 
Washington concerning your testimony before this committee? 

Mr. Tyre. Naturally, sir. 

Mr. Wood. You mean other than by telephone ? 

Mr. Tyre. Other than by phone? 

Mr. Kearney. Other than by telephone. 

Mr. Tyre. In the city of Washington ? 

Mr. Kearney. Yes. 

Mr. Tyre. Yes. I have been here all week, sir, and this has been 
a natural topic of discussion. 

Mr. Kearney. I mean outside of the committee staff or committee 
members. 

Mr. Tyre. Yes. 

Mr. Kearney. In any of those conversations did you tell any in- 
dividual or individuals that your testimony would be changed before 
this committee ? 

Mr. Tyre. I don't think I knew that answer myself until 5 minutes 
ago, sir. I was always uncertain as to what I was going to do. 

Mr. Kearney. Of course, Mr. Tyre, I do not mean any conversa- 
tions that you had with your attorney. I mean with other people. • 

Mr. Tyre. I had conversations. By these answers I do not intend 
either, sir, to infer that the statement to which Mr. Tavenner has re- 
ferred, and about which he has questioned me, was given in the form 
in which he has stated it. That is, I want to, so far as I am able to do 
so, reserve myself the privilege which I have claimed. 

Mr. Kearney. Would you mind giving the committee, for the 
benefit of any doubt that we might have concerning the testimony 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2597 

as given before the investigator in California, anything which is not 
correct ? 

Mr. Tyre. I refuse to answer that question, sir, on the grounds 
which I have previously stated. 

Mr. IvEARNEY. In other words, concerning your whole testimony 
given before the investigator, William Wheeler, you are now standing 
on your constitutional rights ? 

Mr. Tyre. That question would assume, I believe, that questions 
and answers were propounded, and therefore I would refuse to an- 
swer that question on the grounds that the answer might incriminate 
me. 

Mr. Kearney. Are any of these questions and answers incorrect, 
insofar as you know ? 

Mr. Tyee. I refuse to answer that question on the same grounds. 

Mr. Wood. Noav, Mr. Doyle. 

Mr. Doyle. Mr. Tyre, I j ust presume you have been so busy in your 
private law practice there in the prosperous city of Los Angeles that 
you have not had time to read Public Law 601 of the Seventy-ninth 
Congress ? 

Mr. Tyre. I have heard the Congressman refer to it several times 
during the course of the hearings, but f ranldy I haven't read it. 

Mr. Doyle. In other words, you have heard me refer to that ? 

Mr. Tyre. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Doyle. Do you feel you are sufficiently familiar with it from 
what you have heard me read in the last 5 or 6 days while you have 
been in the hearing room to remember the purport of it now ? 

The reason I ask you that way is if you are not, I will read this 
short paragraph again. 

Mr. Tyre. To tell you the truth, Mr. Doyle, when one is sitting be- 
hind the witness, ancl listening, one hears some of what is being said, 
and the other part of one's mind is functioning as to what one would 
do if he were in the same position. I would rather that you repeat 
it, if you want to question me concerning it. 

(Representative Francis E. Walter returned to the hearing room at 
this point.) 

Mr. Doyle. It is very short, and I hope the committee will bear 
with me. 

Public Law 601 of the Seventy-ninth Congress, that part of it that 
I will read, says : 

The Committee on Un-American Activities as a wliole or by subcommittee, is 
authorized to make, from time to time, investigations of (1) the extent and 
character and objects of Un-American propaganda activities in the United 
States; (2) the diffusion vplthin the United States of subversive and un-Ameri- 
can propaganda that is instigated from foreign countries, or of a domestic origin, 
and attacks the principles of the form of government as guaranteed by our 
Constitution; and (3) all other questions in relation thereto that would aid 
Congress in any necessary remedial legislation. 

Now, what is your opinion? Can you help us on this menace? 
Wliat is your opinion as to whether or not this committee, being a 
creature of the United States Congress — and Congress represents you 
and me and all of us here — is undertaking a worthy objective when 
we are assigned to investigate the extent and character and object of 
un-American activities in the United States. 

You feel that is a worthy objective, do you not ? 



2598 COMMUNISM IN LOS AI'TGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. Tyke. I have no objection to that, 

Mr. Doyle. I am not asking you if you have no objection to it, I 
am asking you if you feel it is a worthy objective. 

Mr. Tyre. Certainly ; the Congress of the United States, through its 
delegated bodies, ouglit to insure the security of the country, and if 
this committee feels that that is the way in w^hich it is to be done, 
that is this committee's province, I am sure of that. 

Mr. Doyle. Are you able to help us in any area of discussion, with- 
out feeling that you have to stand on a constitutional privilege? We 
do not — at least 1 do not — criticize you for standing on it, and if you 
conscientiously feel you must or should, but is there any area of dis- 
cussion which I can ask you with reference to any un-American activi- 
ties or any subversive program or propaganda that you are aware of — 
if you are aware of any— in the Los Angeles area, which would help 
this committee in its assignment by the United States Congress ? 

(Kepresentative Francis E. Walter left the hearing room at this 
point.) 

Mr. Doyle. Are you aware of any program which is designed to 
overthrow the form of government of our Nation? 

Mr. Tyre. If I could assist in that, Mr. Doyle, believe me, from the 
bottom of my heart, I would meet with you and tell you all that I 
could. I am not one who is terribly interested in putlic oration or 
public statements, despite the fact that my practice is that of a lawyer, 
and I am just unable to give you any further answer than that, but 
I want to assure you that if there is anything that I know^ that I 
think can be of any help, I can be counted on at any time. 

Mr. Doyle. Have you ever considered the subject of whether or 
not the Communist Party should be outlawed as an illegal entity ? 

The reason I ask you that, frankly, is under point 3 of our assign- 
ment we are told to look into all questions relative to any necessary 
remedial legislation. I just assume, as an active young lawyer and 
,fi member of the Lawyers' Guild, which you said you were or are, 
perhaps you have given some thought to the subject as to whether or 
not the Communist Party should be outlawed. Am I in error? 

Mr. Tyre. No, you are not in error. 

]\Ir. Doyle. What is yoar thought? 

Mr. Tyre. I think that 160,000,000 people have undoubtedly given 
some thought to that, and some to a greater extent and some to a lesser 
extent. 

My own view is that that would be a mistake, that I believe prevent- 
ing any person from speaking his mind, saying what he wants to, 
would be in derogation of what I consider to be the first amendment 
of the Constitution of the United States. 

I believe — I hope I am reflecting the ex]')ression that has been given 
by several well-known jurists on this problem when it was posed, as 
T understand it, a couple of years ago. In other words, although there 
is a serious problem, as I have gathered, in the |:>ermission of the Com- 
munist Party to exist, there is, perhaps, an even more serious prob- 
lem involved constitutionally, and insofar as retaining our democratic 
rights are concerned, in outlawing the party. 

Mr. Doyle. Do I understand in referring to the first amendment, 
that you would go to the point of feeling that it has freedom of 
speech legitimately, and with security to our Nation, to allow a person 
to express opinions in jDublic and advocate in public, and stir up public 



COMMUNISM IX LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2599 

opinion in tlie immediate presence of the people about him, that they 
slioukl use force, if needs be, to overthrow the United States Govern- 
ment ? 

Mr. Tyre. I am not intending to refuse to answer that, or trying not 
to answer it, INIr. Doyle, but we as lawyers know that there is a very 
big problem on the question of whether advocacy, in and of itself, is 
in'violation of the clear and present danger rules announced by Mr. 
Justice Holmes. 

I am not yet in a position to answer that question. I know that the 
Supreme Court has divided on it in its discussions, and I frankly and 
honestly and truthfully am not able to answer that question to my 
own satisfaction yet, one way or the other. 

Mr. Doyle. You and I have never met before, have we? 

Mr. Tyre. No, sir. 

Mr. Doyle. I have never heard of you. 

Mr. Tyre. That is not true the other way. 

Mr. Doyle. Nor anything about you. But the reason I asked you 
those questions is I feel they are pertinent, and somehow I have a 
hunch that you have done a good deal of thinking on these subjects, 
something just tells me you have done a great deal of thinking, both 
as an individual and possibly in small groups. That is, very frankly, 
Mr. Tyre, why I have asked you these questions, because this com- 
mittee is trying to serve objectively, and we are looking for w^ays and 
means to do so. 

May I ask this one more question, Mr. Chairman ? 

(Eepresentative Donald L. Jackson left the hearing room at this 
point.) 

Mr. Doyle. You have related that you were a member of the Los 
Angeles Lawyers' Guild. In connection with anticipated meetings 
of the guild, were you a member of any committee or any group in- 
formally formed or formally formed, for the purpose of deciding 
what sllould be done in the meetings of the Los Angeles Lawyers' 
Guild? 

Mr. Tyre. I don't quite follow the question. 

Mr. Doyle. I mean, were you a member of any group of lawyers, 
whether formally constituted or not? I mean, members of the Los 
Angeles Lawyers' Guild, who met before the meetings of the guild 
itself and determined what you would try to accomplish in the guild ? 

Mr. Tyre. No, sir. 

INIr. Doyle. And what would be your answer to the same question 
if I asked about the meetings of the Los Angeles Bar xlssociation ? 

Mr. Tyre. I have had an application sitting in my drawer for some 
time, but like other lawyers, that seems to wait, and I am not a mem- 
ber of the Los Angeles Bar Association. 

Mr. Doyle. One reason I asked you that is because I for 3 years, 
have been a member and am now a member of the California State 
Bar committee on legislation. I was just interested to know if you 
were a member of the group out there who were meeting more or 
less in private in a premilinary way to determine in advance what 
might be accomplished by them in acting as a unit in these meetings? 

Mr. Tyre. I am not a member of the Los Angeles Bar, but the 
answer I gave with respect to my chairmanship on the committee 
of the guild is accurate and correct, sir. 



2600 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. Doyle. May I make one statement for this lawyer, Mr. Chair- 
man, from California, becanse that is my native State? 

The record here shows that you have refused to answer, standing 
on your constitutional rights, whether or not you ever were a mem- 
ber of the Communist Party, and I think the record shows that you 
have stated that you are not now a member. That is correct, is it 
not? 

Mr. Ttee. I am not now a member, sir. 

Mr. DoTLE. I hope, sir, as a young man, and a young lawyer, that 
you will be a thousand times more vigilant and vigorous in support 
of our constitutional form of government as a nonmember of the 
Communist Party in the United States, than any member of the 
Communist Party that you ever knew or heard of. 

Is that a fair statement ? 

Mr. Tyre. I appreciate your making the statement, sir, too. 

Mr. Doyle. You have some children ? 

Mr. Tyre. I do. 

Mr. Doyle. How in God's name any member of the bar can get 
in such low estimate of our American form of government as to join 
and stick with an international conspiracy which definitely antici- 
pates the destruction of our form of government is more than I 
understand. 

But, assuming that you were at one time a member, I want to con- 
gratulate you in getting out as soon as you did. 

Mr. Wood. Counsel, do you have any further questions? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes, sir. 

(Representatives Francis E. Walter and Donald L. Jackson re- 
turned to the hearing room at this point.) 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you asked this question by Mr. Wlieeler 
at the time and place that we have referred to : 

Frank Pestana was also identified as a member of the Communist Party. Do ' 
you recall Mr. Pestana as being present in the meetings? 

'" Answer. Yes. 

Was that question propounded to you and that answer given by you ? 

Mr. Tyre. I refuse to answer that on the same grounds. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you observe Mr. Frank Pestana in any meet- 
ing of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Tyre. I refuse to answer that on the same grounds. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was this question asked you by Mr. Wlieeler : 

And Mr. John Porter was identified as being present at Communist meetings. 
Do you recall Mr. Porter? 

Answer. Yes, I saw him only infrequently, and over a short period of time. 

Was that question asked you and that answer given by you ? 

Mr. Tyre. I refuse to answer that on the same grounds. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was Mr. John Porter a member of the Communist 
Party, to your knowledge? 

Mr. Tyre. I refuse to answer that on the same grounds. 

Mr. Tavenner. "Mr. Fred Steinmetz was also identified as a member 
of the Communist Party. Do you recall Mr. Steinmetz as being 
present?" was likewise a question asked you, according to the trans- 
script, and you are alleged to have made this reply : 

Yes, I do, but likewise, I saw him over only a short period of time. 
Was that question asked and that answer given ? 



COMMUNISM EST LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2601 

Mr. Tyre. I refuse to answer that question on the same grounds. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was Mr. Fred Steinmetz a member of the Com- 
munist Party, to your knowledge? 

Mr. Tyre. I refuse to answer tliat question on the same grounds 

Mr. Tavenner. This question appears in the transcript as being 
asked you by Mr. Wheeler : < 

Mr. Jack Tenner was also identified as beins also a member of the Com- 
munist Party. Do you recall Mr. Jack Tenner as being present? 
Answer. Yes, I believe this was after the war, if I am not mistaken. 

Do you recall that question being asked and that answer being given by 
you? 

Mr. Tyre. I refuse to answer that question on the same grounds. 

Mr. TA^^i:NNER. Was Mr. Jack Tenner at any time a member of the 
Communist Party, to your knowledge ? 

Mr. Tyre. I refuse to answer that on the same grounds. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was this question asked you by Mr. Wheeler : 

Information has also been placed before the committee that Esther Shandler 
was a member of the Communist Party and the lawyers' branch. Do you recall 
her? 

Ajiswer. Yes. 

Was that question asked you by Mr. Wheeler and that reply given by 
you? 

Mr. Tyre. I refuse to answer that question on the same grounds. 

Mr. Tavenner. Well, was Esther Shandler a member of the Com- 
munist Party, to your knowledge ? 

Mr. Tyre. I must decline to answer that question, on the same 
grounds. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was this question asked you by Mr. Wlieeler : 

Mr. Aubrey Finn was likewise a member of this group. Do you recall Mr. 

Finn? 

to which you are alleged to have made this answer: 

Yes, I do. With respect to Finn, I saw him very infrequently. He probably 
was even more inactive than I was. 

Do you recall whether or not that question was asked by Mr. Wheeler 
and the reply given which was attributed to you ? 

Mr. Tyre. I refuse to answer that question on the same grounds. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was Mr. Finn a member of the Communist Party, 
to your knowledge ? 

Mr. Tyre. I decline to answer that, on the same grounds. 

Mr. TA^'ENNER. Were all of the individuals about whom I have 
asked you persons known to you to be lawyers ? 

Mr. Tyre. I really cannot be sure of the answer to that question, Mr. 
Tavenner. I don't know the answer. I don't recall the names. 

Mr. Wood. All right. I will ask you this, to simplify it, maybe: 

Do you recall any name that has been mentioned to you here in this 
interrogation who were not lawyers? 

Mr. Tyre. I could answer the other one if I could answer that. I 
am not sure. If Mr. Tavenner would let me see that list, I could look 
it over very quickly. 

Mr. Tavenner. I can read the list very quickly, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Wood. All right. I was trying to save time. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were any of the following persons, about whom I 
have asked you question, lawyers ? 



2602 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

David Aaron, Selma Baclielis, William Esterman, Jack Frankel, 
Jane Grodzins, Albert Herzig, Thelma Herzig, Victor Kaplan, Charles 
Katz, Eobert Katz, Ben Margolis, John McTernan, Frank S. Pestana, 
John Porter, Fred Steinmetz, Jack Tenner, Esther Shandler, and 
Aubrey Finn. 

Mr. Tyre. So far as I know, they were all lawyers. 

Mr. Tavenner. I will ask you about one more person. 

Was Rose Rosenberg known to you as a lawyer ? 

Mr. Tyre. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was this question asked you by Mr. 'Wheeler : 

The committee also has information that Rose Rosenberg was a member of 
this group. Do you recall Miss Rosenberg? 
Answer. Yes. 

Mr. Tyre. Referring to the group as a Communist group, sir? 

Mr. Tavenner. I am reading the question as it is. Was that ques- 
tion asked you, to your recollection? 

Mr. Tyre. I refuse to answer that on the same grounds. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was Rose Rosenberg a member of the Communist 
Party, to your knowledge? 

Mr. Tyre. I refuse to answer that, on the same grounds. 

Mr. Tavenner. I have no further questions. 

Mr. Wood. Mr. Walter? 

Mr. Walter. I have no questions. 

Mr. Wood. Mr. Moulder? 

Mr. Moulder. I have no questions. 

Mr. Wood. Mr. Doyle? 

Mr. Doyle. I have no questions. 

Mr. Wood. Mr. Frazier? 

Mr. Fr^vzier. I have no questions. 

Mr. Wood. Mr. Kearney ? 

Mr. Kearney. I have no questions. 

INIr. Wood. Mr. Jackson? 

Mr. Jackson. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman, but have one 
request, and that is to file as a part of the record the brief of the Ameri- 
can Bar Association on Communism and Marxism-Leninism, its Aims, 
Purposes, Objectives and Practices, and a resolution of the American 
Bar Association adopted by the house of delegates of the American 
Bar Association in February 1951, when it was resolved that the 
American Bar Association recommends that all State and local bar 
associations or appropriate authorities immediately commence dis- 
ciplinary actions of disbarment of all lawyers who are members of 
the Communist Party of the United States or who advocate Marxism- 
Leninism. 

Mr. Wood. Very well. 

(The document above referred to was made a part of the record 
and is filed herewith.) 

Mr. Wood. Mr. Potter? 

Mr. Potter. I have no questions. 

Mr. Wood. Since you have been under subpena before this com- 
mittee to appear here, either before, you left Los Angeles, or since 
you have been in the city of Washington, excluding members of your 
immediate family, which I am not going to interrogate you about, 
has any person approached you and discussed with you the subject 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2603 

matter of the testimony that you were called upon to give before this 
committee by that subpena? 

Mr. Tyre. Not the detailed question and subject matter, but I 
have discussed this question with numerous persons before I arrived 
in Washington. 

Mr. Wood. Has any person approached you in making any effort^ 
directly or indirectly, to influence you in refusing to testify, in answer 
to the questions that have been asked you here, or that you were going 
to be asked here concerning your party affiliation ? 

Mr. Tyre. No, sir. 

Mr. Wood. Any person, outside of the members of the committee? 

Mr. Tyre. No, sir. 

Mr. Wood. I understood you to say a while ago that you were not 
sure in your own mind whether you were going to claim your con- 
stitutional privilege and refuse to answer these questions or not until 
5 minutes before you came in on the stand; is that correct? 

Mr. Tyre. That is correct. 

Mr. Wood. AVell, do you mean to leave the committee now, and do 
you desire to leave the committee now, this committee, with the im- 
pression that you arrived at that conclusion yourself, within the space 
of 5 minutes from the commencement of this hearing? 

Mr. Tyre. Mr. Chairman, as an attorney, I am sure you have been 
faced with a similar pi'oblem when you are presenting an ai'gument 
before the court, as to whether you are going to press point 1 or 2, 
and until you actually stand up before the court you are not quite sure 
of which you are going to give the greater emphasis to. 

Of course, I have given this lots of thought. It is the most im- 
portant thing that has happened to me in my entire life — in my entire 
career. It is a terribly important decision, and much thought has 
been given to it, and I think when you come to within 5 minutes before, 
you are pretty well steered toward one or the other, but to say abso- 
lutely "Yes" or absolutely "No" believe me, I still was not certain in 
my own mind. 

Mv. Wood. I am not just clear in my mind. I think it is a fair state- 
ment to say that we are all convinced of the fact that you voluntarily, 
sometime ago, in the presence of your good friend, a fellow member 
of the bar, who is here with you now, Mr. Gang, appeared before an 
investigator of this committee voluntarily, and gave under oath evi- 
dence of your connection with the lawyers' branch of the Communist 
Party in Los Angeles. 

I do not think any person could reasonably draw any other conclu- 
sion than that from the testimony that has been given here. 

A man who would do that, a witness who would do that, before an 
officer of a court, and then come into court and flagrantly refuse to 
answer questions would be immediately held in contempt of that court. 

As a lawyer, you are familiar with that. 

It is a little difficult for me to understand, unless there has been some 
overreaching influence that has been brought to bear on you since that 
time, why you would leave a justifiable impression with this connnittee 
that you were willing to cooperate with us in the responsibility that 
has been placed upon us by the Congress of the United States, and then 
come here and arbitrarily refuse to answer these questions. 

I am not trying to censure you ; it is puzzling to me. It is something 
that I cannot get through my mind. 



2604 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

And I was going to interrogate you as to whether there has been 
any outside influence or whether or not you arrived at this conclusion 
yourself, 

Mr. Tyre. The strongest influence, Mr. Chairman, has been sitting 
right under the left side of my coat. It has been a very strong influence. 
Mr. Wood. Are there any further questions, gentlemen ? 
Mr. Kearney. Was that sitting under the left side of your coat also 
5 minutes prior to the time your sworn testimony was taken in Los 
Angeles before the investigator, Mr. Wlieeler? 
Mr. Tyre. It was in the very same place. 

Mr. Kearney. In other words, there is a conflicting emotion under 
the left side of your coat between your testimony in Los Angeles 
and your testimony here today. 

Mr. Tyre, I cannot answer that ; I don't know. 
Mr. Kearney. I can well understand the reason why you cannot 
answer it. 
Mr. Wood. Mr. Jackson, do you have a question ? 
Mr. Jackson. One question. 

Mr. Tyre, have you been asked any questions which impinge or in- 
fringe upon any confidential relationship between you and any clients 
you may have or may have had ? 
Mr. Tyke. No, sir. 

Mr. Walter. I would like to ask one question. 

You say that you discussed the position you would take when you 
responded to this subpena with many people. Who were the people 
that you discussed it with ? 

Mr, Tyre, Well, the chairman has indicated that — of course, I sup- 
pose this isn't binding on other gentlemen of the committee 

Mr. Walter. Exclusive of your family. 
Mr. Tyre. I have discussed this with several attorneys. 
Mr. Walter. Margolis ? 
Mr. Tyre. No, sir. 

Mr. Walter. Have you discussed it with the attorneys whose names 
were mentioned this morning ? 

Mr. Tyre. I made a statement as to what I had done, and what I in- 
tended to do here. I cannot answer any further than that on the 
grounds of my privilege. 

But I received — I want you to know this, sir — that I received — and 
I say this absolutely like I said it before, honestly — you just have to 
believe me — that no attorney that I spoke to told me to take the posi- 
tion that I have taken this morning, or urged me. 

Mr. Walter. Did anybody else tell you to take the position you have 
taken ? 

Mr. Tyre. No, sir. 

Mr. Walter. Did anybody indicate to you that you were foolish 
in trying to assist the Congress of the United States in disclosing this 
movement that is well recognized? 
Mr. Tyre. To the contrary. 

Mr. Wood. Is there any reason why the witness should not be ex^ 
cused ? 

Mr. Moulder, May I ask a question ? 

Mr, Wood. Mr. Moulder. 

Mr. Moulder. This more or less concerns your personal life. 

Did I understand that you graduated from Harvard Law School? 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2605 

Mr. Tyre. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Moulder. For what period of time were you in Harvard ? 

Mr. Tyre. 1937 to 1940. 

Mr. Moulder. Did you take any courses there other than in con- 
nection with law? 

Mr. Tyre. Oh, no, sir. 

Mr. Moulder. Any philosophy, or any other subject? 

INIr. Tyre. No. I don't know that any member of the law school was 
able to do that. If he was, I am not aware of it. 

Mr. Moulder. After your graduation, were you married ? 

Mr. Tyre. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Moulder. Where were you born? I did not understand. 

Mr. Tyre. In Boston. 

Mr. Moulder. Did you live there the major part of your life? 

Mr. Tyre. No, a very brief immediate part of my life. I lived in 
California most of my life, except for the 3 years in Boston, at Cam- 
bridge, during my law school. 

Mr. Moulder. How many children do you have ? 

Mr. Tyre. Two. 

Mr. Moulder. Were you in the armed services during the last war, 
or at any time have you served in the United States armed services? 

Mr. Tyre. No, sir. 

Mr. Potter. May I ask a question ? 

Mr. Wood. Mr. JPotter. 

Mr. Potter. Heaven forbid that it should happen, but in case the 
Soviet Union should attack the United States, would you be willing 
to serve your country ? 

Mr. Tyre. In whatever capacity my country would use me, Mr. 
Potter, I certainly would, of course. 

Mr. Potter. You know, it leaves the American people with a con- 
fused state of mind as to your actual break from the party to have the 
testimony you have given here today. The credibility of a witness, 
naturally, rests with the information he can give the committee. And 
it is difficult for me, as an individual member of the committee, to feel 
that your break has been complete unless the person is willing to aid, 
not the committee, but the American people and our Government, in 
an effort to know more about it, if there is any action of conspiracy 
in communism, and a person who has that information, has informa- 
tion that will help, and if he does not give his own Government the 
benefit of that information, he is just as derelict in his duty as a man 
on patrol in Korea who is charged with a mission to go out and get 
intelligence information on the enemy and who refuses to do so. 
I am disappointed that you have taken the position that you have. 
That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Wood. Is there any reason why the witness should not be 
excused ? 

Mr. Tavenner. No, sir. 
Mr. Wood. It is so ordered. 

Mr. Tavenner. I would like to call Mr. William Wlieeler to the 
stand. 

Mr. Wood. I shall have to turn the committee over to Mr. Walter at 
this time. 

(Representatives John S. Wood and Clyde Doyle left the hearino- 
room at this point and Francis E. Walter takes the chair.) ^ 



2606 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. AValter (presiding). Mr. Wheeler, will you raise your right 
Land? 

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

Mr. Wheeler. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM A. WHEELEK 

Mr. Tavenner. What is your name, please ? 

Mr. Wheeler. William A. Wheeler. 

Mv. Tavenner. What position do you hold with the Committee on 
Un-American Activities ? 

Mr. Wheeler. I am an investigator. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long have you been an investigator for the 
committee? 

Mr. nVheeler. Since August 1, 1947. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you question Mr. Milton S. Tyre, on December 
14, 1951, at room 401 Taft Building, Los Angeles, Calif.? 

Mr. Wheeler. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Is this the transcript of the testimony taken under 
oath at that time ? [Document handed to the witness.] 

Mr. Wheeler. It is, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. I desire to offer the transcript in evidence and ask 
that it be marked Wheeler exhibit No. 1. 

Mr. Walter. You may mark the exhibit and it will be received. 

(The document referred to, marked "Wheeler Exhibit No. 1," is 
as follows :) 

Wheeler Exhibit No. 1 

i^WORN STATEMENT OF MILTON S. TYRE BEFORE WILLIAM A. 
WHEELER, COMMITTEE INVESTIGATOR, FRIDAY, DECEMBER, 14, 
19.51, LOS ANGELES, CALIF. 

(Note. — Exploratory questions relating to the alleged membership of persons 
in the Communist Party who could not be identified by the witness as members 
of the Communist Party have been deleted.) 

Milton S. Tyre, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as 
follows : 

EXAMINATION 

Mr. AVheeler. Will you please state your full name? 

Mr. Tyre. Milton S. Tyre, T-y-r-e. 

Mr. Wheeler. When and where were you born? 

Mr. Tyre. Boston, Mass., June 20, 1917. 

Mr. Wheeler. Your present address? 

Mr. Tyre. 11.320 Keil Street, Los Angeles. 

JMr. Wheeler. What is your present occupation? 

Mr. Tyre. Lawyer. 

Mr. Wheeler. Would you give a brief resume of your educational background? 

Mr. Tyre. I went to the University of California at Los Angeles from 193.3 to 
1937; Harvard Law School from 1937 to 1940. I have been practicing law ever 
since graduation. 

Mr. Wheeler. When did you pass the California State bar examination? 

Mr. Tyre. I believe it was annouiu-ed in December, or thereabouts, of 1910. I 
believe I was formally admitted in early 1941, probably in .January. 

Mr. Wheeler. What has been your emplo,\nient liackground? 

Mr. Tyre. I worked for approximately 2 years with Norman Tyre, a lawyer. 
Then I worked for Gallagher and Wirin for approximately 6 months until that 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2607 

firm \A'as dissolved. Then for Leo Gallagher until July of 1943. The firm 
hecame Katz, Gallagher & Margolis ; until that firm was changed to Gallagher, 
Margolis, MeTernan & Tyre. That firm was dissolved in January 1949. I have 
been employed by myself since that date. 

M]-. AVheelek. Mr. Tyre, a witness appeared before the committee in executive 
session during the Hollywood hearings and testified under oath to the committee 
that he was a meml)er of the Communist Party and that he was a lawyer and 
assigned to the lawyers' branch in Los Angeles, and during the course of his 
testimony he identified you as a fellow member of the party. Do you wish to 
confii'm or deny thatV 

Mr. Tyke. That's correct. 

Mr. Wheeler. That is correct? 

Mr. Tyre. I don't know the years to which he referred, but I was a member. 

Mr. Wheeler. When did you first join the Communist Party? 

Mr. Tyre. I am not sure whether It was 1943 or 1944. 

Mr. Wheeler. When did you sever your relations with the party? 

Mr. Tyre. I believe it was in 1949. I know that it was some time after I 
started my own office. I believe it was during that same year, but I am not 
positive of that. 

Mr. Wheeler. Now, what reasons did you have for joining the Communist 
Party? 

Mr. Tyre. First of all, I was working for a firm that was doing a lot of work 
in the hibor field and civil-rights field. I had been asked to join, without any 
compulsion, of course, insofar as I was concerned, but requested to do so on tlie 
ground that I could do a better job for everybody, including myself, if I did. This 
was in the latter part of, I believe, 1943. It might have been early 1944. I felt 
that there had been a great deal of cooperation and friendship between the Soviet 
Union and the United States and the rest of the anti-Nazi world at that time. 
If I recall correctly, there was also a good deal of talk between or by Eric John- 
ston and Earl Browder, who was then the head of the Communist Party, and 
others concerning the great hopes for the world after the war, in which all 
points of view would be reconciled, in which all nations would strive for univer- 
sal peace, and there would be no reason or purpose for conflict between countries 
or between their respective social and economic systems. At the time Russian 
war relief was popular. American agencies, radio and newspaper commentators 
spoke freely and complimentary about American friendship for Russians. It 
seemed to me that through the medium of an American political party, striving 
for a world In which inequities and Injustices would be alleviated, if not elimi- 
nated, my best personal prospects lay for doing something constructive for every- 
body. At the same time I l)elieve that the senior partners of my law firm were 
meml>ers of the party. I had great respect for their views and their ability, 
and I am sure this, too, had much to do with my decision. 

Mr. Wheeler. Now, do you recall the name of the group to which you were 
assigned? 

Mr. Tyre. No ; I don't even know if it had a name. 

Mr. Wheeler. When you called — would you recall if I mention the name? 
Could it be the Engels branch? 

Mr. Tyre. I don't really know if it had a name. It may have, but if it was 
mentioned It was apparently infrequent because I don't recall anybody ever 
saying this was any particular branch name. 

Mr. Wheeler. Were you always assigned to one branch or were you trans- 
ferred to various branches? 

Mr. Tyre. No ; I was with the lawyers' group at all times. 

Mr. Wheeler. The lawyers' group at all times. During the course of this 
individual's testimony before the connnittee, he stated that David Aaron was 
a member of the Communist Party. Do you recall David Aaron? 

Mr. Tyre. Yes; I do. 

Mr. Wheele3i. Do you remember him as being a member of that group? 

Mr. Tyre. Yes. It was a long time ago. I haven't seen him in many years 
now. 

Mr. WHEEI.ER. Well, he was formerly connected with the Labor Relations 
Board. 

Mr. Tyre. Yes. I believe he joined after he had left the Board. 

Mr. Wheeler. Abe Bachelis was also identified as a member of the Commu- 
nist Party. Do you recall Mr. Bachelis? 

]\Ir. Tyre. lie is not a lawyer. I wouldn't know. 

Mr. Wheeler. His wife, Selma Bachelis? 



2608 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. Tyke. She was there. 

Mr. Wheeler. She was in the group? 

Mr. Tyre. Yes. 

Mr. Wheeler. She was the attorney for the Civil Rights Congress; is that 
correct? 

Mr. Tyre. That I couldn't say. I don't know. 

Mr. Wheeler. William Esterman was also identified as a member of this group. 
Do you recall him being present? 

Mr. Tyre. Yes. 

Mr. Wheeler. Jack Frankel was likewise i'lentified as a member of the Com- 
munist Party. Do you recall him as a member? 

Mr. Tyre. Yes ; I do. 

Mr. Wheeler. Jane Grodzins was identified as a member of the Communist 
Party in this group. Do you recall her? 

Mr. Tyre. Yes ; I recall her, but very, very few times. 

Mr. Wheeler. Albert Herzig was identified as a member of this group. Do 
you recall Mr. Herzig? 

Mr. Tyre. For a short time, yes. 

Mr. Wheeler. Do you recall any additional information concerning him, other 
than he was a member for a very short period of time? 

Mr. Tyre. Nothing in particular. 

Mr. Wheeler. Do you recall if his wife, Thelma Herzig, was a member of this 
group? 

Mr. Tyre. Yes ; the same thing. 

Mr. Wheeler. Is she a lawyer? 

Mr. Tyre. Yes. 

Mr. Wheeler. Victor Kaplan was identified as a member of the Communist 
Party. Do you recall Mr. Kaplan? 

Mr. Tyre. Yes ; I do. 

Mr. Wheeler. Mr. Charles Katz was identified as a member of the Commu- 
nist Party also in this lawyers' branch. Do you recall Mr. Katz? 

Mr. Tyre. I do. 

Mr. Wheeler. Mr. Robert Katz was identified as a member of the Commu- 
nist Party in the lawyers' group. Do you recall Mr. Robert Katz? 

Mr. Tyre. I do. 

Mr. Wheeler. Mr. Ben Margolis was likewise identified as a member of the 
Communist Party. Do you recall Mr. Margolis as being a member of this group? 

Mr. Tyre. Yes ; I do. 

Mr. Wheeler. Mr. John McTernan was identified as a member of the Com- 
munist Party. Do you recall Mr. McTernan? 

Mr. Tyre. Yes. 

Mr. Wheeler. Mr. Frank S. Pestana was also identified as a member of the 
Communist Party. Do you recall Mr. Pestana as being present in the meetings? 

Mr. Tyre. Yes. 

Mr. Wheeler. And Mr. John Porter M'as identified as being present at Com- 
munist Party meetings. Do you recall Mr. Porter? 

Mr. Tyre. Yes. I saw him only infrequently and over a short period of time. 

Mr. Wheeler. Mr. Fred Steinmetz was also identified as a member of the 
Communist Party. Do you recall Mr. Steinmetz as being present? • 

Mr. Tyre. Yes ; I do, but likewise, I saw him over only a short period of 
time. 

Mr. Wheeler. Mr. Jack Tenner was also identified as being a member of the 
Communist Party. Do you recall Mr. Jack Tenner as being present? 

Mr. Tyre. Yes. I believe this was after the war, if I am not mistaken. 

Mr. Wheeler. Seymour Mandel? 

Mr. Tyre. Yes. 

Mr. Wheeler. You recall him as being present at meetings? 

Mr. Tyre. Yes. 

Mr. Wheeler. Information has also been placed before the committee that 
Esther Shandler was a member of the Communist Party in the lawyers' branch. 
Do yon recall bci? 

Mr. Tyre. Yes. 

Mr. Wheeler. Mr. Aubrey Finn was likewise a member of this group. Do you 
recall Mr. Finn? 

Mr. Tyre. Yes ; I do. With respect to Finn, I saw him very infrequently. He 
probably was even more inactive than I was. 

Mr. Wheeler. The committee also lias information that Rose Rosenberg was 
a member of this group. Do you recall Miss Rosenberg? 



COMMTJNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2609 

Mr. Tyre. Yes. 

Mr. Wheeler. Now, do you recall who recruited you into the Communist 
Party? 

Mr. Tyre. Well, I was asked to join by Ben Margolis. 

Mr. Wheeler. Were you issued a membership card? 

Mr. Tyre. I don't think I ever was. 

Mr. Wheeler. Did you pay dues? 

Mr. Tyre. I did. 

Mr. Wheeler. On what system were the dues based? Was it a tithing system 
or percentage of income? 

Mr. Tyke. There wasn't any regulation at all, as far as I can recall, for a long 
time, except a stated sum. I think I paid $1.50 — it might have been $2 a mouth 
for quite a long time. I don't believe it was more than that. It was paid infre- 
quently, but it was paid up to date when paid. Later on I suspect, after the 
war, if I am not mistaken, that I was asked to increase the amount and was 
then told that we ought to pay on a percentage of earnings, but I don't recall 
what that percentage was, and I know that I never gave any reference to that 
in determining what I would pay. 

Mr. Wheeler. Now, did you ever hold any office in this group? 

Mr. Tyre. I don't think I ever held any office. 

Mr. Wheeler. Do you recall the individuals who did hold offices? 

Mr. Tyre. Well, to tell you the truth, the thing was a very informal sort of an 
affair. I could really only recall McTernan being chairman and Margolis from 
time to time was a chairman, but I don't remember anyone in particular being 
a president, as such. I think conducting the meeting was probably tossed around 
a bit, and the meeting — the preceding meeting, someone would be asked to 
prepare to lead an educational discussion at the next meeting, and that person 
would take over at that point of the meeting and would, in effect, chair the 
meeting. That passed around to everybody. 

Mr. Wheeler. Do you recall to whom the dues were paid? 

Mr. Tyre. I don't recall paying anybody but Frankel. I didn't pay him 
many, many times. I didn't pay every month. Some did, I suppose. It was 
always a sort of an unknown quantity as to what anyone in particular was paying. 
I don't know what anyone else was paying, as a matter of fact. As far as I 
know, no one knew what I was paying. 

Mr. Wheeler. Now, do you recall where these meetings were held? 

Mr. Tyre. Yes. I can't recall all, but I attended the meetings — most fre- 
quently when I attended them, I think in my first few years, those were mostly 
held at Jack Frankel's apartment. 

Mr. Wheeler. Where did he reside? 

Mr. Tyre. A few held at Ben Margolis' home. I think we had a few meetings 
at Charles Katz' house, and over a period when I was in, I think one or two, 
maybe three meetings were held at mine, but I don't remember if it was that 
many or not. I don't know the addresses of any of them, actually. 

Mr. Wheeler. Do you recall what subjects were discussed at these meetings? 

Mr. Tyre. Every subject in the world, but frequently educational discussion 
would be based upon an article that had appeared in Political Affairs, which is 
or was, I believe, a monthly magazine, or an article that had appeared in 
People's World, which was a daily newspaper, or on any current subject upon 
which there may not have been any particular article written. The discussion 
was usually led, as I say, by someone who had been assigned to it the previous 
meeting. It wasn't too infrequent that that person wasn't very well prepared, 
and the result was a general confab on the subject without any particular 
direction. 

Mr. Wheeler. Do you recall any discussion pertaining to the defense of the 
Communist Party or individuals snbpenaed before committees or grand juries 
in regard to investigation of communism? 

Mr. Tyre. Was there any discussion in the Communist Party where I was 
present ? 

Mr. Wheeler. Yes ; was there any of that nature? 

Mr. Tyre. I recall a discussion — where in the devil was it? I don't know. I 
can't really recall any particular discussion on that subject at all. 

JMr. Wheeler. Would a lawyer who is a member of the Communist Party 
advise a client in regard to the best interests of the client or the best interests 
of the party if the client's testimony would affect the party in any way? 

Mr. Tyre. That would be a question, I wopld think, for the lawyer himself to 
decide. I know very definitely and positively that there was never any discussion 

95008— 52— pt. 1 12 



2610 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

within the groiip in which I attended when the testimony of any witness was 
discussed or as to what advice a lawyer wonld give to a witness. I can tell you 
this : I remember a party, a cocktail party, held at John McTernan's house one 
afternoon. There were a lot of people present. It was not a Communist Party 
affair. It was either somebody who was in town and was being feted or it was 
some other occasion. I don't remember what it was. There were a lot of people 
there, and I remember Al Wirin was there, and this was shortly after he had 
given advice to a witness who was then appearing before, I believe it was, the 
county grand .inry or probably the Federal grand jury in Los Angeles, and a 
discussion was had, very informally and very openly, and I think 8 or 10 people, 
12 people, may have been around when it happened, as to what sort of legal 
advice could be given to a witness. I think the general consensus was that this 
was a matter that ultimately had to be decided by the witness, that you could 
tell the witness what might happen to him if he refused to testify and you could 
also tell him what his rights were in refusing, and try to explain to him where 
the line would be drawn, when you could claim a privilege against self-incrimi- 
nation, when you waived it, but after you had given the witness as much advice 
as you could ahead of time, whether or not the witness wanted to testify, whether 
he didn't, was something that the witness himself would personally have to 
determine. That is the only real discussion that I can ever remember, and that 
certainly wasn't a party discussion. 

Mr. Wheeler. Mr. Tyre, according to the records of the committee, you were 
at one time an instructor at the People's Educational Center. Do you remember 
being an instructor there? 

Mr. Tyre. Yes, I was. 

Mr. Wheeler. Do you recall what year? 

Mr. Tyre. I am not positive, but I believe it was 104S or 1944. I started 
there 

Mr. Wheeler. Do you recall how long you were active with the People's 
Educational Center? 

Mr. Tyre. Well, I was never active with the center. Let's have that under- 
stood. I didn't participate in the center at all, except that I was asked to give 
some lectures. The first year I gave probably one lecture. I think there was a 
course on labor problems on the current scene, or some such thing, and there were 
some lectures, probably, on the history of labor leading up to lectures on the 
War Labor Board which was then, of course, an important agency, National 
Labor Relations Board, workmen's compensation. Wage and Hoiir Act and other 
matters such as that, and I believe that I gave or I was scheduled to give — 
I don't recall whether I actually gave it, but I remember I was scheduled to 
give a lecture which, I think, dealt with either the War Labor Board or with 
arbitration procedure. I gave one lecture, I believe, but I am not positive, that 
year. Later I was asked to give a course on the history of the American labor 
movement, which I did, which probably covered somewhere between five and six 
lectures, I would say, over a weekly period equal to the number of lectures. 
I think I gave that course twice. I believe I told the people who were running 
the center at the time that if I didn't have a larger attendance I wasn't going 
to waste my time in preparing these lectures, because it was taking an awful 
lot of preparation. 

My main course of infoimiation was the introduction, a rather lengthy one, to 
Landis' book called Cases on Labor Law. in which there is a history of English 
labor and then of American labor movement, which is extremely well written 
and forms a very sound source for teaching a course on the history of the 
American labor movement. There are a few other books. I tried to keep 
abreast of what was going on by current pamphlets and leaflets and articles, 
which took a lot of time. I think I probably abandoned the second course during 
the process of its being given because there weren't enough students. IVIy recol- 
lection is there was a long lapse then, and I have tried to check my p;n"sonal 
records on this and they don't show anything as to what happened at all during 
that first 194.3-44 period until 1948 or 1947, one or the other. That year I divided 
a course. I believe it was on the history of the American labor movement. I 
divided it with one or two other men, and I was probably supposed to give two or 
three lectures. Frankly, I do not recall whether or not we ever completed that 
series. I know that we started them. That was when the center was up in 
Hollywood on Vine Street somewhere. 

Mr. Wheeler. Have you been a member of the National Lawyers' Guild? 

Mr. Tyre. Yes. I still am. , 

Mr. Wheeler. What is your opinion of the National Lawyers' Guild? 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2611 

Mr. Tykk. Well, my opinion of the suiltl is that it is au organization in 
which a lawyer has, theoretically, at least, an opportunity to do something 
in the field of law outside of the mundane practice of law. I believe the iiuild 
tries to get before the public issues involving constitutionality or legislation 
or other matters involving the law in one way or another so that the public 
can be advised of it, so that they are in a position to take action on it, so they 
know Avhat is going on. I believe the guild also tries to advise lawyers. I 
don't believe I know that the guild has tried to advise lawyers concerning 
subjects about which they ouglit to be interested. Now, there is a point where 
I have had some disagreement with the guild. To a very great extent the 
guild has held meetings at which lecturers have appeared, generally luncheon 
or dinner lecturers, and the subjects have been those which are very definitely 
of interest to a law.ver in his practice. They have involved regular subjects, 
such as procedure in probate or law and motion, property settlement agree- 
ments, and matters of that sort. I was program chaii-man of the I.iawyers' Guild 
for o\er a year. During that time we had many, many luncheon meetings at 
which they had very earthly bread-and-butter subjects, as I recall them, which 
were discussed. There were, however, occasions when the guild, I believe, 
went outside its practical orbit, at least, in bringing before these lawyers sub- 
jects which were probably not correct at the time, or perhaps at any time. I 
don't know. This involved political subjects. At the moment. I really can't 
recall a single one. I recall one that was held during my period of program 
chairman. That involved the Gerhart Eisler case. I thought it was of moment, 
and Mrs. Eisler — wasn't Gerhart the one who jumped bail"? 

Mr. Wheeler. Yes. 

Mr. Tyre. This was long before he jumped bail, of course. It was while the 
deportation proceeding was pending against him, and he was being held, I 
thought, without bail, and I think his wife was making a tour of the country, 
and when she was in Los Angeles, either I or someone else, if it was someone 
else — believe me, I don't remember who it was — asked her to speak before the 
Lawyers' Guild, and there was an announcement in the local daily journal 
for lawyers abcmt it. She spoke, and the subject was the background of the 
Eisler case. This was a front-page story at the time and did definitely involve 
a question of i)ail and right of a pei'son to bail, and so on. Now, it did, perhaps, 
go outside what one might consider to be the daily interests of a lawyer, but 
I thought at the time that it was au appropriate subject and, as far as I can 
recall, was the only political subject that we had had in the guild for a long, 
long time. That was while I was program chair-man. 

Mr. Wheeler. In your opinion, do you think the Lawyers' Guild follows the 
Communist Party line? 

Mr. Tyre. No, I really do not. I really do not. I don't question but that 
certain individuals probably would like to have the guild take positions, if, as, 
and when they take any position on a political subject which would be in line 
with that of the Comnmnist Party. 

Mr. Wheeler. There have been numerous instances where they have suj)- 
ported the Communist Party policy at the particular time, but I don't recall 
any where they opposed communism. Do you recall any instances where the 
guild opposed tlie current line of the Communist Party'.' 

Mr. Tyre. Well, the guild, as far as I know, has taken po.sitions only on con- 
stitutional subjects. Now, insofar as they have taken a position — that is to say, 
they have filed amicus curiae briefs with the court — that has not been inconsistent 
with the position taken. I do recall one of the subjects that was discussed. We 
discussed the sul)ject of the Marshall plan. I don't recall any discussions in the 
Lawyers' Guild on that. 

Mr. Wheeler. This was national 

Mr. Tyre. In the national convention. 

Mr. Wheeler. No, the executive committee did it. 

Mr. Tyre. I do remember a discussion on tlie Marshall plan within our lawyers' 
group, .see, becau.se the lawyers' group in the party was not interested just in 
legal subjects at all but in the genei-al education of people as Communists, iNIarx- 
ists, and at tlie time I remember very definitely expressing disagrement with the 
'Position on the Marshall plan. I had some questions — reservations, I should say, 
as to the effectiveness of it, but I thought that if the Marshall plan were able to 
bring food to the.se people who really needed it, that with all the other sliort- 
comings, that, in itself, was grounds enough for supporting the plan. That was 
not the position of the Communist Party. 



2612 COMMUNISM EST LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. Wheeler. Do you recall any meetings within tlie Communist Party group 
to which you were assigned in which was discussed the policy of members of the 
Communist Party within the National Lawyers' Guild? 

Mr. Tyre. I will tell you about that on that problem. I can recall that early, 
during the time when I was a member of the Communist Party, the position was 
that Communist Party lawyers should not caucus or have fractions or in any way 
try to come into a Lawyers' Guild meeting with any preconceived notions or any 
plan ahead of time as to what they wanted to do. Now, that I can tell you very 
definitely and positively was the position stated during the first few years I was 
in. Later I can remember that there was a discussion that the Lawyers' Guild 
was too inactive. Meetings were infrequent, very few publications were coming 
out, and that it was dying on its feet, and that unless Communist Party members 
got into the guild — not got into it, because they were in it already, but got into 
it more actively, that the guild would die, and from that point on, which was 
probably after 1946, I imagine 

Mr. Wheeler. Yes. 

Mr. Tyre. From that point on there was, I would say, discussion in the Com- 
munist Party lawyers' group, probably once every 4 or 5 months, concerning what 
was happening in the guild, and this really amounted to a review of what people 
were doing in the guild, were you on a committee and, if so, are you active ; is 
your committee holding meetings ; what have you done. For example, I think I 
got on a legislative committee, or some such thing, and the purpose of the com- 
mittee was to get before the bar convention certain resolutions — State bar con- 
vention, which was an annual affair, and I held 3 or 4 meetings of a very large 
group, which included non-Communists who were members of the guild, and we 
got together resolutions and submitted them to the guild. A very large meeting 
was held, I remember, up at the Clark Hotel, I think. It might have been the 
Rosslyn. These resolutions were presented there. This was a pretty long dis- 
cussion, and the guild approved them and they were sent up to the convention 
with the guild delegates to be put on the floor. Now, believe me, and I know this 
because I was the man who was in charge of that committee, there was abso- 
lutely no direction or control or suggestion or influence of any kind from the 
lawyers' group on what ought to happen in this legislative committee. Likewise, 
with my program committee while I handled it. Now, this may have been due 
to lack of time to discuss it or lack of suflicient interest in comparison to other 
interests which the party had. 

Mr. Wheeler. Well, you, being a member of the Communist Party at that 
time, wouldn't you more or less automatically steer 

Mr. Tyre. I should say not. 

Mr. Wheeler. You should say not? 

Mr. Tyre. I should say not. I can say this very honestly without any reserva- 
tions or qualifications : the time when I was a member of the Communist Party, 
when I attended a meeting I tried to be a good member. A rule was a rule. 
I tried to comply with it. Frankly, my attendance was pretty punk and I had 
to be prodded on my dues, but aside from that, when I was at a meeting and I 
participated in it, I participated like anyone ought to, but outside of those 
meetings I can honestly say that, to my consciousness, to my own knowledge, 
the influence of the Communist Party was absolutely negligible in any decisions 
I made either as a lawyer or as a member of the Lawyers' Guild. 

Mr. Wheeler. Do you recall the Duclos letter and the expulsion of Browder 
from the Communist Party? 

Mr. Tyre. Yes, I do. 

Mr. Wheelek. What reaction did that have upon you as a member of the 
Communist Party? 

Mr. Tyre. I didn't really know an awful lot, to tell you the truth, about the 
philosophy of socialism or communism at the time. The thing bothered me 
very considerably later. At the time it happened, I think I probably went along, 
if that's it, that's it, I suppose, and I would say about a year after that the 
thing began to bother me. People were being tossed out of the Communist 
Party and pretty well vilified because they disagreed with the new position 
that had been taken. I think it was probably starting about that time that I 
began to have my own qualms about one's right to have freedom if he were a 
member of the party. 

Mr. Wheeler. Did you attend any indoctrination courses prior to membership 
or after membership ? 

Mr. Tyre. I don't think I ever did. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2613 

Mr. Wheeler. Well, do you recall any instructors or anyone who attended 
your branch meetings to give lectures, other than the actual members of your 
groui>? 

Mr. Tyre. Well, I don't ever remember anybody coming to the group and 
giving any indoctrination courses or lectures, or any such thing. It may have 
occurred but, frankly, I don't recall it or remember it at all, but I do remember 
that we had a discussion group that maybe met six or seven or eight times, rather 
haphazardly — maybe once every 2 or 3 or 4 weeks ; I have forgotten — at which 
there were a number of people present other than Communist Party members. 
The subject of the discussion I don't remember, but I am quite positive that 
it wasn't the principle of Marxism, if we may put it that way, that was discussed. 

Mr. Wheeler. Were you ever assigned by your group to give lectures to other 
Communist Party members outside your own? 

Mr. Tyre. Oh, no ; not I. Never. 

Mr. Wheeler. Did you ever attend any fraction meetings comprised of labor 
leaders 

Mr. Tyre. Never. 

Mr. Wheeler (continuing). In southern California? 

Mr. Tyre. Never. 

Mr. AVheeler. You had no contact with anyone outside of your own group? 

Mr. Tyre. Absolutely none. I would have no way of knowing which labor 
leader was or was not a member of the Communist Party. 

Mr. Wheeler. Do you know anyone else, now, to be a member of the Com- 
munist Party that we haven't previously discussed? 

Mr. Tyre. Not of personal knowledge. I only know by the same way you 
would, I suppose, by reputation. 

Mr. Wheeler. Now, ]\Ir. Tyre, do you recall the circumstances which led 
you to sever your relationship with the Communist Party? 

Mr. Tyre. There was nothing in particular that happened. As I stated before, 
I believe that about a year after that Duclos letter — the Duclos letter was when, 
around 1945 or so? 

Mr. Wheeler. That's right. 

Mr. Tyre. I think it was about a year after that, I would say, roughly speak- 
ing, that I began to question .iust how much honesty one could have and still 
remain in the Communist Party. Now, I began to notice this more after this 
Duclos letter, because with the Duclos letter and the expulsion of persons from 
the Communist Party — I remember, for example — well, let's make my sentence 
complete. 

People were expelled and they were exposed in the newspaper and pretty 
well vilified. I can recall at one of our meetings some person who was not a 
lawyer whose name meant nothing to me at the time, and still doesn't, had been 
expelled, and a letter had been sent out from the county headquarters, I presume, 
to all groups. I don't know, but I know this was a letter written — rather, read 
to our group— that this person had been expelled from the Communist Party, 
and it then went on to say what a terrible person he was and all the bad things 
that he had done while he was in. It w^as this sort of stuff that began to make 
me wonder, and I can remember very definitely at that meeting questioning the 
authenticity of that letter. Here are a lot of statements being made by some- 
one other than ourselves^and we were lawyers and, as lawyers, naturally we ought 
to be concerned only with direct evidence ; and — I will be very honest with you — 
there were other expressions of the same made at that meeting when I raised 
it, and it is my recollection that someone was appointed to look into it and to 
substantiate these facts or not, as the case might turn out, against this person 
That is the last I can remember of that particular document, but, when issiies 
of individual's freedom and the propriety of the Communist Party position was 
taken or was had within our group, there was ^ pretty free discussion about it. 
It would go on, I would say, pretty freely for maybe a half an hour, three-quar- 
ters of an hour, and at the end of that time Ben, or someone like that, would 
try to center it or narrow the discussion down to find out just whether this was 
right or this was wrong, and at the end of the discussion no vote was taken 
to determine whether the position taken in a certain article, let's say, was right 
or whether it was wrong, but a general statement — well, this is what the article 
states, and no statement made that the article is wrong or could be wrong. There 
was always a feeling, when someone wrote in Political Affairs, that person was 
one of authority; and, although you had a right to discuss that article pretty 
freely, ultimately you would have to come to the conclusion that this author was 
correct. 



2614 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

I remember this economist, Vargas — he was a Russian economist, I believe, 
shortly after the last war. He wrote either a treatise or a series of articles in 
which he stated that there would be a depression, I think, in America or the 
capitialist system — I forgot which — which would not take place until somewhere 
around 1955. This was absolutely contrary to the Communist Party position. 
Their position was that, with the war over and the pump priming concluded, 
now there would have to be a horrible depression, and it was just around the 
corner. Mr. Vargas saying that it wouldn't occur until 1955 was pretty much 
a heretic, and it got to such a point that I remember discussions in our group, and 
I remember reading articles in People's World aboiit Vargas, that here was a bad 
man, in effect. In our group, though, we had an open and free discussion, I 
remember, on this Vargas problem, and there were people who expressed the 
view that it was possible that ftiere might not be a depression until the 1950's, 
sometime or other. From 1946 to 1950 seemed like a long way off, but I do 
remember that when the discussion was concluded it was generally felt that 
Vargas nuist be wrong. While I give you Vargas as an example, there were 
others. I think the problem on Shostakovich came up. There was a problem 
on psychoanalysis, too, I remember, as to whether psychoanalysis was a correct 
position or a bad pos'ition, whether psychoanalysis should be based upon eco- 
nomic insecurity or emotional insecurity, or whether there was any difference. 
Well, these were problems that were raised and discussed fairly freely, but 
there was always the feeling that when you were discussing it you were going to 
have to come to a conclusion ; and, frankly, once a conclusion was reached, I, 
at least, was reluctant to ever discuss it again. 

This was the position that was taken, and that was that. But I did have such 
discussion when I wasn't with my group. For example, I was in my firm, and I 
used to go to luncheon with my partners and frequently would discuss these 
sub.iects at luncheon and without any hesitation — I mean, for example, I had 
lunch with Ben Margolis any number of times at which we discussed subjects 
such as Vargas and so on. Those discussions were very nice, very pleasant. I 
never had any reluctance to participate in it. Somehow, when you got into the 
nieetinq- itself, there was an aura, an atmosphere, a cloud that hovered over you 
that implied, "Don't get out of line." Being criticized in the meeting for being out 
of line would be one thing, but I always had a feeling not to be ostracized. I 
always wondered that would happen to me, frankly, if I left the Connnunist 
Party. Would I be vilified like everyone else was? Well, you don't want to 
be. I mean, everyone likes his cliaracter and, as far as the members in the 
party were concerned in my group, I have nothing against them personally. 
They are pleasant people. I think I have stated off the record, and I will state 
it on the record, that I never witnessed anything that happened in our meet- 
ings which, to me, at least, indicated any one of these persons was ready to 
overthrow the Government by force and violence or by any other means other 
than constitutional means, and I mean it. 

Now, this is what happened within my own group. I am not testifying as 
to what happens in the higher echelons of the party, becaiise I wouldn't know, 
but I knew — at least, I feared that my group didn't have the independence to 
draw its own conclusions upon me if I should leave, but I will say this : That 
when I did leave, and I sa.v I think it was the latter part of 1949, or sometime 
in 1949, I talked to Ben Margolis about it when I left and he said, "You are 
free to do as you like." He says, "If you feel that yon cannot go along with 
the Communist Party position or you are afraid to remain a member of it, I 
don't care what your reasons are," lie said, "if yon want to leave. I assure 
you that there will lie no recriminations," which I thought was a pretty fair 
statement, although I was aware at the time that I left that Ben, too, isn't 
exactly an independent person and he, too, might be controlled by others who 
might make it necessary to say things against me which might make me un- 
happy. As someone pnt it one time, I think he said, the trouble with the Com- 
munist Party was that you had to hang your brains up on the hanger outside. 
This isn't precisely true, but I think what he meant was that you weren't 
exactly a free agent. I want to make myself clear that my discussions, our 
discussions, were quite open, quite free and without compulsion, but there was 
always this feeling that I had and, I believe, probably shared by others: That, 
although you ccmld discuss this freely, once a conclusion was arrived at, that 
was not subject to appeal or any future discussion unless that position had 
been changed by people higher up in the Communist Party. 

Mr. WriEELER. Have you ever had any contact with the nonprofessional group 
of th<> Communist Partv at all? 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2615 

Mr. Tyke. With the Communist Party? 

Mr. Wheelek. Yes. 

Mr. Tyre. No. I think when I lirst joined tliere may have been a mixed 
group, but I think that was the Communist I'olitical Association rather than 
the Communist Party. I think once it was the Communist Party; it was only 
lawyers, and the other— I just don't recall, really. 

Mr. Wheeler. Do you recall any members of the CPA? 

Mr. Tyre. I don't, other than the people who were members of my lawyers' 
group. When I joined, frankly, I hadn't done any reading that was worthy of 
calling reading. " I think that when people joined, generally, the Communist 
Political Association, it was a popular sort of thing. It really was, and there 
wasn't any requirement that you have read anything or that you take an posi- 
tion or that you swear any allegiance of any kind. 

Mr. Wheeler. Would it be a fair suuunary to state that you joined the Com- 
numist Party in 1943 or 1944 because you thought it was an instrument which 
might help make a better country and a better world? 

Mr. Tyre. I so stated. 

Mr. Wheeler. And that you left it in 1949 because you came to the conclu- 
sion that the Communist Party, as it had developed while you were associated 
with it, was not an instrument to accomplish the results you wanted? Is that 
right? 

Mr. Tyre. That is putting it very briefly. 

Mr. Wheelek. Was that the gist of it, in effect? 

Mr. Tyre. That is putting it very briefly. I do think, nevertheless, that 
within the Communist I'arty there is a big basis, a big source for a lot of edu- 
cation. You can learn an awful lot, but the darn trouble is that too much of it 
is guided, and one doesn't have enough freedom to go outside that which is 
handed down. 

Mr. Wheeler. In other words, your feeling is that the Comuumist Party, as 
it was run by the higher authority, didn't fit in with your concept of a demo- 
cratic political party operating in the American framework? 

Mr. TY're. Any democratic organization, political party or not. 

jNlr. Wheeler. Ultimately, your feeling of repression, the fact that you couldn't 
speak your mind freely within the confines of the Communist Party, is what 
led to your leaving it? 

Mr. Tyre. Yes. I just don't see how any organization, particularly a politi- 
cal party, can deny its members — at least, so far as I can see it — the real, 
honest-to-God right of free speech and free thinking 

Mr. Wheeler. In other words 

Mr. Tyre (continuing). And still be able to attain whatever objectiA'e it seeks 
and, as far as I am concerned, namely, to make the world a better place to 
live in. 

Mr. Wheeler. In other words, ultimately your feeling was that the Commu- 
nist Party was a monolithic or totalitarian structure so that, once a decision 
was reached, the rank and file had to accept it until that decision was changed? 

Mr. Tyre. That's right. 

Mr. Wheeler. That ^\as offensive to you as an American? 

Mr. Tyre. It certainly was and is. 

Mr. Wheeler. Were any of the wives of these people in this group? 

]Mr. Tyre. None, other than those you have mentioned. You have mentioned 
a few women's names. 

Mr. Wheeler. That is all. 

Mr. Tavenner. I have no further questions. 

Mr. Walter. Are there any questions ? If not, you are excused, Mr. 
Wheeler. 

Who is your next witness, Mr. Tavenner ? 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. William G. Israel. 

Mr. Walter. Will you raise your right hand, please?' 

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

Mr. Israel. I do. 



2616 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM G. ISRAEL 

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

Mr. Israel. William G. Israel, I-s-r-a-e-1. 

Mr. Tavenner. Wliat is your age, please? 

Mr. Israel. 36. 

Mr. Ta\tenner. What is your profession ? 

Mr. Israel. I am an attorney. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long have you been engaged in the practice of 
law? 

Mr. Israel. I have been engaged in the practice of law in Los Ange- 
les, Calif., since January 1947. Prior to that I have practiced — I w^as 
admitted to the bar in the State of Washington in September of 1940, 
and I j)racticed 8 or 9 months. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you give the committee, please, a brief state- 
ment of your educational training for your profession ? 

Mr. Israel. I am a graduate of the University of Washington, and 
the University of Washington Law School in Seattle, Wash. 

Mr. Tavenner. You are aware, Mr. Israel, of the investigation that 
the Committee on Un-American Activities is making of Communist 
penetration, and the infiltration into the entertainment field in Holly- 
wood, and at the same time, and probably corollary to it, infiltration 
into the professions there? 

Mr. Israel. Yes; I am. 

Mr. Tavenner. Particularly the medical profession and the legal 
profession ? 

Mr. Israel. Yes, sir ; I am. 

Mr. Tavenner. In the course of that investigation, it has come to 
our attention that you were a member of the Communist group or- 
ganized within the legal profession. Is that correct ? 

Mr. Israel. That is correct. 

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

Mr. Israel. I cannot remember the exact time. It was while I was 
in college, probably in 1939, while I was a student at the University 
of Washington. 

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

Mr. Israel. No ; I am not. 

Mr. Tavenner. When did you leave the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Israel. I cannot fix the exact date, but I left it no later than 
April of 1947. To the best of my knowledge, that is. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Chairman, the circumstances under which the 
witness became a member of the Communist Party occurred in an 
area outside of Los Angeles, and I would like to interrogate him in 
closed session regarding his Communist Party activities in places 
other than Los Angeles. 

Mr. Walter. All right. 

Mr. Tavenner. Rather than to go into them here. 

Mr. Walter. That request will be granted. 

Mr. Tavenner. At this time, Mr. Israel, I wish you would give the 
committee the benefit of such information as you have regarding the 
activities of the Communist Party cell or group in Los Angeles, plac- 
ing such emphasis upon its activities as you think the committee 
would be interested in hearing. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2617 

Mr. Israel. Mr. Tavenner, before I do that, may I make a state- 
ment, or ask a question ? 

I have stated that I joined the Communist Party in 1939 and I left 
in 1947, which is a long period of time. I would at least like to, in 
open session, have the opportunity to at least explain the time element. 

Mr. Ta\^nner. Yes ; I think that should be done. 

Mr. Israel. I joined the party when I was a student in college, and 
I attended meetings of a student's branch for a period covering about 
1 year, which would take me up to the time when I was admitted, or 
up to the time I took the bar examination in the State of Washington. 

At that time I was no longer a student, and I was no longer eligible 
to be a member of the student branch, and from that time forward 
I never was a member of a branch of the Communist Party in Seattle, 
to the best of my knowledge. 

I am not trying to leave the committee with the impression that 
I quit the party. There was no mechanical quitting, but to the 
best of my knowledge, I stopped going to meetings at that time. 

I entered the Army in January of 1941 ; I attended officers candi- 
date school ; I was commissioned in December of 1942, and I left the 
Army in 1946, March of 1946. 

And there was a period somewhere between probably September of 
1945 and sometime after March of 1946, when I had absolutely no con- 
nection with the Communist Party. 

With regard to my activities in Los Angeles, I had arrived in Los 
Angeles in March of 1946 after I left the service, and I was approached 
at that time by a person whose name I do not recall, asking me if I 
would join the party in Los Angeles, and I went to a meeting. 

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

Mr. Israel. This was during the period when I was studying for 
the California bar examination. I did go to that meeting and I 
was asked to join the party, and I did not do so. I don't remember 
who asked me, nor do I remember who was at that meeting. I haven't 
seen any of them before or since. None of them were attorneys. 

I was admitted in January 1947, and I opened an office 

Mr. Tavenner. You mean admitted to the bar ? 

Mr. Israel. I was admitted to the bar in January 1947, and opened 
an office in Los Angeles, and within 2 weeks I was approached by two 
attorneys and asked to rejoin the Communist Party. They did have 
knowledge that I had once been a Communist. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you recall the names of those attorneys? 

Mr. Israel. I recall one ; I cannot recall the other. John McTernan 
was one. I cannot recall who the other one was. 

Mr. Tavenner. You say that those individuals who approached 
you on that subject had knowledge of your prior Communist Party 
membership. Do you know how that knowledge was acquired by 
them ? 

Mr. Israel. No; I don't. It has always been my understanding 
that transfers are automatic. I pointed out that I didn't quit the 
party, as such, in Seattle, at any time, although I wasn't active up 
there, but the people in Seattle did know that I was in Los Angeles, 
and I assumed they relayed that information. 

Mr. Tavenner. When Mr. McTernan extended the invitation to 
you, what did he have to say to you ? 



2618 COMMUNISM in LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. Israel. As I recall, he told me that he was under the impression 
that I was interested in the left -wing movement. I had, as a matter 
of fact, met John McTernan previous to this time. I had been at 
his home at one time. There was a reception of some kind or other ; 
I don't even remember how I ^'ot there. There was a reception in 
Los Angeles for Paul Robeson, if I am not mistaken, and there were 
a lot of people there, and I got invited, and I had subsequently met 
INIr. McTernan at a Lawj^ers' Guild meeting. 

I joined the guild immediately upon being admitted to the bar in 
California. 

Mr. TA^^sNNER. How long was it after you joined the guild before 
you were invited by Mr. McTernan to become a member of the party ? 

Mr. Israel. I can't remember that. It was a very short period, 
probably 2 or 3 weeks. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know whether Mr. McTernan at that time 
held any position on the executive board of the Lawyers' Gruild? 

Mr. Israel. No, sir; I don't. I know he has at various times, but 
I don't know whether he did at that time. 

Mr. Tavenner. Tell us what occurred, please, after you received 
the invitation to become a member. 

Mr. Israel. Well, I joined; there was no question about it. Why 
I joined is something else again. I had a period going back to 1941 
in which I was away from the party and had the opportunity to think 
it over, and I had actually rejected it. I cannot explain why I re- 
joined at the time. 

However, I did go back in, and I attended meetings. 

Mr. Tavenner. Let me ask you this : Was Mr. McTernan a well- 
known lawyer in the city of Los Angeles ? 

Mr. Israel. He was well known to me. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was he a prominent lawyer ? 

Mr. Israel. Yes ; he was a prominent labor attorney. I had at that 
time an interest in labor law. I had heard of him before I ever came 
to Los Angeles. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you know the names of other lawyers in the 
Communist Party at that time, at the time the invitation was extended 
to you ? 

Mr. Israel. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. Who were some of those that you knew at that time 
to be members of this group ? 

Mr. Israel. At the time I didn't know that any were members of 
the group, but I had known by reputation that several of them were 
probably Communist lawyers, and that was later confirmed. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did the knowledge, the knowledge of the activity 
and the prominence of some individual lawyers play a part in your 
decision to reunite with the party ? 

Mr. Israel. I think I can only blame my own intellectual error 
for rejoining the party. I don't want to create the impression that 
I was tricked or lulled or anything. I joined the party and I 

Mr. Tavenner. I did not mean to leave the impression I thought 
you had been tricked, but if those lawyers were vigorous and promi- 
nent lawyers you might, you as a young lawyer, may very well have 
felt complimented by being approached by them. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2619 

Mv. Israel. That may very well be. Certainly I liked John Mc- 
Ternan- personally, and that could have been one of the influencing 
factors. 

Mv. Tavenner. Will you continue ? 

]Mr. Israel. After I joined the party I attended approximately seven 
meetings, six or seven. I can even remember where the meetings 
were. 

Mr. Tavenner. Where were they ? 

Mr. Israel. I attended three meetings at the home of Ben Mar- 
golis; I attended one meeting at the home of Pauline Epstein; I 
attended one. meeting at the home of Victor Kaplan, and I attended 
one meeting at the home of Jack Frankel. 

I don't recall that I attended any other meetings. And within 
4 months I had made up my mind to get out of the party. 

I was very inactive, largely for the reason that already at the time 
I foolishly rejoined it had already begun to not make sense to me. 
Consequently, I was given assignments which I did not carry out. 

I was completely ineffectual during this period as a Communist, and 
I might say, at anything else, because I had so much personal con- 
flict about it. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long did you indicate you remained in this 
Communist group among the lawyers ? 

Mr. Israel. About 4 months. 

Mr. Tavenner. About 4 months. Did you pay dues during that 
period ? 

(Kepresentative Clyde Doyle entered the hearing room at this 
point.) 

Mr. Israel. Yes; I did. 

Mr. Tavenner. How was the amount of dues arrived at ? 

Mr. Israel. I don't remember that. If they were based upon a 
percentage of income, I am a very low — I don't remember what the 
dues were, but I paid dues, and I took a receipt for the dues. I bought 
literature, and I suppose if I was called upon to make any extra con- 
tribution, I made it, although I don't recall. 

Mr. Tavenner. To whom did you pay your dues ? 

Mr. Israel. I believe I probably paid to Dave Aaron. 

Mr. Tavenner. From whom did you make your purchases of lit- 
erature ? 

Mr. Israel. That I don't remember. 

Mr. Tavenner. What type of literature was this which you bought? 

Mr. Israel. Oh, all types. There was everything available, as I 
remember. There were copies of Political Affairs, there were copies of 
New Masses, copies of the People's World, and the Daily Worker, 
and pamphlets on everything from very highly theoretical points of 
Marxist philosophy to interpretations of current events from a Marx- 
ian point of view. 

Mr. Tavenner. To what extent were j^ou advised to study and to 
master the literature that was made available to you? 

Mr. Israel. Well, we were very definitely advised and expected to 
study it, and it was hoped that we would master it, I presume. 

I don't remember ever being told. We did have so-called study 
sessions in which we were all expected to lead a discussion, and I w^as 



2620 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

once asked to lead a discussion, and I thought that was as good a 
time as any to stop going to meetings. And I stopped with tlie meet- 
ing when I was supposed to lead the discussion. 

Certainly it was expected of a good Communist that he absorb as 
much of the literary material as possible. Otherwise he wouldn't be 
able to properly interpret the events of the world. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was the type of Communist Party literature made 
available to you in this lawyers group the same general type that was 
made available to you back in 1939 when you first became a member 
of the party ? 

Mr. Israel. It was exactly the same type, and, as I recall, it said ex- 
actly the same things. 

Mr. Tavenner. So that the type of indoctrination which was given 
the lawyers was just the same as that members of the Communist 
Party generally ? 

I\Ir. Israel. That is my recollection. Of course, there were different 
types of discussions within the group, but I don't recall any basic 
teachings that were any different. 

Mr. Tavenner. Approximately how many members were in this 
group while you were there ? 

Mr. Israel. Probably 30. 

Mr. Tavenner. Who were the recognized leaders of the group ? 

Mr. Israel. I would say that the recognized leaders of the group, 
the most active and vocal one, and the one who assmned to have, and 
probably did have, the best understanding of what it was about, was 
Ben Margolis. 

Mr. Tavenner. During the period of 4 or 5 months when you were 
a member of this group, was there any special activity of the group 
in the way of endeavoring to influence any front organization or any 
outside group of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Israel. Well, I can only remember of one, and I am not quite 
sure that it was a Communist function, as such. It may have been 
so closely tied in with the guild that — I may be mistaken. 

However, it is my recollection that the Taft-Hartley Act was about 
to be enacted during that period of time. I don't remember when it 
was enacted, but at that time the national convention of the Lawyers' 
Guild was being held in Los Angeles. 

^ And it IS my recollection, in this party meeting we did definitely 
discuss doing a paper on the Taft-Hartley law for presentation to the 
guild convention, criticizing and interpreting the proposed law. 

And a large number of us were assigned to study various sections 
of the law, and to write a part of this report which was to be sub- 
mitted to the guild convention in toto. 

I was asked to serve on that committee, and to the best of my knowl- 
edge, the people who worked on it were Communists, 

Mr. Tavenner. Was this decision to submit a paper to the national 
convention of the Lawyers' Guild discussed within the Communist 
Party group prior to its adoption in the Lawyers' Guild ? 

Mr. Israel. To the best of my knowledge it was. And I do recall 
having a luncheon meeting at which Ben Margolis, among others who 
was present ; it wasn't a guild meeting, that I know. It was an infor- 
mal meeting. And my guess is that all people present were Commu- 
nists, although I cannot even recall who was there, other than Mar- 
golis, and John Porter and I. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2621 

Mr. Walter. Is this Ben Margolis that you mention the man who 
is now defending the alleged Communists in Los Angeles who are 
charged with attemjDting to overthrow the Government by force and 
violence ? 

Mr. Israel. Yes, sir ; I believe he is. 

That is the best of my recollection as to the extent of my involvement 
with the Communist movement in Los Angeles. 

Mr. Tavenner. I would like to see how many of those who have been 
shown by the evidence so far to have been members in this lawyers' 
group can be identified by you as members of that group. 

You have already spoken of David Aaron. He was a member of the 
group while you were there ? 

(Kepresentative Donald L. Jackson left the hearing room at this 
point.) 

Mr. Israel. Yes ; he was. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know whether Charles Katz was a member 
of this group of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Israel. Yes ; he was. 

Mr. Tavenner. You have already stated that Mr. John McTernan 
invited you to become a member. You have already testified regarding 
Mr. Ben Margolis. 

Mr. Israel. They were both members. 

Mr. Ta\^nner. Were you acquainted with Mr. Milton Tyre, the 
young man who just preceded you on the witness stand ? 

Mr. Israel. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was he a member of this group of the party? 

Mr. Israel. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Victor Kaplan ? 

Mr. Israel. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. You have heard Mr. Marburg Yerkes testify ? 

Mr. Israel. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. And he was also a member, was he not ? 

Mr. Israel. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know whether his wife was a member at 
one time, Martha Yerkes? 

Mr. Israel. Yes ; she was. 

Mr. Tavenner. That is Martha Yerkes. Was Mr. Frank Pestana 
a member of this group ? 

Mr. Israel. Yes ; he was. 

(Representative Donald L. Jackson reentered the hearing room at 
this point.) 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you still in the party when Mr. Marburg 
Yerkes and his wife Martha left the party ? 

Mr. Israel. No ; I was not. To the best of my knowledge, I was 
out before they were. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was Mr. Frank Pestana a member ? 

Mr. Israel. Yes ; he was. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was Mr. Herzig — the first name I do not recall at 
this moment 

Mr. Israel. Albert Herzig. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was Albert Herzig a member, to your knowledge ? 

Mr. Israel. I am not sure about that. I, of course, know he had 



2622 COMMUNISM IX LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

been a member, but I believe that he had gotten out b}^ the time I 
was in it. I don't recall. 

Mr. Tavenner. What about his wife, Mrs. Thelma Herzig ? 

Mr. Israel. She was a member at the time. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Robert Katz-? 

Mr. Israel. He was a member. 

Mr. Tavenner. You have already referred to Mr. John Porter. 

Mr. Israel. He was a member. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was he a member of this particular group? 

Mr. Israel. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. All of these persons whose names I have called are 
lawyers, are they not ? 

Mr. Israel. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Jack Frankel? 

Mr. Israel. He was a member. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. William Esterman? 

Mr. Israel. He was a member. 

Mr. Tavenner. Jane Grodzins? 

Mr. Israel. She was a member. 

Mr. Tavenner. Selma Bachelis? 

Mr. Israel. She was a member. 

Mr. Tavenner. Sam Houston Allen ? 

Mr. Israel. He was a member. 

Mr. Tavenner. Esther Shandler? 

Mr. Israel. She was a member. 

Mr. Tavenner. George Altman? 

Mr. Israel. He was a member. 

Mr. Tavenner. Pauline Epstein? 

Mr. Israel. She was a member. 

Mr. Tavenner. Fred Steinmetz? 

Mr. Israel. He was a member. 

Mr. Tavenner. Seymour Mandell? 

IMr. Israel. He was a member. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you ever approached at any time after leav- 
ing the party to reunite with it? 

Mr. Israel. Yes, I was. In about March of 1948 I was approached 
by David Aaron. He visited me in my office and asked me to rejoin. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee, please, the circum- 
stances under which you left, and the reasons ? 

Mr. IsR^^EL. The reasons for leaving are connected, in a sense, with 
the reasons for going in. By the time 1947 came around it had be- 
come apparent to me that the Communist Party, rather than being a 
legitimate political party within the constitutional framework of 
the United States, was actually nothing more or less than a branch 
of the Soviet. Foreign Office; that it was doing nothing more than 
S])ewing forth whatever happened to be the pronouncement from the 
Kremlin at the time. 

And I must say that during my entire experience with the Com- 
munist Party, I cannot recall any policy which the party had ever 
adopted which deviated in any way from the interests of the Soviet 
Union. 

Now, it so happened that at the time that I joined the party, and 
from that time up to the end of the war, which was a period of mar- 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2623 

riage — or probably more properly called sleeping together, rather 
than real marriage 

Mr. Kearney. A shotgun marriage ? 

Mr. Israel. During that period there was a definite correlation, or 
at least appeared to be a correlation between the interests of the Soviet 
Union and the interests of the United States. 

So I was never able to see where anything I had done or had been 
doing was contrary to the interests of the United States. 

But in 1947 it became perfectly obvious that to remain a member 
of the Communist Party was to be an absolutely disloyal American, 
and 1 left. 

And I wish I had gotten out sooner, and I am glad to be out, and I 
assure you I will never go back. 

Mr. Kearney. May I ask a question? 

Mr. Walter. Yes. 

Mr. Kearney. I think this has been answered, but did I under- 
stand you to identify the previous witness, Mr. Tyre, as a member of 
the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Isr^\el. Yes, he was a member when I was a member. 

Mr. Kearney. That is all. 

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

Mr. Walter. Do you have any questions, Mr. Doyle? 

Mr. Doyle. I know you heard me ask Mr. Tyre if he had been 
offered the form and content of any oath of loyalty to the United 
States of America by any investigator of this committee, or anyone 
who claimed to represent this committee, or any member of it. Were 
you ever offered any form of oath to take pledging allegiance to the 
United States of America by any investigator or agent of this com- 
mittee? 

Mr. Israel. No, sir. 

Mr. Doyle. Your answer is "No" ? 

Mr. Israel. No. 

(Representative Bernard W. Kearney left the hearing room at this 
point.) 

Mr. Doyle. Has there been any question here that violated your 
relationship between attorney and client ? 

Mr. Israel. No, sir. 

Mr. Doyle. Have you felt in any way under a presence of coercion 
or force upon you in any way in this hearing this morning with 
you? 

Mr. Israel. Imposed by any member of the committee ? 

Mr. Doyle. Yes. 

Mr. Israel. No, sir. 

Mr. Doyle. Or our counsel ? 

Mr. Israel. No, sir ; or your investigator. 

Mr. Doyle. I am interested in your statement that you felt that 
the Communist Party as you have experienced it was nothing more 
or less than the agent of Soviet Russia, or the foreign policy of Soviet 
Russia. 

Mr. Israel. I am completely convinced of that. 

Mr. Doyle. What makes you so sure of that, sir ? 

Mr. Israel. Let me qualify the statement. I don't believe I said 
that it is an agent of the Soviet Union. I say that in effect it is nothing 



2624 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

more than a branch of the Soviet Foreign Office, and my reason for 
saying that is, as I stated before, that I have yet to see a pronounce- 
ment of the Communist Party which deviated in any way from the 
Soviet foreign policy. 

Based upon my experience, the Communist Party, for instance, holds 
itself out as the true lover and supporter of the trade-union move- 
ment. I am absolutely convinced, not based upon my personal con- 
tact with the pipeline to Moscow, but merely based upon my own 
experience within the party, and experience in having received these 
various pronouncements, that if the Soviet Union ever decided that 
the trade-union movement in the United States was a reactionary 
movement, that the Communist Party would dump the trade-union 
movement, or that the Communist Party would dump the Negro 
people, for instance. 

They have embraced the Negro people. If it was to the best inter- 
ests of the Soviet Union for the Negro people in the United States 
to be discredited some way, I believe the Communist Party would 
do it. 

Mr. Doyle. Did that conclusion come to you in part as a result of 
your attendance upon these meetings ? 

Mr. Israel. Only based upon the experience which was that noth- 
ing to the contrary had ever happened. 

Certainly the signing of the Russian-German Pact, and the behavior 
of the Communist Party at that time is an example of that sort of 
thing. 

Prior to the signing of that pact, certainly, Hitler was the most 
wild beast in the world, as far as the Kremlin was concerned, and as 
far as the Communist Party was concerned. But it certainly changed 
immediately upon the signing of the pact. 

Mr. Doyle. Part of our assignment under Public Law 601, as a 
committee of Congress is to look into all of these questions with refer-, 
ence to un-American activities, and subversive matters with relation 
to any necessary remedial legislation. 

Have you any suggestion to make to this committee in the area of 
legislation by Congress with reference to the Communist Party, or 
anything related to un-American or subversive activities ? 

Mr. Israel. Well, that is a difficult question to answer. Of course, 
all of us have considered the question of whether the party should be 
outlawed. It is, in a sense, a political problem, and in a sense, a legal 
problem. I have doubts about the constitutionality of any legislation 
which would outlaw it. 

However, I question that outlawing the party — or I believe that out- 
lawing the party would be an effective means of making the party 
ineffective, even though it would drive the party apparatus under- 
ground, because I believe that the ineffectual people would certainly 
get out and would leave no one for them to work with. 

However, I would like to suggest that if there ever was such legis- 
lation, it would be based upon evidence of membership in the Com- 
munist Party after the effective date of such an act, rather than based 
upon any prior membership. 

Mr. Walter. I think it would be necessary to do that. It is a 
constitutional question. 

Do you have any questions, Mr. Jackson ? 

Mr. Jackson. I have several, Mr. Chairman. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2625 

Mr. Israel, do you think any questions that have been asked you 
before this committee either by counsel or committee members have 
invaded the confidential nature of your relationship with any client 
you may ever have had ? 
Mr. Israel. No, sir. 

Mr. Jackson. Would your appearance before this committee in any 
way deter you from representing clients who were accused of crimes 
or offenses which might be popularly considered reprehensible or 
unpopular ? 

Mr. Israel. Well, in fact, my appearance before the committee has 
made it so that it would undoubtedly bei easier for me now. 

However, I think that there is a very real problem here. I would 
like to say that I am thoroughly impressed with this committee, and 
with its approach. I thoroughly approve of what it is doing. I have 
never had a chance to observe this committee's predecessor, and a lot 
of people in this country, I believe, tend to attach some of the reputa- 
tion of the predecessor of this committee to this committee. 

Before I came here I had occasion to discuss what position I would 
take before this committee with at least one attorney that I can recall 
whom I know was never a Communist. And he stated to me that, 
as a professional matter, he would be afraid to represent anyone 
before the committee; especially if that client decided that for good 
and sufficient reasons he had to claim the privilege. 

He stated that he was afraid that in so representing it would tend 
to create the impression that he may be connected somehow or other 
with the Communist movement. 

Mr. Doyle 3 or 4 days ago stated something which I did know. He 
stated that it was a function of this committee to educate the Ameri- 
can people. I am glad to hear that that is the function of the commit- 
tee, but I would like to suggest, if I may, that a greater effort — I know 
the effort is being expended now through your television activities — 
but a greater effort might be exerted toward letting the American 
people know that it is the Communist Party that you are after, and 
that you are definitely not trying to discourage progressive, honest, 
liberal thought in the United States, and that you do not want anyone 
to ever get such an impression. 

I believe not only would that help the work of the committee and 
help bring forward people who would otherwise fear to talk, but it 
would, I believe, be a real contribution to the civil liberties of our 
country. 

Mr. Jackson. Do you know, Mr. Israel, of your own personal knowl- 
edge, any person who has been unjustly accused before this committee? 

Mr. Israel. Not by this committee. I know of people who were, 
to the best of my knowledge, unjustly accu'sed by other committees, 
and I think it should be made clear that this committee has adopted 
a different position. 

Mr. Jackson. Do you further believe, out of your personal experi- 
ences in the Communist Party, in light of what has transpired in the 
last several years particularly, that it is possible for an American 
citizen today to remain a member of the Communist Party and at 
the same time preserve his primary and basic allegiance to the Con- 
stitution of the United States ? 

Mr. Israel. I think it is impossible. 

95008— 52— pt. 1 13 



2626 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. Jackson. Following that question, I should like to ask this, in 
the light of your answer: Can an attorney continue in membership 
in the Communist Party and still be a faithful servant of the Con- 
stitution of the United States, and of law in general, when he holds 
another and primary allegiance to a foreign power? 

Mr. Israel. Well, that is a complicated question. Within my knowl- 
edge, I don't know how the Communist philosophy affects an attor- 
ney's ordinary, everyday practice of law, or his ability to advise a 
client. I believe that anyone who remains in the Communist Party 
today is either completely stupid or a very disloyal person. 

Mr. Jackson. Your answer, however, is that it would be impossible 
to be in the Communist Party today in light of the recent develop- 
ments and still remain with primary allegiance to the United States? 

Mr. Israel. That is right. 

Mr. Jackson. If that is the case, and relating to attorneys, or to 
anyone else, it would, therefore, seem to follow in my mind, at least, 
that no member of the Communist Party, in light of the war in Korea 
in which Americans are being killed by the direction and with the 
wholehearted support of the Soviet Union, it would certainly follow 
to me that you could not bear a dual allegiance, whether you be an 
attorney or a day laborer. 

Mr. Israel. Certainly that goes for all people, including attorneys. 

Mr. Jackson. Thank you very much. Thank you for your appear- 
ance. I think you have added considerably to the knowledge of the 
committee, especially this phase of the inquiry. 

Mr. Walter. Do you have any questions, Mr. Potter? 

Mr. Potter. Mr. Israel, I, too, wish to join with my colleague in 
expressing my gratitude for your appearance before the committee. 
You have been most cooperative, and the American people are grateful 
for the fact that you have given them knowledge that you have con- 
cerning your participation, not as an individual, but the knowledge 
that you have received concerning communism which may be useful 
to other people to make up their minds, I hope, in the same manner 
in which you have. 

Mr. Israel. May I make a statement in that regard, Mr. Potter? 

Mr. Potter. Yes. 

Mr. Israel. I appreciate the expressions from this committee to 
this effect, and I know that they are genuine. I know that these ex- 
pressions go into the record. I have been on the telephone with my 
wife in Los Angeles every night since I have been here, and these ex- 
pressions do not get into the Los Angeles papers. 

Many of us came here knowing that we are going to get a lot of 
publicity, and, in a sense, it is going to hurt us. I think all of us who 
came and have talked have done so — certainly we were subpenaed — 
but we immediately felt it was our duty to come. 

I believe, along the same line that I have suggested before about 
the educational qualifications and duties of this committee, that you 
would be in a position to get more people to come voluntarily if they 
felt that — not that we are entitled to any favors — but that at least this 
expression of gratitude which I believe is genuine were expressed in 
the local papers alongside the comments of Ben Margolis and so forth, 
who have announced that we are stool pigeons, and Dave Aaron's 
statement that I am a Communist. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2627 

Mr. Potter. I thoroughly agree with you that that should be done. 
And I also wish to inform you — possibly you are not aware of this 
fact — that persons who have been cooperative with the committee, 
if there is any way that the committee can be of service, in other words, 
if you should be blackballed because of your prior association, if there 
is any way we can set that right with employers, or whoever it might 
be, the committee is perfectly willing to do so. 

Mr. IsRAFX. I don't have any employers. I could send you my list 
of clients. 

Mr. Potter. I have no further questions. 

IMr. Doyle. May I ask a question ? 

Mr. Walter. Did you say that Mr. Margolis statement with respect 
to stool pigeons was published ? 

Mr. Israel. I would like to correct that. I was told on the tele- 
phone that people who have been named were contacted in Los Angeles 
by the press and there were very derogatory statements made by them 
concerning the people who have mentioned their names. 

And I believe that the word "stool pigeon" was one that was used. 
I don't know that Ben Margolis made the statement. 

Mr. Walter. But the men whose names were mentioned here have 
described the witnesses as being stool pigeons? 

Mr. Israel. That is what I was informed on the phone. 

Mr. Walter. I would like to extend to all of those people an open 
invitation to come here and tell us whether or not the accusations 
made against them are true and based on fact. I am quite certain the 
invitations won't be accepted, particularly by Mr. Margolis. 

Mr. Israel. I suspect you are correct. 

Mr. Jackson. In that connection, I believe that some of them al- 
ready have greetings from the committee. It is entirely possible that 
they may have an opportunity to express themselves at the proper 
time. 

Mr. Doyle. Mr. Chairman, may I make this observation : I realize 
that it is not a function of the press to become a party to any educa- 
tional process which the committee might want to indirectly engage 
in in letting the public know that it appreciates the cooperation of the 
witnesses who come and come clean. 

But would it not be a fine thing if someday before too long the 
very valuable press services that do sit with us from day to day, would 
sort of feature in some way the fact that this committee has expressed 
to witnesses who have come to us and have helped us, its thanks, and 
the committee has publicly expressed in open meeting of the committee 
its appreciation to the witnesses from Los Angeles, these lawyers who 
have come and given us their cooperation. 

Mr. Walter. Of course, much can be said on both sides of that, Mr. 
Doyle. 

Mr. Doyle. Yes. 

Mr. Walter. I have one question. Kenny and Morris sent a letter 
to apparently all the members of the bar of Los Angeles, in which they 
comment on these hearings. They seem to be very solicitous of the 
rights of certain members of the bar mentioned in a letter. Those 
members are : 

Sam Houston Allen, William Esterman, Aubrey I. Finn, Jack Allen 
■Frankel, Victor Kaplan, Charles Katz, Seymour Mandell, Frank S. 



2628 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Pestana, John Porter, Richard Rykoff, William M. Samuels, Esther 
Shandler, F. Michael Snider, Fred H. Steinmetz, and Jack Tenner. 

Do you know those men ? 

Mr. Israel. I know some of them. I don't know all of them. 

Mr. Walter. Are the ones you know members of the Communist 
Party? 

Mr, Israel. No ; I can't say that. I think I know all of them. One 
of them I met in November of 1951, on a strictly professional matter. 
Most of them. Jack Tenner, for instance, I don't recall that I ever 
saw him in a Communist meeting. 

Richard Rykoff, I cannot recall having seen at such a meeting. 

Is there a Samuels on there ? 

Mr. Walter. William M. Samuels. 

Mr. Israel. To the best of my knowledge, I don't know him at all. 
I am sure I never saw him. 

Mr. Walter. Do you know the others whose names I read ? 

Mr. Israel. No, I would prefer to see the complete list again. 

Mr. Walter [handing document to the witness]. It is in the first 
paragraph. 

Mr. Jackson. Mr. Chairman, in that connection, I have a list before 
me of the identifications that have been made before the committee 
during the course of the hearings into the branch of the Communist 
Party in the Los Angeles area, and all of those whom you have named 
have been identified on one or more occasions as members of the 
Communist Party active in the Los Angeles area, and I believe it was 
called the Engels Club, I am not sure. 

Mr. Walter. So that the Kenny-Morris letter concerns the rights 
of people whose names have been mentioned as being members of the 
Communist Party. 

Mr. Jackson. That is exactly it. I do not mean to infer anything as 
to the signers of the letter. The four signers who signed the letter I 
have no knowledge as to their political affiliations. They may be 
Republicans; I don't know. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you know whether or not the club has been given 
a name or designation ? 

Mr. Israel. No, I don't know that. I am sure it had one, but I don't 
know what it was. 

Mr. Tavenner. In response to the chairman's statement to you a 
moment ago you spoke of the derogatory remarks made in the press in 
Los Angeles as a result of the press interviewing persons named. 

We received a copy of the paper this morning. It is marked from 
the Los Angeles Times. In this article the reporter apparently was 
endeavoring to contact the various persons who were mentioned, and 
he succeeded in contacting Dr. Murray Abowitz, and this is quoted : 

"I have no comment to make," said Dr. Murray Abowitz, one of the physicians 
named. "I do not wish to comment on any stool-pigeon's testimony, even before 
the House Un-American Activities Committee, which has contributed so greatly 
to the obstruction of constitutional liberties, and to make this country a land of 
spies and informers." 

Is that the type that you were referring to ? 

Mr. Israel. That is what I was read on the telephone. That sort of 
thing. 

Mr. Walter. Don't you feel that the mere fact that the doctor- 
described the people who testified against them as stool pigeons is, in 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2629 

effect, an admission that the doctor was guilty of something that some- 
body was telling about ? 

Mr. Israel. Yes, it does. But it doesn't characterize the person who 
told them. 

Mr. Walter. Those of us who have prosecuted criminal cases could 
reach no other conclusion but that. 

Mr. Potter. You are not a stool pigeon, but a Boy Scout. 

Mr. Jackson. I think the record should show, inasmuch as Dr. 
Abowitz's name has been introduced, that Dr. Abowitz has also been 
identified as a member of the Communist Party, and appeared before 
the committee in its hearings in Los Angeles and refused to answer 
questions directed by counsel or committee members. He stood upon 
his constitutional rights and quite vehemently, as I recall. 

Mr. Israel. I would like it understood that if any of those persons 
call me a stool pigeon, I am not the least bit concerned about what they 
say about me. I am somewhat concerned about what the people who 
read it are going to say. That is why I mentioned it. 

I don't care what these people say, I know what they are going to 
think about me. I came here under that full knowledge. 

Mr. Jackson. I think 98 percent of the people, probably 99 j)ercent 
will take an entirely different position with respect to your testimony, 
including, I hope, your clients. 

Mr. Israel. I sincerely hope so. 

Mr. Walter. Mr. Tavenner ? 

Mr. Tavenner. That is all, except for the closed session. 

Mr. Walter. The public session is now recessed, and the committee 
will reconvene at 2 : 15. 

At this time the committee will go into executive session for a 
moment. 

(Whereupon, at 12 : 50 p. m., the committee proceeded to executive 
session, and recessed until 2 : 15 p. m., same day.) 



COMMUNIST ACTIVITIES AMONd PEOf ESSIONAL GROUPS 
IN THE LOS ANGELES AREA— PART 1 



SATUBDAY, JANUARY 26, 1952 

United Stai'es House of REPRESENTivnvES, 
Subcommittee of the Committee on Un-American Activities, 

Washington^ D. G, 

PUBLIC HEARING 

A subcommittee of the Committee on Un-American Activities met 
pursuant to adjournment at 10 : 20 a. m. in room 226, Old House Office 
Building, Hon. Clyde Doyle presiding. 

Committee members present: Representatives Clyde Doyle and 
Donald L. Jackson. 

Staff members present : Frank S. Tavenner, Jr., counsel ; William 
A. Wheeler, investigator; Raphael I. Nixon, director of research; 
John W. Carrington, clerk; and A. S. Poore, editor. 

Mr. Doyle. The committee will be in order. 

Let" the record show that a subcommittee duly appointed to hear 
the testimony this morning is here, consisting of committee members 
Jackson and Doyle. 

Mr. Tavenner. I would like to call, Mr. Chairman, as a witness, 
Mr. Charles W. Judson. Will you come forward, Mr. Judson. 

Mr. Doyle. Will you raise your right hand and be sworn. Do you 
swear the testimony you will give in this matter will be the truth, the 
whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Judson. I do. 

Mr. Doyle. Be seated, please. 

TESTIMONY OF CHARLES W. JUDSON 

Mr. Tavenner. What is your name, please ? 

Mr. Judson. Charles W. Judson. 

Mr. Taatenner. When and where were you born ? 

Mr. Judson. Payette, Idaho. " 

Mr. Tavenner. Iviiat is your profession, Mr. Judson ? 

Mr. Judson. I am a newspaperman. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you state to the committee briefly what your 
educational training has been ? 

Mr. Judson. In the public schools of Idaho, Utah, and California, 
and Los Angeles City College, Junior College at that time. 

Mr. Tavenner. The committee, Mr. Judson, in the course of its 
investigation of the extent of Communist activities in the entertain- 
ment field and then in the professions in and about Hollywood and 
Los Angeles, has learned of the establishment of a cell or group of the 

2631 



2632 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Communist Party within the newspaper field. Do you have informa- 
tion on that subject yourself? 

Mr. JuDSON. Yes ; I do, 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you at any time a member of the Communist 
Party? 

Mr. JuDsON. Yes ; I was. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you now a member ? 

Mr. JuDSON. No. 

Mr. Tavenner. When did you first become a member ? 

Mr. JuDSON. 1937, 1 think. 

Mr. Tavenner. ^Vlien did you leave the party ? 

Mr. JuDSON. 1941. 

Mr. Tavenner. During that period between 1937 and 1941 when 
you were a member of the Cormiiunist Party, were you a member of a 
community branch of the Communist Party, or were you a member of 
a group within a profession, within the newspaper profession? 

Mr. JuDSON. I was in a selected group, you might say. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee about that, please, in 
your own words ? 

Mr. JuDSON. The best that I can identify it, I was a newspaperman 
and was recruited into the party in 1937, and they seemed to think I 
was a kind of a special apple, and 

Mr. Tavenner. Speak just a little louder. 

Mr. JuDSON. So I was in various units. I don't know them by 
nomenclature as to name and number. 

Mr. Tavenner. Let us begin with the time when you were first re- 
cruited into the party. Will you tell us the circumstances under which 
you were recruited ? 

Mr. JuDSON. Yes. I went to a meeting at the home of Ed Bobbins. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was this in Los Angeles ? 

Mr. JuDSON. In Los Angeles, yes ; and there was quite an important' 
chap there by the name of Clarence Hathaway, I think, who is quite 
a guy ; and Charley Daggett was there, and Ed Robbins ; and I was 
told what a contribution this would make to Americanism, and one 
thing and another, and it was a Communist meeting, obviously. That 
is the meeting I attended at which I decided, "Well, this is the way to 

go-" 

Mr. Tavenner. It was at this meeting that you decided you would 

become a member of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. JuDsoN. Yes. I actually signed my card sometime later, I 
don't know how much later, in my own home. Sid Burke was the guy 
who had been a friend of mine in college and who actually I signed 
the card with. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you mean that he was the person who brought 
you to the meeting or recruited you into the party ? 

Mr. JuDSON. I wouldn't say that he recruited me into the party. I 
had known Sid and we had argued about philosophical subjects a long 
time, and he was the party who signed me in. 

Mr. Tavenner. That was in Los Angeles ? 

Mr. JuDSON. That was in Los Angeles. 

Mr. Tavenner. When was that ? 

Mr. JuDSON. I am pretty sure that was in 1937. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you assigned at that time to a special group 
or cell of the Communist Party ? 



COMMUNISM EN" LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2633 

Mr. JuDsoN. I went into a new members' class, in which we were 
given instruction in Marxism and Leninism and the general philoso- 
phy of the Communist movement. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long did you continue in that class ? 

Mr. JuDsoN. Well, I canx say specifically. Two or three weeks, I 
suppose, and two or three meetings. I don't know if there was any 
definite time on it or not. 

Mr. Tavenner. After that how were you assigned ? 

Mr. JuDSON. Then I went into unit 140, the newspaper unit. 

INIr. Tavenner. This unit 140, is that a designation or name given 
by the Communist Party to a group, or is that a union of the news- 
paper people? 

Mr. JuDSON. I think that was a designation given by the Communist 
Party. It was known as newspaper unit 140. 

Mr. Tavenner. Of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. JuDSON. Of the Communist Party ; yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. How many composed that gi'oup or cell known as 
unit 140? 

Mr. JuDsoN. Well, I can't place a very exact numerical value on 
it. There must have been a dozen in and out. My memory is a little 
evasive on the thing and I can't specify a number. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do I understand that this cell or group of the 
Communist Party known as unit 140 was a Communist Party group 
within the Newspaper Guild ? 

Mr. JuDsoN. I am quite sure it was ; yes. It was a newspaper unit. 
There were other members also that might not have been in the news- 
paper business at that time, but it was a newspaper unit. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long were you a member of this unit 140 of 
the Communist Party ? 

Mr. JuDsoN. I judge for about a year. 

Mr. Tavenner. What was the nature of the business engaged in 
by that unit? 

Mr. JuDSON. It was concerned, of course, with the indoctrination 
into communism, and it was also concerned with the organization of 
the Newspaper Guild in Los Angeles at that time. 

Mr. Tavenner. What do you mean by that ? 

Mr. JuDSON. Well, I mean this, that the guild was just being formed 
in that period, and the various members of this unit were intensely in- 
terested in the formation of the guild, and there was a good deal of 
discussion as to what was the best thing for the guild in their opinion. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did this unit, unit 140, endeavor to control any of 
the policies of the guild ? 

Mr. JuDSON. It certainly did ; yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. Can you tell the committee the methods used to 
exert that control? 

Mr. JuDsoN. The method was to seek to get the right people elected 
to important offices in the guild, and to generally persuade the opin- 
ion of newspapermen as to what the guild should stand for and how 
they should act and think. 

Mr. Tavenner. When you referred to the election of the proper per- 
sons as officers of the guild, were those proper persons considered to 
be Communist Party members, generally ? 

Mr. Judson. Not necessarily. They might have been Communist 
Party members or they might have been so-called trustworthy per- 



2634 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

sons; in other words, persons whom the Communist Party had con- 
fidence in. 

Mr. Tavenner. What was the method used by the Communist Party 
in the further indoctrination of its members while you were a member 
of unit 140? 

Mr. JuDSON. Will you state that question again ? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes. I want to know what was the method of in- 
doctrination of the members of unit 140. 

Mr. JUDsoN. The method used was, first, that of purchase of litera- 
ture which you were supposed to read and study; and there were dis- 
cussion groups as to the theories of Marxism and Leninism and Stalin- 
ism as applied to the history of that period. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did they also resort to the plan of having high 
functionaries of the Communist Party address closed meetings of the 
imit from time to time ? 

Mr. JuDsoN. Yes. I attended a number of those things. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you remember now any of the names of Com- 
munists from higher levels who appeared before unit 140? 

Mr. JuDsoN. I don't know whether I could say they appeared be- 
fore the unit as such, but I attended meetings and gatherings where 
there were some high functionaries. One of them was Pettis Perry ; 
I remember him ; and Paul Cline. 

Mr. Tavenner. That is C-1-i-n-e? 

Mr. JuDsoN. C-1-i-n-e; yes. He was an organizer in the party at 
that time. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were these closed Communist Party meetings at- 
tended by representatives from various clubs or branches of the Com- 
munist Party? 

Mr. JuDSON. I am pretty sure any meetings I attended at which 
they were present must have been closed; or they may have been 
open ; I don't know. It is pretty difficult to say. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did I interrupt you in stating the names of the 
high fimctionaries of the Communist Party who had been at meetings 
attended by you? I may have interrupted you; you may have had 
others. 

Mr. JuDSON. There is a span of years here, and I can't delineate this 
by this meeting or that meeting in chronological order. The party 
functionaries that I met during the course of my association included 
Paul Cline and Pettis Perry and — I can't recall more party function- 
aries at the moment. Maybe during our conversation we will run 
across other names. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know when that unit, Unit 140 of the Com- 
munist Party, was first formed ? In other words, were you one of the 
more or less charter members of it ? 

Mr. JuDsoN. I think so ; yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. Who were instrumental in the formation of that 
imit? 

Mr. JuDsoN. Certainly Morgan Hull was. 

Mr. Tavenner. Morgan Hull? 

Mr. JuDSON. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. At this point tell us more about Morgan Hull. 
What position did he have at the time in the Newspaper Guild? 

Mr. JunsoN. I first knew Morgan Hull as a reporter. I came to 
work on the old Los Angeles Record, and he was the senior citizen 



COMMUNISM m LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2635 

on the political beat of the old Record, and I had immense respect 
for him. The paper ran into some difficulty, and Morgan disappeared 
for a spell, as best I can recall, and appeared back in Los Angeles 
as an organizer for the Newspaper Guild in 1937. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did he hold some official position in the national 
organization of the Newspaper Guild? 

Mr. JuDSON. I believe he was an organizer; yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. You were telling us that Mr. Morgan Hull was tak- 
ing a leading part in the organization of Unit 140 of the Communist 
Party within the Newspaper Guild, as I understood you ? 

Mr. JuDSON. Yes. It is difficult to state he was taking a leading 
part, because I didn't even know that he was in Los Angeles at that 
time. 

Mr. Tavenner. I misunderstood you, then. I am sorry. 

Mr. JuDSON. I think I fumbled on that one too. 

Mr. Tavenner. My interruption may have disturbed your line of 
thinking. My question was. Who were instrumental in the formation 
of unit 140 of the Communist Party in the guild, if you can recall ? 

Mr. JuDsON. Dolph Winebrenner was a chap who was a Communist 
before I was, and they were glad to see me in. 

Mr. Tavenner. I am asking who was responsible for the organiza- 
tion of it ? 

Mr. Judson. I don't think I can tell you that, because I don't know. 
It was there when I arrived. 

Mr. Tavenner. When you joined the Communist Party, did you 
join under your own name? 

Mr. JuDsoN. No; I didn't. 

Mr. Tavenner, What name did you use? 

Mr. JuDSON. I took the name of Peter Steel. 

Mr. TxVvenner. I notice in a publication entitled "Twenty Years of 
Growth and Progress of the Communist Party, U. S. A." published 
by the Communist Party in September 1939, which has been intro- 
duced as "Silver Exhibit No. 1," that in the description of the Fif- 
teenth Congressional District of the County of Los Angeles there 
appears to have been various branches of the Communist Party or- 
ganized witliin the Fifty-seventh Assembly District. One of them is 
the newspaper branch, Peter Steel, president. Does that refer to you ? 

Mr. JuDsoN. It must. I didn't know I was president, though. 

Mr. Tavenner. But that name was not a name known to the public 
at that time? 

Mr. JuDsoN, No. 

Mr. Tavenner. So the Communist Party printed it in this pamphlet 
in order to make it appear, probably, that its members were out in the 
open, but actually there was no person known whose actual name was 
Peter Steel, to your knowledge ? 

Mr. JuDsoN. No ; of course not. 

Mr. Tavenner. That was your party name? 

Mr. JuDSON. That is right. 

Mr. Tavenner. The committee is anxious to know just what the 
purpose was of the Communist Party in the organization of this unit, 
or the establishment of unit 140 within the Newspaper Guild. Can 
you give us any information on that subject? 

Mr. JuDSON. It is very difficult for me to divine the purposes of the 
Communist international organization, because they seemed to be 



2636 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

varying at different points, but undoubtedly the Communist Party 
appreciated the fundamental importance of having a sympathetic 
audience in the various organs of public opinion. 

Mr. Tavenner. As you now recognize the matters involved in this, 
can you state whether or not a very strong emphasis was placed on 
the indoctrination of newspapermen, through the Communist Party 
organizations, in the principles of communism ? 

Mr. JuDsoN. I am sure that the party totally appreciated the im- 
portance of newspapermen who were Communists, or at least sympa- 
thetic to their principles. 

Mr. Tavenner. You stated you had been a member of several 
different units of the Communist Party. What other units were you 
a member of, other than unit 140? 

Mr. JuDsoN. I can't specify them by name or by number. I met 
with different groups at different times ; and, being city editor of the 
Daily News at that time, I had this difficulty of discharging my re- 
sponsibilities as a newspaperman and my philosophical conviction at 
that point, and I disassociated myself with the newspaper group as 
such. 

Mr. Tavenner. That is, unit 140 of the Communist Party? 

Mr. JuDsoN. Yes. And people met at my home, and I met at their 
homes, and they were not necessarily newspaper people. 

Mr. Tavenner. After being in unit 140 of the Communist Party 
for about a year you withdrew from it, but continued to collaborate 
with members of the Communist Party from various groups ; is that 
what I understand ? 

Mr. JuDSON. That is a kind of compounded question. I attended 
units that were not necessarily made up of newspapermen and dis- 
associated myself with the people that were concerned with the opera- 
tions of the guild. I didn't want to know about it. I went on study- 
ing Marxism and Leninism. 

Mr. Tavenner. I am sorry ; I didn't quite hear you. 

Mr. JuDsoN. I didn't want to be involved in the concerns of the 
newspaper unit, the newspapermen connected with the guild, because 
I had executive responsibilities and couldn't in conscience do it. 

Mr. Tavenner. I am interested to know why you could not in con- 
science continue your work as city editor and still continue as a 
member of unit 140 of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. JuDSON. I don't think that is too difficult to answer. The city 
editor has to fire people and knock their heads together at various 
times, and the guild is disinclined to allow that to happen when they 
can prevent it ; so, I couldn't very well discharge my responsibilities 
as a city editor and be a party to the goings-on of the Communist unit 
of the Newspaper Guild. That is all. 

Mr. Tavenner. That rather indicates to me that as a member of the 
Communist Party you were expected by the Communist Party to 
favor, in one way or another, the employment of people in the news- 
paper industry who were either friends of the Communist Party or 
members of it ? 

Mr. JuDsoN. I was never asked to do that. 

Mr. Tavenner. You were never asked to do that. Did you consider 
at the time, when you were a member of unit 140, that that was ex- 
pected of you ? 

Mr. JuDsoN. Not under any compulsion ; no. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2637 

Mr. Jackson. May I ask a question there, Mr. Counsel ? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes, indeed. 

Mr. Jackson. What would happen at the first meeting of unit 140 
after you had fired a Communist Party member of the Newspaper 
Guild? What would have been the likely reaction? 

Mr. JuDsoN. It probably would not have been very pleasant. I would 
probably have been a bad man. 

Mr. Jackson. While it was not specifically stated you were not to 
fire any member of the Communist Party, it was more or less the 
understanding ; was it not? 

Mr. JuDsoN. There were no implied compulsions at all. I mean, if 
you are a member of the Republican party, you don't beat Republicans 
over the head. 

Mr. Doyle. Some do. 

Mr. Jackson. But you wouldn't have lasted very long in unit 140 
if you had gone about firing members of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. JuDsoN. If I had taken any vigorous action against members 
of the Communist Party, I suppose I wouldn't have been very popular. 

Mr. Jackson. You moved from the masses, so to speak, into the 
capitalistic aspect of society in your position as citj^ editor? 

Mr. JuDsoN. I was city editor when I went into the party; but 
there M^as that difficulty of trying to reconcile my duties and responsi- 
bilities as an executive, regarding my paper extremely highly, and 
also being involved in this process of trying to improve the situation 
of America in general. That was the objective of my own party 
membership ; but I was quite wrong in that, I am sure. 

Mr. Doyle. You said you had a responsibility which you could not 
in conscience perform and still be in the unit. What responsibility 
did you have as city editor that you couldn't in good conscience per- 
form and still be active in the unit ; responsibility to whom ? Was it 
a responsibility to your employer which you thought you had which 
was inconsistent with staying in this newspaper unit, or what was the 
responsibility ? 

Mr. JuDsoN. The responsibility, I think, is a simple one. As city 
editor you have a good deal of responsibility for the proper function- 
ing of your newspaper. The guild responsibility was to engage in 
good trade-union tactics ; and, as a member of the management phase 
of it, sometimes the trade-union interest and the management interest 
are in conflict. I was trying to discharge my duties as a city editor as 
well as I could,' and that was in conflict sometimes with the interest of 
saving somebody's job and what not that should be fired. 

Mr, Doyle. You used the term "trade union." Wliat is the fact 
with reference to whether or not you felt there was a conflict in the 
situation with you as city editor and also as a member of the Com- 
munist Party unit? Were your responsibilities as a member of a 
Communist Party unit in conflict with your responsibilities as city 
editor? Was there anything in your relationship as a member of 
Communist Party unit 140 which would have made it inconsistent, or 
at least very embarrassing, for you to discharge your responsibilities 
as city editor ? 

Mr. JuDSON. It is very difficult to answer that question cate- 
gorically. There was certainly a tremendous conflict on my part, I 
can assure you. Does that answer the question? 



2638 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. Doyle. At any rate, I take it from your answer that you per- 
sonally felt that you could not honorably discharge your responsi- 
bilities to your employer as city editor and also stay in Communist 
Party unit 140? 

Mr. JuDSON. That is about the way it worked out. 

Mr. Doyle. Thank you. 

Mr. Tavenner. At the present time, Mr. Judson, the guild mem- 
bership excludes representatives from management; isn't that true? 

Mr. JuDsoN. I believe so ; yes. 

]\Ir. Tavenner. To whom did you pay dues while a member of unit 
140 of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Judson. Probably a number of people.  Urcel Daniels is one 
I recall, who was mentioned here the other day. 

Mr. Tavenner. The committee, in the course of its investigation, 
has information relating to certain individuals as members of unit 
140. I want to exhibit that list to you, a tentative list compiled by 
the committee, and ask you to state which of those appearing on the 
list were known to you to be members of unit 140 of the Communist 
Party. I do not want you to mention the name of any person whom 
you cannot identify from your own personal knowledge as a member 
of that group. 

(Whereupon, tlie list was handed to the witness by committee 
counsel.) 

Mr. Judson. Leo Simon. 

Mr. Ta^t^nner. Leo Simon ? 

Mr. Judson. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you spell the name Simon ? 

Mr. Judson. S-i-m-o-n. I knew him as a Communist, and I under- 
stood he left the party and was in disrepute. 

Dolph Winebrenner. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you spell the name? 

Mr. Judson. D-o-l-p-h W-i-n-e-b-r-e-n-n-e-r. 

Mr. Jackson. How did you know Mr. Simon to be a member of the 
Communist Party? 

Mr. Judson. He was a member, I think, before I was, and after I 
got into the party Mr. Simon, who was working for me at the time, 
said, "Glad to see you pal," and that was it. 

Mr. Jackson. Did you meet him in meetings of unit 140 or in other 
closed meetings of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Judson. I don't think so. Leo didn't appear "at meetings. I 
met him at a social function or two that were put on by the party, and 
I met him then as a Communist, but I don't think I can recall any 
meetings which he attended. 

Mr. Jackson. Do you know out of your conversations with him if he 
did attend meetings ? Did you have conversations with him in which 
he welcomed you into the party ? Did he say anything about where he 
was attending Communist Party meetings, or whether he was attend- 
ing meetings ? 

Mr. Judson. I don't think so. It was just understood that he was 
one of the group, and that was it. I can't say I attended any meetings 
with him. 

Mr. Jackson. But there was no doubt in your mind as to his mem- 
bership in the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Judson. No. 



COMiVrUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2639 

Mr. DoTLE. Did you understand that from him or from somebody 
else ? Did you understand he was a member of the group from what 
he said to you ? 

Mr. JuDSON. I think I understood it from what he said to me. 

Urcel Daniels is the next name here. 

Mr. Tavenner. I am asking you to name only those whom you can 
identify as members of the Communist Party. 

Mr. JuDsox. Urcel Daniels was a member of the Communist Party. 
1 paid dues to her. 

C. H. Garrigues. 

Mr. Ta\'enner. Spell the name, please. 

Mr. JuDsox. G-a-r-r-i-g-u-e-s. 

Mr. Ta\-exner. Was that person known to you to be a member of 
I he Communist Party i 

Mr. JuDsox. Yes ; he was. 

Mr. TAMixXER. On what do you base your statement ? 

Mr. JuDSOx. I attended Communist meetings with him. 

Mr. TA^'EXXER. Proceed. 

Mr. JuDSOX. Herbert Klein, K-1-e-i-n. Herbert Klein was a mem- 
ber of the Communist Party. I attended numerous meetings with him 
at his home and he at mine. 

Minna Klein, his wife. She was also a member. 

Ed Robbins was a member of the partj^ and very active in it at that 
lime, and subsequently worked for the People's World. I attended 
meetings at his house. 

Darr Smith was a member of the party. 

Mr. Tavenxer. How do you spell the name ? 

Mr. JuDsox. D-a-r-r Smith. He wasn't a very diligent member, as 
I recall. 

Mr. Ta\t:xxer. What is the basis of j'our statement that Darr Smith 
was a member of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. JuDsox. I attended meetings with him, and I might have even 
influenced him to become a member. 

Mr. TAMi:xxER. Is there any other person known to you to have been 
a member of unit 140 ? 

Mr. JuDSOx. Phil Connelly is listed here, and he was a member. 

Mr. Tavexxer. Spell the last name. 

Mr. JuDSox. C-o-n-n-e-l-l-y. 

Mr. Tavexxer. How did you know that Phil Connelly was a mem- 
ber of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. JuDSOx. Well, because he was, and he was extremely active in 
the Newspaper Guild and I attended numerous meetings with him. 

His wife, Dorothy Connelly. 

Mr. Ta\-exxt:r. Was she a member of unit 140 ? 

Mr. JuDSox. I believe she was; yes. 

Mr. Tavexxer. What is the basis for your statement that she was 
a member of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. JuDSox. She attended meetings in my house. 

Mr. Doyle. May it be understood that in all the testimony you have 
so far given today — where you have said you attended meetings — 
that, even though you did not specify them as Communist Party 
meetings, they were ? Is that the fact ? 

Mr. JuDsoN. When I speak of meetings, I mean Communist meet- 
ings. 



2640 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. Doyle. And that has been true throughout your testimony 
today ? 

Mr. JuDSON. I believe so, although I believe we referred to a meet- 
ing or two that were open meetings, and there were non-Communists 
there. 

Mr. Taa'enner. I think in each of the instances you have mentioned 
attending meetings with Communist Party members, you have speci- 
fied Communist Party meetings; but, if you have not specified you 
met them at Communist Party meetings, did you mean they were Com- 
munist Party meetings, as your reason for identifying them as Com- 
munist Party members ? 

Mr. JuDsoN. Yes ; that was my intent. 

Mr. Tavenner. Proceed. 

Mr. JuDSON. John Cohee. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you spell the name ? 

Mr. JuDSON. C-o-h-e-e. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was he known to you to be a member of the Com- 
munist Party? 

Mr. JuDSON. Yes ; he was. 

Mr. Tavenner. On what do you base that statement ? 

Mr. JuDSON. Having attended meetings with him and knowing that 
for a fact. 

Mr. Tavenner. Wliat kind of meetings are you referring to ? 

Mr. JuDSON. Communist meetings at my home and in his home. 

His wife, Alice, was also. 

Mr. Tavenner. How do you know his wife was a member of the 
Communist Party? 

Mr. JuDSON. I attended meetings with her. 

Mr. TA^TNNER. Do you mean Communist Party meetings? 

Mr. JuDSON. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. Is there any other person's name you can identify 
as a member of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. JuDSON. Pat Killoran. 

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

Mr. JuDSON. Pat Killoran, K-i-1-l-o-r-a-n, but I am not sure that 
is correct. She was the wife of Morgan Hull, and she was a member 
of the Communist Party. 

Mr. Tavenner. How do you know she was a member of the Com- 
munist Party? 

Mr. JuDSON. She attended meetings in my house. 

Mr. Tavenner. Meetings of the Communist Party? 

Mr. JuDSON. Yes. 

Tom O'Connor. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you spell the name? 

Mr. JuDsoN. O'-C-o-n-n-o-r. He was a member of the Communist 
Party, 

Mr. Tavenner. On what do you base your knowledge ? 

Mr. JuDsoN. On having attended meetings in his home and he in 
mine. 

Mr. Tavenner. Communist Party meetings ? 

Mr. JuDsoN. Yes. 

Charles Daggett. 

Mr. Tavenner. Charles Daggett has testified before the committee 
and admitted his Communist Party membership in this group. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2641 

Mr. JuDsoN. Yes. 

Mr. Doyle. How do you identify Charles Daggett as a member 
of the Communist Party ^ 

Mr. JuDSON. How do I? 

Mr. Doyle. Yes. 

Mr. JuDSON. He asked me to join. 

Mr. Tavexner. You have stated that after about a year's experi- 
ence in unit 140 of the Communist Party you withdrew because of the 
conflict you were having in performing your duties as city editor while 
a member of the Communist Party, and thai after that time you 
went from one unit to another, or at least met with one group or other 
of the Communist Party. What units or groups were they that you 
met Avith ^ 

Mr. JuDSON. I can't identify them by name and number. There 
was a kind of widow's unit, you might say. Herb Klein and his 
wife were members of that group. Do you want me to go ahead and 
recall names? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes ; tell us all you know. 

Mr. JuDsoN. Fred Franche, F-r-a-n-c-h-e, I believe, and his wife 
Davada. 

Mr. Tavenner. You have never given the committee or its staff any 
information prior to this regarding the membership of the group 
that you are now speaking of ? 

Mr. JuDsoN. No. 

Mr. Taat:nner. Mr. Chairman, this is more in the nature of a 
lead investigation on our part at this time relating to this matter, 
and I rather think it ought to be handled in executive session; that 
is, if you approve? 

Mr. Doyle. Without objection, it will be so directed, then, that we 
hear that portion of the testimony which is so classified in executive 
session. 

jNIr. Tavenner. I will not ask you any further questions in open 
session regarding the membership of these other organizations. 

You stated you remained in the party, I believe, until 1941? 

Mr. JuDSON. Yes. 

Mr. Ta\tenner. Describe what your activity was in the party from 
the time that you left unit 140. 

Mr. JuDSON. It consisted primarily of going to meetings once a week 
or twice a month, or however frequently they were held, and studying 
what makes the world tick in terms of Marxism and Leninism. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did that continue on until approximately 1941 ? 

Mr. JuDSON. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. What occurred in 1941 which caused you to leave 
the Communist Party? 

Mr. JuDSON. The incident of the Stalin pact was a most distressing 
and disturbing thing to me, and I remained in the party, I guess, up 
imtil about Pearl Harbor, listening to this explanation of why Uncle 
Joe did it, and when the subsequent developments occurred, the role 
of the party as a total captive of Moscow foreign policy was quite 
apparent to me, so I walked out. 

Mr, Jackson. The pact you refer to was the Nazi-Soviet Nonag- 
gression Pact? 

95008— 52— pt. 1 14 



2642 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. JuDsON. That is right. 

Mr. Tavennee. Have you engaged in any Communist Party activi- 
ties since 1941 ? 

Mr. JuDsoN. Not to my knowledge. 

Mr. Tavenner. Have you even been approached about rejoining the 
Communist Party ? 

Mr. JuDSON. I got a telephone call from Slim Connelly, Phil Con- 
nelly, asking me to attend a meeting at which he would try to put me 
straight, and I assume that was a call to reaffiliate or get right, or 
whatever. I can't place it by date, but it was after I left. 

Mr. Ta-^^nner. Did you respond to the call ? 

Mr. JuDSON. I said I might be there, but I didn't show up. 

Mr. Tavenner. Have there been any other efforts made ? 

Mr. JuDsoN. Not to my knowledge. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you have anything further you desire to say 
with regard to your break from the Communist Party, or any 
comment you desire to make regarding the activities of the Communist 
Party? 

Mr. JuDsoN. None except that the party is an unwholesome instru- 
ment in our society, and I am profoundly aware of it, and I think that 
is pretty well documented now. And I am extremely distressed that 
there seems to be such a confusion between the liberal thinking and 
these devices of the Communist Party to associate their activity with 
native complaint, and thereby make themselves appear as native Ameri- 
can complainants with some virtue in the eyes of people who don't 
understand this thing; and I think a very great tragedy of our time is 
their capacity to appear in this particular nature. They endorse a 
great many good causes and pervert them into party causes, and that 
is where they recruit their membership, and that is where they hook 
a lot of nice people, and it is quite a sad thing, I think, to undertake it. 

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

Mr. Doyle. Mr. Jackson, any questions ? 

Mr. Jackson. Mr. Judson, I should like to fix the place of employ- 
ment of these various individuals at the time you knew them in Los 
Angeles, and also in each case to ask you whether or not you know 
where these individuals whom you have identified as members of the 
Communist Party are presently employed. 

Where was Mr. Robbins employed at the time you knew him as a 
member of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. JuDSON. People's World, I believe. 

Mr. Jackson. Do you know his present employment ? 

Mr. Judson. No. 

Mr. Jackson. Clarance Hathaway? 

Mr. JuDsoN, He was a party functionary from back East, and I 
haven't seen him since and have no knowledge of him. 

Mr. Jackson. Sid Burke? 

Mr. JuDSON. Sid Burke was working for the People's World up 
until a short time ago. 

Mr. Jackson. That was continuous employment since the time of 
your membership in the Communist Party ? 

Mr. JuDSON. Not that I know of. 

Mr. Jackson. Where was he employed during the period of your 
membership in the Communist Party? He was a newspaperman? 

Mr. JuDsoN. Yes. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2643 

Mr. Jackson. What was the phice of his employment at that time? 

Mr. JuDsoN. I don't know that he was even employed. 

Mr. Jackson. Yon know of no newspaper employment that he had 
other than that on the Daily People's World ? 

Mr. JuDSON. He was for a short time in the drama department of the 
Daily News. 

Mr. Jackson. Pettis Perry and Paul Cline, I believe you said, were 
both functionaries of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. JuDSON. Yes. 

Mr. Jackson. Were they employed in the newspaper field? 

Mr. JuDsoN. Not that I know of. I believe not. 

Mr. Jackson. Morgan Hull. 

Mr. JuDSON. Morgan Hull was in the newspaper business when I 
walked into it, and I think he went to work for the Newspaper Guild 
in about 1935 or so. 

Mr. Jackson. What was his previous newspaper employment in the 
Los Angeles area ? 

Mr. JuDsoN. He was a reporter on the Old Los Angeles Record. 

Mr. Jackson. Dolph Winebrenner, what was his employment? 

Mr. JuDSON. He was on the Daily Is^ews, and I think he worked for 
the San Francisco Examiner and for the People's World. 

Mr. Jackson. What is his present employment? 

Mr. JuDSON. I don't know. 

Mr. Jackson. Urcel Daniels, what w^as her employment during the 
period of your membership in the Communist Party ? 

Mr. JuDSON. She has worked, I think, for the Los Angeles Exam- 
iner. I don't know in what capacity. I think it was more unemploy- 
ment than employment. 

Mr. Jackson. What is her present employment, if you know ? 

Mr. JuDsoN. I saw in the paper the other day that she is working 
in Washington. 

Mr. Jackson. Leo Simon, what was his employment during the 
period of your association with the Communist Party ? 

Mr. JuDsoN. He was on the Daily News. 

Mr. Jackson. Where is he presently employed, if you know? 

Mr. JuDsoN. I am not sure. He has been a publicity man in Los 
Angeles, and I believe he is with one of the Jewish agencies. 

Mr. Jackson. C. H. Garrigues. What was the nature of his em- 
ployment while you were associated with him in the Communist Party ? 

Mr. JuDsoN. I am not too sure. He was working for the guild at 
that time. 

Mr. Jackson. For the Newspaper Guild ? 

Mr. JuDsoN. Yes. 

Mr. Jackson. You have no knowledge of any outside employment 
he may have had, outside of the Newspaper Guild ? 

Mr. JuDsoN. He later worked for the San Francisco Examiner, I 

believe. 

Mr. Jackson. Do you know the nature of his present employment? 

Mr. JuDSON. He may not be among the living. 

Mr, Jackson. He may be deceased? 

Mr.JuDSON. Yes. He was very ill the last I heard. 

Mr. Jackson. Herbert Klein. What was the nature of his employ- 
ment when you knew him as a member of the Communist Party ? 



2644 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. JuDsoN. Klein had an independent income and worked at vari- 
ous things, and I can't peg it for you. 

Mr. Jackson. Do you know his present employment ? 

Mr. JuDsoN. No. I think I read in the papers the other day that 
he quit his job with the United Auto Workers. 

Mr. Jackson. Was he, to the best of your knowledge, ever asso- 
ciated with the labor press or trade press ? 

Mr. JuDSON. Yes. He had worked for one of the federated presses, 
I believe; not the movie press, to my knowledge, but he had one of 
those fleeting correspondent assignments here and there. 

Mr. Jackson. In what field ? 

Mr. JuDsoN. In the field of news coverage. 

Mr. Jackson. But for what industry ? 

Mr. JuDsoN. I think he worked for the Federated Press when I 
knew him. 

Mr. Jackson. Minna Klein. Was she a newspaperwoman ? 

Mr. JuDsoN. No. 

Mr. Jackson. But she was a member of Unit 140? 

Mr. JuDsoN. Yes. 

Mr. Jackson. Darr Smith, what was the nature of his employment 
at the time of your association with him in the Communist Party ? 

Mr. JuDSON. Reporter, Daily News. 

Mr. Jackson. Wliat is his present employment, if you know ? 

Mr. JuDsoN. I am not at all sure. I think he is an actor. 

Mr. Jackson. An actor ? 

Mr. Judson. I believe so. 

Mr. Jackson. You have no knowledge of his subsequent employ- 
ment after your party association with him ? 

Mr. Judson. He had been around town, and he was in the Army. 

Mr. Jackson. Connally, what was his employment at the time of 
your association with him in the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Judson. He was originally a reporter on the Herald Express, 
and he became president of the CIO Industrial Council in Los An- 
geles, and I believe he was in that capacity at the time of my last 
association with the party. 

Mr. Jackson. What is his present employment, if you know ? 

Mr. Judson. I think he is on trial in Los Angeles. 

Mr. Jackson. The trial of the Communist Party members rounded 
up by the FBI? 

Mr. Judson. I think so. 

Mr. Jackson. Dorothy Connelly. Was she a newspaperwoman ? 

Mr. Judson. I don't think so. 

Mr. Jackson. But she was a member of unit 140 ? 

Mr. Judson. Yes. 

Mr. Jackson. John Cohee. What was his employment during the 
time you were associated with him in the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Judson. He came to work for the Daily News. 

Mr. Jackson. What is his present employment, if you know ? 

Mr. Judson. I don't know. 

Mr. Jackson. Is his wife's name Alice Cohee ? 

Mr. Judson. Yes. 

Mr. Jackson. Was she a newspaperwoman? 

Mr. Judson. No. 

Mr, Jackson. But she was a member of unit 140 ? 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2645 

Mr, JuDSON. I believe so, yes. 

Mr. Jackson. Tom O'Connor. What was his employment during 
the time you were associated with him in the Communist Party I 

Mr. JuDSON. Daily News. 

Mr. Jackson. Do you know where he is presently employed? 

Mr. JuDsoN. I believe he is with the Compass in New York. 

Mr. Jacnson. Pat Killoran. Where was he employed during the 
jjeriod you were associated with him in the Communist Party? 

Mr. JuDsoN. That is a girl. She was Morgan Hull's wife. 

Mr. Jackson. Was she a newspaperwoman? 

Mr. JuDSON. Yes. 

Mr. Jackson. Where was she employed during the time you were 
associated with her in the Communist Party ? 

Mr. JuDsoN. Hollywood Citizens News. 

Mr. Jackson. Where is she presently employed ? 

Mr. JuDSON. The last I heard she was working for the Arts, Sci- 
ences, and Professions Council. 

Mr. Jackson. In Los Angeles? 

Mr. JuDsoN. In Los Angeles, yes. 

Mr. Jackson. Do you know whether or not there was a Commu- 
nist Party youth group on the Los Angeles Junior College campus 
while you were a student there ? 

Mr. JuDSON. I didn't run into it there. 

Mr. Jackson. I should like to express my thanks to you, Mr. Judson, 
for your appearance here. You have added a great deal to the knowl- 
edge of the committee. 

And I should like to say for the information of the committee that 
it is my understanding that since the witness' break with the Commu- 
nist Party he has recommended the insertion of anti-Communist arti- 
cles in the course of his employment, and his employers have stated to 
me that they have every confidence in the fact he has made a complete 
and clean break with the party, and that it is not their intent to dis- 
criminate against him in any way by virtue of his previous association 
with the party, and that they wholeheartedly endorse his appearance 
before the committee. 

Mr. JuDSON. Thank you, Mr. Jackson. 

Mr. Doyle. I will ask you just a few questions. You stated you at- 
tended Communist Party classes for a few weeks. Who were in that 
class ? 

Mr. JuDSON. I can't recall. 

Mr. Doyle. Where did they meet ? At one fixed place each week ? 

Mr. JuDSON. I think so, yes. 

Mr. Doyle. Do you remember where that was? 

Mr. JuDSON. It was on Beverly Boulevard. 

Mr. Doyle. At some office or headquarters? 

Mr. Judson. No; at somebody's home. 

Mr. Doyle. You stated you joined the Communist Party under the 
fictitious name of Peter Steel. Where did you find that name ? Who 
gave it to you ? 

Mr. Judson. I had just read a novel, and I thought that was a nice 
name. 

Mr. Doyle. Why didn't you join the Communist Party under your 
own name? 

Mr. Judson. Because I was told not to. 



2646 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. Doyle. Who told you? 

Mr. JuDsoN. Mr. Sid Burke. 

Mr. Doyle. Did he tell you why you should join under a fictitious 
name? 

Mr. JuDSON. It was quite obvious why. 

Mr. Doyle. Why? 

Mr. JuDSON. Because it is a secret organization. 

Mr. Doyle. iVt the time you joined you knew you were joining a 
secret organization under a fictitious name? 

Mr. JuDSON. Yes; I did. 

Mr. Doyle. I think the record shows that it is a fact that other peo- 
ple, many of them, joined under their own legal names. Did all mem- 
bers of the newspaper fraternity who joined the Communist Party 
join under fictitious names ? 

Mr. JuDSON. I don't know. 

Mr. Doyle. You stated you attended numerous meetings of other 
groups of the Communist Party after you stopped attending meetings 
of Comnmnist Party, unit 140. Do you remember that? Do you 
remember stating that you went to other units of the Commimist 
Party and met with them ? 

Mr. JtTDsoN. Other groups ; yes. 

Mr. Doyle. How did you know where the other groups of the Com- 
munist Party were meeting ? Who told you where to go to the meet- 
ings? How did you know where to go to attend meetings of other 
Communist Party units ? 

INfr. JuDSON. Some of them were in my home. 

Mr. Doyle. Of what unit ? 

Mr. JuDSON. The unit that I was participating in met at my home a 
number of times. 

Mr. Doyle. That was unit 140 ? 

Mr. JuDSON. Yes ; and it met at Herb Klein's home. 

Mr. Doyle. And your home at that time was where ? 
,Mr. JuDSON. I lived at various addresses in Los Angeles. Riven- 
wood Village. 

Mr. Doyle. I noticed in your testimony you stated several times 
that certain people you identified as Communists attended meetings 
at your home, and you at theirs. Did you have numerous meetings of 
the Communist Party in your home ? 

Mr. JuDsoN. I would say so. 

Mr. Doyle. How many ? . 

Mr. JuDSON. Gee, I don't know. 

Mr. Doyle. Tw^enty-five ? 

Mr. JuDSON. 1937 to 1941 is a long time. I don't know. 

Mr. Doyle. Would it be as many as 50 or 100 meetings ? 

Mr. JuDsoN. Well, I don't know. It might have been 50 meetings. 

(Representative Donald L. Jackson left the hearing room at this 
point.) 

Mr. Doyle. How numerous were the meetings at your home ? 

Mr. JuDSON. Once or twice a month. 

Mr. Doyle. How many attended those meetings ? 

Mr. Jn)SON. Six or seven, I would judge. 

Mr. Doyle. As I understand it, even though you stopped attending 
meetings of unit 140, for the reasons you have given us, you stated that 
after that you continued attending meetings of the Communist Party, 



COMMUNISM HSr LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2647 

studying what makes the world tick as to Leninism and Marxism. Is 
that what yon said ? 

Mr. JuDSON. Yes. 

Mr. DoTLE. Then am I correct that even though you dropped out of 
unit 140 as far as attending meetings were concerned, you were still 
interested in the philosophy of Marxism and Leninism until you 
dropped out in 1941 ? 

;^Ir. JuDSON. Yes. 

Mr. Doyle. "Why were you interested ? Wliy should you be drawn 
into the philosophical adoption of Marxism and Leninism ? You were 
born in this country. What was wrong with our form of government, 
if anything, or of the American way of life, which caused you to be 
attracted to communism ? 

Mr. JuDSON. I think that is a very interesting question. 

(Eepresentative Donald L. Jackson returned to the hearing room.) 

Mr. JuDSON (continuing). I got out of school in 1932, in the midst 
of the depression, and I think the day I went to work for the news- 
papers the Bonus March was going on in Washington, and the Com- 
munist Party, when I bumped into it, seemed to have a lot of very 
good answers. The fact of Hitler's national socialism was quite ap- 
parent in Eurof)e. The Soviet Union was preaching a line of collective 
security which seemed to me to be a very good argument as to our own 
difficulty at that time. And the Spanish war was an episode in that 
particular case ; and the party's approach was a patriotic one to people 
who should have known better. 

One of the things I recall is that they said "comnumism is twentieth 
century Americanism," and a lot of people bought that one. The 
whole emphasis of the party was one of a rather patriotic approach, 
and tliere was no thought in my mind tliat there was any conflict be- 
tween being a loyal American and being a Communist. 

Mr. Doyle. Now, then, when was it that you arrived at the point, 
at which you apparently did arrive, as to which you testified just a 
few minutes ago in tliis way, you said : "The role of the party as a 
total captive of the Soviet foreign policy was quite apparent to me, 
so I dropped out." Do you remember so testifying? 

Mr. JuDSON. I do. 

Mr. Doyle. AVhen did you arrive at that conclusion ? 

Mr. JuDSON. I believe about 1939 or 1940. 

Mr. Doyle. Why didn't you drop out of the party then ? 

Mr. JuDSOx. The point at which I arrived at that conclusion was 
1941, at the time the party had gone through this collective security 
pitch. After the Stalin pact they occupied a berth on the American 
scene with the German- American Bund, and wiien the fact of World 
War II was upon us, it became totally clear to me that, thank God, 
America had not been following the Communist Party line. 

Mr. Doyle. I hope you will understand in my questioning you, sir, 
I am not trying to cross-examine you. 

Mr. JuDSON. That is quite all right. 

Mr. Doyle. I am seeking and searching and reaching out and try- 
ing to reach out objectively to get the benefit of your own conclusions 
and the reasons therefor. 

I think they will be very helpful to other people who want to be 
patriotic Americans, instead of seeing our country on the tail of the 
Soviet kite. That is the reason I am perhaps being more specific. 



2648 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. JuDsoN. Well, I appreciate it. But that is the best that I can 
find. When I finally made up my mind this is the way it was. 

Mr. Doyle. May I just ask you a couple more questions? 

What year was it that Slim Connelly of Los Angeles, whom you 
testified was a former reporter on the Los Angeles Herald Express — 
which, by the way, is a newspaper I used to deliver and sell as a news- 
boy in Los Angeles, including the old Los Angeles Record, on which 
you used to work. I used to do the same thing down there at Wall 
Street — what year was it that Slim Connelly called you on the tele- 
phone and asked you to meet him ? 

Mr. JuDSON. That was after I was out of the party. 

Mr. Doyle. You remember, you said that Slim Connelly phoned 
you and asked you to meet him to kind of straighten you out, or ex- 
plain, or urge you to come back into the party, and you testified that 
you met him, but you did not. 

Mr. JuDSON. It must have been 1941, I guess. 

Mr. Doyle. This committee is interested — we are not only inter- 
ested, but we are assigned as a legal duty by the Congress not only 
to investigate the extent and character of subversive un-American 
activities in the United States that may be found here as the result 
of either domestic or foreign influence, but we are assigned a verj'' 
heavy responsibility of looking into any subject with reference thereto, 
which may enter into the area of legislation by Congress. 

That is one of our express assignments under the law, Public Law 
601. 

Have you any suggestion or advice to this committee as to any pos- 
sible legislation, either new legislation or modification of existing 
legislation ? 

For instance, there are some people who say that Congress should 
outlaw the Communist Party in the United States. Have you any 
expression of opinion on that ? 

Mr. JuDsoN. I have not any bright ideas on the thing. It is a 
dreadful, dreary business that has to be gone through, under the cir- 
cumstances that I am here, and I think it is quite necessary. 

I am not inclined to think that outlawing the party would achieve 
the purpose that would like to be achieved, and that is to get rid of 
the Communists. 

The party is underground already, I am quite sure. And if there 
could be — you were asking the lawyers about this, and they are much 
more acquainted in this field than I am. The very precious and fun- 
damental safeguards of our constitutional rights are to intimately in- 
volved here that I do not know what is the thing to do, frankly. 

Mr. Doi-LE. I wish to assure you 

Mr. JuDsON. I am sorry I have bungled around here. 

Mr. Doyle. I wish to assure you if that is necessary; I think you 
comprehend that this committee is not any less interested than any 
other group, either as public officials or as private officials ; we are not 
less interested in preserving the constitutional rights of American 
citizens than any other group of people. 

Mr. JuDsoN. I know that. 

Mr. Doyle. You said that the objective was to get rid of Commu- 
nists. Why should we try to get rid of Communists in the United 
States? What is it? You said they were an unwholesome infiuence 
in our society, and I think you added that that was an understatement. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2649 

Mr. JuDsoN. Yes ; I did. 

Mr. Doyle. I remember that language. Why is that an under- 
statement? Will you use the language that you really intend to use 
to describe the Communist Party activities in the United States? 
Make it as strong as you honestly can, because we want the benefit 
of your analysis. 

Mr. JuDsoN. I think the course of history of the last decade, and 
even previous to that, documents quite fully the instrument of the 
Communist parties over the world as expedient devices of the Soviet 
Union's faith in themselves. 

Mr. Doyle. Do you mean that our American Communist Party is 
merely a device, a program which emerges, in your judgment, from 
Soviet Russia ? 

Mr. JuDsON. I certainly do believe that ; yes. 

Mr. Doyle. I think, counsel, that in view of the shortness of time 
that remains I shall refrain from further questions. But I do wish 
to thank you. 

Mr. JuDsoN. Thank you. 

Mr. Jackson. I have a few questions. 

Mr. Doyle. Mr. Jackson ? 

Mr. Jackson. In your opinion, Mr. Judson, is there any element 
of self-determination for a member of the Communist Party in the 
policies of the Communist Party? Is he permitted any element of 
self-determination ? 

Mr. JuDSON. I am sure not. The theory, as I comprehend it, deals 
on what they call a monolithic structure, and that goes like a pyramid, 
and the individual Communists can debate moral issues and philo- 
sophic issues until the decision has been reached in the high com- 
mand, and any quarrel or question following that is not permitted. 

Mr. Jackson. In other words, we were told the other day, Mr. 
Judson, that first of all the conclusion is handed you and you work 
backward. 

Mr. JuDsON. That is exactly it. 

Mr. Jackson. You work backward in an attempt to justify the 
conclusion. But the conclusion is there, and it must be accepted in 
the final analysis by those who are participating in the discussions. 
That is opposite the process of logic where you start with the facts 
and work to a conclusion ; you have the conclusion and try to work 
back toward the facts. 

Mr. JuDsoN, That is right. 

Mr. Jackson. Is there any true debate in the Communist branch 
meeting, or in the Communist Party, in the sense that the average 
American understands the process of deliberation by which various 
people express honest differences of opinion, and out of conversation 
and out of discussion and out of debate arrive at a conclusion which 
is partly compromised, of course, but which is generally understood 
and generally accepted by the majority of people as representing the 
best opinions of the majority ? 

Mr. JuDsoN. Absolutely not. 

Mr. Jackson. That, of course, goes back to the previous question. 

Mr. JuDsoN. Yes. 

Mr. Jackson. In other words, it is safe to say that there is per- 
mitted no deviation 

Mr. JuDSON. That is right. 



2650 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. Jackson. To the average Communist from the directives and 
instructions which are handed down from the higher echelons qf the 
Communist Party. 

Mr. JuDSON. That is correct. The Communists have the science, 
as they call it, scientific socialism, which has all the answers, and 
Stalin apparently is the interpreter of them, and there is little margin 
down in the arena for asking "how come." 

But the conclusions are all there, and that is why I said, Mr. Doyle, 
the party is the captive of the Soviet. 

Mr. DoTLE. You said the total captive. 

Mr. JuDsoN. If you are a captive you are a captive whether total, 
or not. 

Mr. Doyle. You might have light chains on you that can be broken. 
If you are a total captive, you cannot get away. 

Mr. JuDsoN. You cannot get away from the party excepting if you 
leave it. 

Mr. Jackson. According to what you have said, the Communist 
Party in the United States is an integral part and parcel of the 
Communist International and the directives by which the party in 
the United States is guided and governed are directives which origi- 
nate in a foreign nation. Is that substantially the gist of what you 
have said? 

Mr. JuDSON. That is my opinion ; yes. 

Mr. Jackson. How do you relate that opinion with your statement 
that the Communist Party should not be outlawed ? "\Vliy do you feel 
it should not be made illegal to be part of a foreign-dominated group 
or organization? 

Mr. Judson. What I said, or what I meant to imply was that I don't 
know any answer to that. The Communist Party, I am totally sure, 
is not a legitimate political party in which there is debate and argu- 
ment, and I don't think that outlawing the party would necessarily 
rid ourselves, or rid America of this subversive and unwholesome in- 
volvement that is upon us. 

And so I wouldn't — I would prefer not to say whether you should 
outlaw the party or not. I don't know what is the best thing to do. 
It is a hell of a note. 

Mr. Jackson. Louis Budenz, who is probably one of this country's 
outstanding authorities on communism in action, very strongly recom- 
mends that the cloak of legality be removed from the operations of the 
Communist Party. He has stated in testimony before the committee 
that 95 percent of the Communist Party, and 95 percent of its opera- 
tions are already underground. 

Mr. JuDsoN. I believe that; yes. 

Mr. Jackson. And that only 2 to 3 percent of the Communist mem- 
bers actually know what goes on in the Communist Party. 

Mr. JuDsON. That is true ; I am sure. 

Mr. Jackson. And that the rest are hitchhiking along the way, and 
they feel very privy to the operations of the party, but actually they 
know nothing about the espionage. 

Mr. JuDSON. No. 

Ml-. Jackson. That is, the courier drops, the mail drops, andi 
courier services of the party. 

I have no further questions. 

Mr. Doyle. There is one question. Counsel, that I wanted to ask. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 265 U 

In view of our common knowledge of the importance, tlie para- 
mount importance, the relationship of the press, the newspapers of 
America, have to the freedoms and our national security, and na- 
tional defenses, the very life of America, is a matter of fact, I want to 
ask you this: 

It worries me to hear your testimony that so many of the men and 
women identified in the new^spaper world in California were, to your 
personal knowledge, members of the Communist Party at the same 
time you were, and that some of those at least were members of the 
Newspaper Guild. 

What is your opinion? Were a good percentage, or a large per- 
centage of the members of the Communist Party when you were a 
member at that time, also members of the Newspaper Guild at the 
same time? 

Mr. JuDsoN. Maybe I can answer this question this way: A very 
small percentage of the Newspaper Guild were Communists. The 
Communists that were members on the Newspaper Guild were very 
active. 

Does that answer your question? 

Mr. Doyle. I think so. 

In other words, you have stated that a very small percentage of 
the members of the Newspaper Guild were Communists. 

Mr. JuDsoN. Yes. 

Mr. Doyle. That is what I wanted to know. 

Mr. JuDSON. That is true, I am sure. 

Mr. Jackson. Wliat was the governing board ? Was there a board 
of directors of the Newspaper Guild ? In Los Angleles ? 

Mr. JuDsoN. No. 

]\Ir. Jackson. Was there a board of directors or were there officers 
elected by the membership at large to generally conduct the meetings of 
the Newspaper Guild or its operations, or to recommend certain 
courses of action to the membership at large of the guild? 

For instance, the National Lawyers' Guild in Los Angeles had a 
board of directoi^. Was there nothing corresponding to that in the 
newspaper field ? 

Mr. JuDSON. I don't think so, Mr. Jackson. 

Mr. Jackson. Did it have a president during that time? 

Mr. JuDsoN. Yes. 

Mr. Jackson. Who was the president during the time, or the several 
presidents during the time of your association ? 

Mr. JtTDSON. I am not too definite on this thing. I think Tom 
O'Connor was president. 

Mr. Jackson. Tom O'Connor whom you identified in your testi- 
mony as being a member of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. JuDsoN. Yes. I am not sure of that. 

Mr. Jackson. Was there a secretary ? 

Mr. JunsoN. There was a secretary; yes. 

Mr. Jackson. Do you recall the name of the secretary or of any of 
the secretaries during your association ? 

Mr. JuDSON. I am not too clear on the nomenclature of the officers 
at that time, but Phil Connelly w^as very active in organizing the 
guild and I believe he was president, too, at one time. 

Mr. Jackson. I think the example of the president, to the best of 
your recollection, that was elected to that position by the membership 



<2652 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

of the guild points out very well, very graphically, the fact that while 
the Communists in the Newspaper Guild may have represented only 
a very small minority in the total membership of the guild, they were 
able to organize their attacks or their plans and their policies in such 
a way as to influence the balance of the membership to a degi'ee in the 
election of the officers. 

Mr. JuDSON. That happened, I am sure. 

Mr. Jackson. I have no further questions. 

Mr. Doyle. The committee is going to resolve itself into an excu- 
tive session, a closed session. That means that all of the visitors and 
the press are excused. Even though this is Saturday noon, the com- 
mittee will have to go on and keep on working today until we finish 
our work. 

So if 3'ou will leave the hearing room, we will go into executive ses- 
sion at this time. The open session is recessed until 10 o'clock Mon- 
day morning. 

(Thereupon, at 12 noon, the committee recessed, to reconvene at 10 
a. m., Monday January 28, 1952.) 



COMMUNIST ACTIVITIES AMONG PKOKKSSIONAL GKOUFS 
IN TUE LOS ANGELES AKEA— PART 1 



WEDNESDAY. APRIL 9, 1953 

United Sta tks Hoisk of KF.ruKSKN ta rivus, 

SinoOMMirrKK of tiik C\>MMii''rKK t^N 

Un-Amkkican AcriviTiKs, 

rum JO iiEAuiNO 

A suboomniittoo o( the Conunittoo on Vn AnuM"u';iii Aotivitios met, 
pursuant to call, at 10: 55 a. ui., in room 'JlH>, C)U1 House C^tlu-o liuiUl- 
iuii'. Hon. Francis E. Walter i)rosidinii-. 

Conuuittee u\einbers present: Keiuvsenlat ives Franeis K, Walter, 
Morgan M. Moulder, and Bernard W. Kearney (^appearanee as i\oted 
in transcript). 

Start' membei-s present: Frank S. Tavenner, ,Ir., counsel; Courtney 
E. Owens, invest iiiator; Kajihael I. Nixon, director o[' research; John 
W. Carriniiton, clerk; and A. 8. Toore, editor. 

Mr. Wai.tkk. The subconunittee will come to order. 

Let the record show that a subcommittee consisting; of Messrs. 
Moulder, Keanu\v. and Walter were desionuted to conduct this hear- 
inj^-, and that a majority oi" the subconunittee is presi'ut. 

Who is tiie witness^ 

iNIr. Tavknnkk. ^[r. Kobert J. Silberstein, please. 

Mr. WAi.ri:K. Wi>uhl you raise yimr riiiht hand, please, T\[r. Silber- 
stein? Do vou swear the testiuuniv voii are about to <iive will be the 
truth, the whole truth, and nothing:; but the truth, so help you God? 

Mv. Sii,r>EKS'rKix. 1 do, sir. 

Mr. Wai.ti'.k. Are you represented by counsel, Mr. Silberstein? 

TESTIMONY OF KOBEET J. SILBEESTEIN. ACCOMPANIED BY HIS 
COUNSEL, OSMOND K. FEAENKEL 

Mr. 8iLr>KKSTEiN. I am. 

Mr. Walteij. State your name for the recortl, nlease. 

Mr. FKAKXKF.n. My name is Osmond K. Fraenkel, 0-s-m-o-n-d K. 
F-r-a-e-n-k-e-1, New Vcuk Oity. 

Mv. Tavexnek. Will you stale your name, please, sir? 

Mr. Su.m-.usTEix. My name is Kobert J. Siloerstein. 

Mr. Tavkxxki;. AVhen and where were you born, Mr. Silberslein? 

Mr. Suj-.EUSTEIN. I was born in Detroit, Mich., on the 'J-'Ul of 
March 1905. 

Mr. Tavennek. What is your present place of residence? 

2653 



2654 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. I reside at 138 Columbia Heights, Brooklyn, N. Y. 

Mr. Tav-enner. Will you outline briefly for the committee, please, 
your educational training? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. I am a graduate of Harvard College and of Har- 
vard Law School. 

Mr. Tavenxer. Are you now engaged in the practice of j^our 
profession ? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. I am not. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you practice your profession ? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. I did. I practiced law in the city of New York 
from the time of my admission in 1932 until I left my firm in March 
of 1947, except for an absence on military service of 40 months between 
1942 and 1946. 

(Representative Bernard W. Kearney entered the hearing room at 
this point.) 

Mr. Tavenner. In what branch of the service did you engage? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. I was in the Signal Corps. 

Mr. Tavenner. Now, M^hat was the nature of your military assign- 
ments ? 

]\Ir. SiLBERSTEiN. I entered the Army as a private, went to officer- 
candidate school, was commissioned as an officer in the Signal Corps, 
and served as a message-center officer with a signal-service battalion 
in the European theater. 

Mr. TA^^:NNER. After 1937 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. 1947. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was it '47? Of course. Excuse me. 

After '47, how were you employed ? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. I bccame the executive secretary of the National 
Lawyers' Guild in April of 1947, and since then have served as its 
national executive secretary. 

Mr. Tavenner. What are your principal duties as secretai-y of the 
National Lawyers' Guild? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. My principal duties are to carry out the policies 
which are adopted by the national convention, which is our highest 
governing body, and by the national executive board, which is the 
governing body between annual conventions. When I say "carry 
out," I mean in an administrative way; and generally to cooperate 
with and encourage the work of our committees and of our chapters. 

Mr. Tavenner. Well, as executive secretary, and having the duties 
which you have described, it would be natural that you had much 
to do with the formulation of the policies of the National Lawyers' 
Guild; isn't that correct? 

ISIr. SiLBERSTEiN. I havB something to do with it in the sense that 
I express an opinion frequently when my opinion is asked. But in 
general, policy statements are established through national commit- 
tees, on which I do not serve as a member. So I would say that I have 
some, naturally some, interest in expressing a view when my opinion 
is asked, and expressing a view as a member of the national executive 
board. 

Mr. Tavenner. You are a member of the national executive board? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. I am. 

Mr. Tavenner. In addition to being the national executive sec- 
retary ? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. That is right. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2655 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Silberstein, on February 10, 1952, the New 
York Herald Tribune carried an article on page 3, section 2, under 
the caption "The Red Underground," written by Mr. Ogden R. Reid. 
The subcaption of this article states : 

Lawyers' guild decides stand in case of inquiry. 

The first sentence in this article states : 

The executive board of the National Lawyers' Guild held an emergency meeting 
in its offices at 40 Exchange Place, New York, on February 2, to consider ways 
and means to prevent the House Committee on Un-American Activities from 
holding hearings on the guild's activities and members. 

The second paragraph of this article stated, and I quote : 

The meeting attended by 35 officers of the guild. 

The article then names various individuals as having been present at 
this meeting, and among those named was Robert J. Silberstein. I 
suppose the article was correct in referring to you as having been 
present at that meeting? 

Mr. Silberstein. It was correct, but otherwise incorrect. May I 
comment? 

]\Ir. Tavenner. Yes. Will you point out wherein it was incorrect ? 

Mr. Silberstein. It was not an emergency meeting. It was a special 
meeting. And the purpose of the meeting was not to devise ways 
and means of preventing a hearing from being held. 

The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the situation which had 
arisen to our knowledge for the first time, tliat this committee had 
undertaken to call a large number of lawyers, namely, in California, 
and to discuss what our attitude should be toward this new venture 
of the committee into the realm of the profession. And the result 
of the meeting was merely the adoption of a statement of the national 
executive board, which will be issued in conjunction with this hearing. 

Mr. Tavenner. With this hearing today ? 

Mr. Silberstein. Yes. 

Mr. Taxt.nner. Is that a statement in opposition to the investiga- 
tion that the Committee on Un-American Activities was engaged in, 
in January of 1952, in the various professions in California, specifi- 
cally the medical profession and the legal profession ? 

Mr. Silberstein. No. It was directed to hearings being held as 
to the legal profession. As of that date you had some testimony 
here from a number of informers. 

Mr. Tavenner. I beg yoiu- pardon. They were witnesses. 

Mr. Silberstein. May I not characterize them as I think proper? 

Mr. Walter. I am afraid that it would not be well for you to do 
that, because we just do not like patriotic American citizens who 
testify before this committee 

Mr. Silberstein. I am sorry. I mean no offense. 

Mr. Walter. To be characterized as informers. I know that some 
people are very sensitive about that sort of thing. 

Mr. Silberstein. I think that practically from infancy people are 
taught that this kind of thing is rotten in this country, and I think 
that is a proper tradition. 

However, I meant no offense. And I withdraw the remark if it gave 
offense to anybody. 

Mr. Walter. Well, you do not think that because a man happens to 
have qualified for the noble profession of the law he is given any more 



2656 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

rights than anybody else when his activities might be directed toward 
undermining our country ; do you ? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. I Certainly do not. I don't think that lawyers 
are entitled to any special privileges. 

Mr. Walter. All right. 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. Did I answer your question, Mr. Tavenner? 

Mr. Tavenner. No. 

(The pending question was read by the reporter.) 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. We were concerned only with a phase of that 
hearing, this hearing scheduled in California, which affected lawyers. 
Naturally, as lawyers we were concerned with hearings affecting law- 
yers; and beyond that it was our feeling that the people who were 
being called were precisely those who have been courageous enough to 
undertake the defense of unpopular causes, and that the tendency of 
these hearings would inevitably be to discourage people from handling 
cases of unpopular causes. And that is a real problem in this country. 
Not only we think that, but I think the President of the United States 
has indicated he thinks that, and Mr. Justice Douglas has indicated 
he thinks that. As a matter of policy, we thought it was a very bad 
thing and injurious to the administration of justice at this time, when 
we think that there is a greater need than at any time in history for 
lawyers to come to the defense of civil liberties. 

Mr. Walter. You might be interested in knowing that we came 
upon the activities of lawyers with subversive groups quite acciden- 
tally, and that the man who appeared most often in defense of people 
was never mentioned in connection with those activities. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Silberstein, in the deliberations of your meeting 
referred to as having been held on February 2, did you consider the 
preliminary statement made by this committee regarding its investiga- 
tion of members of the Communist Party within the professions ? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. I dou't think that we had heard of that. I haven't 
heard of it up to this point. 

Mr. Tavenner. Well, in substance it was this : That this committee 
did not intend in any way by its investigation to infringe upon or in 
any w^ay limit the confidential relationship between attorney and 
client ; that that was in no sense the purpose of the investigation ; that 
this committee for a long time had been on record as inviting and 
encouraging witnesses who appeared before this committee to engage 
the services of counsel; but that what this committee was interested 
in was to ferret out and determine whether or not there were groups 
or cells of the Communist Party formed within the legal profession. 
And we emphasized the point that under the act which formed this 
committee there was no special immunity given members of the legal 
profession ; that we would search out and proposed to search out Com- 
munist activities within the legal profession the same as we have 
done in the medical profession, the same as we have done in government 
generally, the same as we have clone in labor unions generally; and 
in none of these instances has this work been an attack upon the lawyers 
generally, the doctors, or labor generally. We have not interfered in 
any sense with the duties or the responsibilities of the heads in those 
various fields. But if they are part of a Communist group organized 
for conspiratorial purposes, not only is the public entitled to know it, 
but Congress is entitled to know it, and that was the sole purpose of the 
investigation. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2657 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. May I make a comment on that ? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. As to tlie first part, confidential communication, 
our board was fully aware of the fact that this committee has re- 
spected the confidential communication. Nobody raised any question 
about that at all. Beyond the aspect of these hearings which I have 
mentioned previously, namely, the inevitable tendency to discourage 
lawyers from handling unpopular cases and the subpenaing of law- 
yers at this time, our opposition is based on the opposition we have 
always expressed to this committee, which I believe is known to the 
committee. We believe that the resolution or the statute under which 
it acts is unconstitutional on its face, as permitting an investigation 
of propaganda, which is a manifestation of speech, and we believe 
that no committee of Congress has or should have under the first 
amendment the power to compel any citizen to disclose his political 
beliefs or affiliations. We believe, moreover, that the way the com- 
mittee has operated to brand organizations as subversive has tended 
inevitably to bring prejudice and I think is intended as a matter of 
fact to prejudice anybody who holds these views or who is branded 
as subversive economically, to deny them a means of livelihood, et 
cetera, et cetera, in a situation in which they have done nothing un- 
lawful. 

In general, our viewpoint is the viewpoint expressed by Mr. Justice 
Edgerton, for instance, in his, I think, very penetrating analysis of 
the operations of this committee in the statute in the Barsky case. 
He was a minority in that case, it is true. But the Supreme Court 
has not yet passed on this matter. That was our conviction and al- 
ways has been. And we still say this committee has done as much 
damage to the democratic process in this country as any other element 
in the entire country. That is our view. 

Mr. Walter. That is your view. Our viewpoint is that we have 
done a good deal toward discouraging people from becoming the 
dupes of designing hard-boiled politicians whose aim and objective 
it is to make us a satellite, that is, the United States a satellite, of 
Russia. So there we have two divergent viewpoints, for what it is 
worth. 

Mr. Kearney. Do you not believe, Mr. Witness, that Congress has 
a right to formulate a committee to inquire into subversive activities 
within the United States which go to the destruction of our American 
way of life? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. Well, one difficulty with that is : What are sub- 
versive activities ? In view of this committee, anything which is the 
least bit progressive is subversive. 

Mr. Kearney. I do not agree with you on that statement. 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. That is my opinion. 

Mr. Kearney. That is your opinion. The same difference of opinion 
we might hold as far as the views of the learned judge you just quoted 
are concerned. There are always two sides to every question. Maybe 
we do not agree with his opinion. 

Mr. Walter. The majority of the court did not. 

Mr. Kearney. That is right. But we do say we would not be doing 
our duty as Members of Congress unless we did do those things to 
ferret out subversive activities within this country. And that goes 
to any organization. 

95008— 52— pt. 1 15 



2658 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. I tliiiik, sir, it is the function of Congress to legis- 
late, and I think that if people are engaged in criminal activities it is 
the function of the prosecuting agencies. And if they are not quali- 
fied to perform their functions, we ought to change them and get peo- 
ple who are. I do not think it is the function of this committee to 
investigate an area of speech or association which is protected by the 
Constitution. I do not think it is the function of this committee to 
investigate criminal activities. It was never set up in that way. We 
have a division of the branches of the Government which generally 
we have adhered to, and now we are not doing it, to the great damage 
of civil liberties in this country. 

]\Ir. Walter. Oh, but I would like to call your attention to the fact 
that one of the principal functions of the Department is to investigate 
for the purpose of recommending legislation to the Congress. 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN". Well, sir, I do not think that the area which is 
covered by the investigation of this committee from the time of its 
origin, I believe, in 1940, has had any real bearing on legislation. The 
only legislation I know of which has come out of the efforts of this 
committee is the Mundt-Nixon bill, which the President vetoed as an 
unconstitutional measure, and which, 1 think, is the most reactionary 
and repressive measure ever passed in the history of this country, and 
which will be noted in history as something comparable to or worse 
than the alien and sedition laws. 

I think the American people would have been much better off if 
this committee had not made that legislative effort. 

Mr. Kearney. That, again, is your own thought. 

Mr. Walter. Out of these hearings come recommendations to the 
appropriate legislative committee which have resulted in much legis- 
lation, not only legislation reported by this committee but legislation 
reported by the Judiciary Committee, of which I happen to be a 
member. 

Mr. SiLiiERSTEiN. I don't know about that, Representative Walter. 

Mr. Kearney. Do you believe that the Attorney General and the 
President of the United States have a right to call in an outsider to 
investigate, for instance, the Justice Department ? 

Mr. Silberstein. Well, I haven't really thought that through. I 
don't know. 

Mr. Kearney. That is really an investigating committee, is it not? 

Mr. Silberstein. I think it is very extraordinary for an Attor- 
ney General who has no hesitation in branding organizations as sub- 
versive without any hearings to state that he thinks it is a tremendous 
invasion of individual liberties to ask Government employees to state 
their financial figures. That is the thing that has impressed me 
beyond anything else. 

Mr. Moulder. Mr. Silberstein, can you explain to me the statement 
you made criticizing the committee for investigating what you term 
to be some act that is "the least bit subversive" and that act which you 
would term as "subversive"? I cannot get how you distinguish be- 
tween those two terms "the least bit subversive" and something that is 
"subversive." 

Mr. Silberstein. I said first, Representative Moulder, that I don't 
know what you mean by "subversive," and I don't think anybody 
knows. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2659 

If we go by your reports, it means anything you don't like. Now, 
what I said was that I don't think the committee has a right to inves- 
tigate associations or opinions in areas protected by the Constitution. 
I think that if subversive activity means criminal activity, you also 
have no right to investigate because that is something which is a charge 
of the Department of Justice. Now, maybe some member of the com- 
mittee has a right to investigate Government employees in some areas 
of criminal activities by Government employees in wasting funds, in 
fraud, et cetera. 

Mr. Moulder. In other words, you did not intend to distinguish 
between the functions of the committee. In other words, you intend 
to criticize the committee's investigation of any subversive activities, 
whether or not they are "the least bit subversive" or "subversive" ? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. I dou't kuow what that means. 

Mr. Moulder. You used the term. That is why I inquire. 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. I ouly used the term because 1 don't know what it 
means. 

Mr. Kearney. I take it you do not believe in any investigating 
committees. 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. That is not so. I think that investigating com- 
mittees of the CongTess operating within their proper area have done 
wonderful work. I don't know how the Congi^ess could operate with- 
out them. If you are operating in an area in which the Congress can 
legislate, then certainly anything which is germane to legislation they 
should investigate, and I would extend them the fullest cooperation. 
But I don't think that this is the area and we have never thought so, 
and there are many people in this country who have never thought so, 
and I am sure there is no committee in the Congress which has ever 
met with such condemnation as this one has. 

Mr. Kearney. That is right ; from certain groups. 

Mr. Silberstein. From almost any aspect of American life. 

If you would want, I could read you a great many of them, touching 
every branch of the life of this country. 

Mr. Tavenner, Now, referring again to the meeting of February 
2, would you say that the purpose of it, as reflected by the article 
that I am certain you are familiar with, the one I mentioned, was to 
find a means of preventing this committee from inquiring into the 
activities of members of the Communist Party who were members of 
the Lawyers' Guild ? 

Mr. Silberstein. No. Certainly not. How could we conceivably 
prevent this committee from holding a hearing, unless the courts 
would say you have no authority to do it? We have joined in such 
cases and tried to have the courts make such a finding, but so far we 
haven't been successful, unfortunately. 

Mr. Tavenner. But your purpose was, in conjunction with others, 
to influence the work of this committee in the investigation which had 
begun, or you would not have called the meeting, would you ? 

Mr. Silberstein. All I can say is what I said before. Our pur- 
pose was to discuss this new situation, investigation of lawyers^ see 
what we thought about it, and to express our viewpoint. 

Mr. Taatenner, And that was a viewpoint in opposition to it? 

Mr. Silberstein. Oh, yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. And that viewpoint of opposition was your per- 
sonal viewpoint as well as your official ? 



2660 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. We were absolutely unanimous. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you influenced in any way in your opposition 
to the work of this committee by anything other than the general 
principles that you spoke of ? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN, I was not. 

Mr. Tavenner. You are aware of the fact that your name has been 
mentioned during the course of the hearing that had been conducted 
here, as a person who appeared before a group of Communist mem- 
bers who were also members of the guild, in California ? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. I was. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did that motivate you in your opposition, and your 
present opposition, to the work of this committee? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. I thiulv not, because I have been opposed to the 
work of this committee from the date it started to function under 
Congressman Dies. I am not any more or any less opposed to it. 
At any rate, the opinion of the committee was unanimous, and I 
expressed no opinion, being under subpena at the point. 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes; you were under subpena at the time the 
meeting was held. 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. I had two visitors the next morning. 

Mr. Tavenner. I say you were under subpena at the time the 
meeting was held. 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. That is right, and that was announced to the com- 
mittee. 

Mr. Tavenner. And the other members of the committee who acted 
likewise knew of that fact. 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. Yes, it was announced to the committee that a 
subpena had been issued to me and to some 18 or 20, whatever the num- 
ber was then, lawyers in Los Angeles. 

Mr. Kearney. Do you know whether any members of your execu- 
tive committee, or executive board, are members of the Communist 
Party? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. I decline to answer that question for reasons I 
would like to state. 

First, I want to make an objection to the question, on the ground 
that the question involves an inquiry, collaterally, it is true, as to my 
political beliefs, or affiliations. I believe under the first amend- 
ment — — 

Mr. Kearney. I have not asked for your political beliefs. 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. May I state my objection ? 

Mr. Walter. Yes, go ahead. 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. As I believe, under the Constitution the committee 
has no right to inquire directly or indirectly as to my political views 
or affiliations. 

Moreover, I decline to answer the question on the basis of my priv- 
ilege under the fifth amendment not to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Walter. But this is not a question that involves you in any 
way whatsoever. General Kearney was merely endeavoring to have 
you assist this committee in ascertaining whether or not members of 
this group who had been charged with being Communists are actually 
Communists. 

We are not concerned in the least with your political views. 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. And I can only add to what I have said that (a) 
the question is whether I know something, and (5) the Lawyers' Guild 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2661 

has never, as a matter of principle, inquired whether any person was 
a member of any political organization, and as a matter of principle 
in its constitution has always been open to anj^one who is a member 
of the bar. The guild as an organization doesn't know and has never 
asked anybody ; as a matter of principle, does not, and I hope will not. 

Mr. Walter. That is not responsive to the question General Kearney 
asked you, as to whether or not you knew that these people that we 
know something about are Communists. 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. May I ask you a question ? 

Mr. Walter. Yes, sure. 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. How does one know such things ? 

Mr. Walter. Well, there are many ways of knowledge; either 
through admission, or seeing their cai'd, or conversations in which 
they make admissions. There are many ways that knowledge comes 
to a person. 

Mr. Silberstein. I will stand on the statement I have made. 

Mr. Kearney. May I ask what is the total membership of the guild, 
nationally ? 

Mr. Silberstein. I cannot give you an exact figure, now, because I 
have not computed it. 

Mr. Ivearney. Roughly. 

Mr. Silberstein. But my rough estimate is that the figure as of tliis 
date is approximately 2,100. 

Mr. Kearney. 2,100 ? 

Mr. Silberstein. Yes. 

Mr. Kearney. That is all over the country ? 

Mr. Silberstein. That is right. 

Mr. Moulder. What percentage of that is in New York ? Can you 
give us an estimate of that ? 

Mr, Silberstein. I think that something close to, probably under, 
40 percent. 

Mr. Tavenner. What is the percentage in Washington ? Or what 
is the membership in Washington ? 

Mr. Silberstein. I don't 

Mr. Tavenner. Approximately. 

Mr. Silberstein. Of course, I don't know that figure, but I would 
say that today, largely as a result of the operations of this committee 
in calling and terrifying the members of the guild who were in Gov- 
ernment employment 

Mr. Kearney. Mr. Chairman, as a member of this committee, I 
rather object to the witness' characterization of this committee as 
terrifying witnesses. Even the witnesses who have appeared previous 
to this witness have testified that this committee has treated them in 
a very courteous manner. And we are not here to terrify anyone. 

Mr. Silberstein. I think this committee is always very courteous, 
and I do appreciate that. 

Mr. Walter. I am surprised that you take offense, because I always 
consider the source of this sort of thing, and it is just like so much 
water off a duck's back. 

Mr. Silberstein. You mean it is not frightening for a person to be 
called up and asked by a representative of this committee, "Are you 
a member of the guild ? Are you still a member of the guild?" 

Mr. Walter. I should not think so. 



2662 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. At any rate, we have less than 50 members in 
Washington at this time. 

Mr. Moulder. You mean approximately 50 members? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. Well, I don't really know. I am sure it is less 
than 50. It might be less than 30. 

Mr. Walter. What was the maximum number that there ever was? 

Mr. Silberstein. I wouldn't know the answer to that question, be- 
cause I had no familiarity with the situation until I came into the 
national office in 1947. 

Mr. Walter. It was far in excess of the present number ; was it not ? 

Mr. Silberstein. Oh, yes. It exceeded 200. 

Mr. Walter. It exceeded 200. 

Mr. Silberstein. That is right. 

Mr. Kearney. Were most of those members employees of the Gov- 
ernment ? 

Mr. Silberstein. I think they were. 

Mr. Moulder. When, Mr. Silberstein ? You mean several years ago ? 

Mr. Silberstein. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Silberstein, during the course of our testimony, 
beginning with September of last year, in California, we have found 
and learned that there was quite a division of opinion within the Com- 
munist Party as to whether or not separate cells of the Communist 
Party should be established within the various professions, with those 
advocating it winning out. We have shown through our testimony 
how that work began, with cells Nos. 100 and 150, as it was called, in 
Los Angeles, under the leadership of Mr. Ashe, who testified before 
this committee. 

Then, it has developed from the testimony of four or five lawyers 
from the area of Los Angeles that there was formed a Communist 
Party cell within the legal profession. 

I want to read to you the testimony of two of those witnesses. Mr. 
Aaron, one of the witnesses who testified that he, himself, had been a 
member of the Communist Party and a member of the National Law- 
yers' Guild in California, stated, in reply to my question : 

Were you acquainted with Robert Silberstein? 
Mr. Aaron. I met him once. 
Mr. Tavenner. Where? 
Mr. Aaron. In Los Angeles. 

I will not repeat the name of the questioner or the witness, but I 
will continue to read the questions and answers. 

Will you tell us the circumstances under which you met him? 

Mr. Aaron. I met him at, I believe — well, it was at somebody's house. I don't 
recall just now whose home it was, but I think it was McTernan's, and it was 
a meeting of several of the members of the Communist club of which I was a 
member and which he attended and to whom he spoke. He spoke to us. 

What were the circumstances under which he spoke to this Communist 
meeting? 

Answer. It had to do with the function of the lawyers' group as Communists, 
and it was my understanding, and I am quite sure tliat he certainly wouldn't have 
been there if he hadn't been accepted by the members of the group as a member 
of the party. 

Do you recall what was the purpose of his appearance before your group 
meeting? 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2663 

Just what was said at that meeting, I don't know, but I Icnow that he had 
somethins to tell us about what the lawyers' group was supposed to do, and it 
had to do, I think, with the Lawyers' Guild. 

Will you tell us more about the nature of this meeting, who made up the meet- 
ing, the character of the meeting? 

There were probably six or eight people there. They were, I believe, the leaders 
of the group. That is the reason why I couldn't understand why I was asked to 
attend, but I did. This was supposed to be a very secret meeting. We weren't 
supposed to discuss it with anybody and weren't even supposed to tell the rest of 
the members about it. 

The members of what? 

Of the Eugels Clubs, to which I belonged. 

Do you know how you were selected to attend? 

I do not. 

But you went to San Francisco to attend this secret meeting? 

No. This wasn't in San Francisco. It was in Los Angeles. 

Los Angeles? 

Oh, yes. 

How did you receive word to come to that meeting, do you know? 

One of the members told me. 

One of the members of your own cell or group? 

That is right. 

Were the other persons present known to you to be members of the Communist 
Party? 

They were all members of our group. 

All members of your own particular group? 

Yes. 

And Mr. Silberstein appeared before it and discussed the Lawyers' Guild, 
did he? 

I can't recall now just what he discussed. All I know is that whatever it 
was, he told us what the score was about something. Just wliat it was, I don't 
know. 

Do you recall what position Mr. Silberstein held at that time? 

I believe that he was executive secretary of the National Lawyers' Guild. 

Do you know where he was from? 

Washington. 

Then Mr. Walter, a member of the committee, stated : 

As a matter of fact, he still occupies that position, does he not? 

Mr. Aaron. I believe so. I don't know, Mr. Walter. 

Since we brought up the subject of the Lawyers' Guild, what discussion 
occurred in your Communist group meetings regarding the activity that you 
and others, as members, should exert, if any, in the Lawyers' Guild? 

Mr. Aaron. I was given to understand that the Lawyers' Guild was to be made 
as much as possible the legal arm to speak for and represent the Communist Party. 

Then Mr. Yerkes, also a lawyer in Los Angeles and a professor in 
one of the law schools in Los Angeles, testified that he had been a 
member of this same Communist Party cell organized within the legal 
profession. In the course of testimony, this exchange of questions 
and answers took place : 

Mr. Jackson — 

Mr. Jackson is a member of the committee — 

There has been evidence in the record of meetings within meetings, and inner 
sanctums within organizations, of which the average member had no knowledge. 

I believe you will recall yesterday such an example was cited. 

Mr. Yerkes. Yes, sir. Was that the meeting that Mr. Aaron testified to? 

Mr. Jackson. I believe it was Mr. Aaron. 

Mr. Yerkes. Yes ; I attended that meeting also ; and I would like to clarify 
that. 

This was a meeting which took place, in point of time, at the time of the 
regional conference of the National Lawyers' Guild, which was held in Santa 
Monica. I don't remember the date, but the date is a matter of record. 

The regional conference was organized by the guild, and mostly non-Oom- 
munists were involved in working it up. My association with the conference was 
not intimate. I attended, but 1 didn't participate in its organization. 



2664 COMMUNISAI IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

But on or about the same clay, or the day before— I am sure it wasn't the day 
after — I received word, and I cannot recall now who told me this, that there 
was to be a meeting at the home of John McTernan, at which there would be 
someone there who would talk to us about Communist lawyers. I attended 
that meeting. It is the one Aaron mentioned. 

I think his recollection is faulty in the number that were there, because my 
recollection is that there must have been, oh, 10 or 12, perhaps 14. But he is 
correct when he appraises it as a group that was not to include all Communist 
lawyers, because I was also told this. 

And at that meeting we were addressed by this chap Mr. Aaron mentioned. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you recall the name? 

Mr. Yerkes. It was Silberstein. 

I cannot recall what he said. It is a very strange thing. I just cannot recall 
anything that he said, but it was a forceful, vigorous, competent, capable sort 
of a talk. 

Mr. Tavenner. That is Mr. Robert Silberstein? 

Mr. Yerkes. That is right, sir. Although I did not know it at the time and 
had never met him. He was later identified as an officer of the National 
Lawyers' Guild. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know where he was from? 

Mr. Yerkes. He stated he was from Washington, D. C. I believe that is the 
occasion, because I know of a guild officer here and the fact that there was such 
an executive secretary. 

Mr. Tavenner. In his appearance before this group, did he in any way identify 
his purpose in appearing or whether or not he himself was a member of the 
Communist Party? 

Mr. Yerkes. I don't think he said "I am a Communist." People don't say that, 
as a rule, in such groups. They rather talk about the Communist Party and act 
as though they are a part of it. 

And there was no doubt in my mind that he was a member of the Communist 
Party, from what he had said and the way the meeting was conducted. 

Bvit I had no way of knowing whether he was in a sense an interloper or 
whether he was a high authority, or something of that character. I know that 
I felt some distress of the fact that I was invited to a meeting with strangers. 

I don't remember the year this was — it is a matter of record of the guild con- 
ference — but I reconciled myself to this as a part of a pattern. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was this in every respect a closed meeting of the Communist 
Party? 

Mr. Yerkes. Yes, sir ; it was definitely closed. Not all members of the Com- 
munist Party who were lawyers were to be told about it. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you advised or directed as to whether or not you should 
keep the meeting secret or whether you would be permitted to tell even other 
Communist Party members of the meeting? 

Mr. Yerkes. Let's put it this way : I was told — and I cannot recall by whom — 
that it was not to be mentioned by other Communist lawyers. That was about 
all that was said. 

Did you attend a meetino; or a conference of the National Lawyers' 
Guild at Santa Monica, Calif.? 

Mr. Silberstein. In 1947, 1 believe. 

Mr. Tavenner. In 1947. Well, you have heard this testimony which 
the committee has received. Will you state to the committee, please, 
whether the statements that have been made by the two witnesses 
whose testimonv I read are true, and, if not, what part is untrue, in 
your judgment? 

Mr. Silberstein. I decline to answer the question for the reasons 
previously stated. 

Mr. Tavenner. And what are those reasons ? 

Mr. Siij^erstein. The reasons stated are, first, an objection to the 
question as a question which seeks to compel a disclosure of political 
belief or affiliation, which I believe is beyond the power of the com- 
mittee under the first amendment. 

Secondly, I refuse to answer on the basis of my privilege under the 
fifth amendment to refuse to be a witness against myself. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2665 

Mr. Tavenner. And do you know Mr. McTernan ? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. I do. A very able lawyer. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you attend a meeting in his home in 1947 ? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. You will have to be more specific than that. 
Are you referring to this meeting? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes; I am referring to this meeting. 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. I make the same answer. 

Mr. Walter. How many meetings in Mr. McTernan's home did 
you attend ? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. I make the same answer to that question. 

Mr. Walter. What is that answer, please ? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. My answer is that I decline to answer the ques- 
tion, and I make the objection which I previously stated. If you 
wish me to repeat the whole thing again, I would be very glad to do 
it, but I think what I mean is clear. 

Mr. Walter. It is clear. You decline to answer on the grounds 
that if you do it might tend to incriminate you. 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. That is right, and on the further grounds that 
I object to the question as one which seeks to compel a disclosure of 
political belief or affiliation. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you attend a meeting in Mr. McTernan's home 
other than the meeting to which the witness has referred? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. I make the same answer. 

Now, can I assume. Representative Walter, that there is no reason 
for me to repeat the reason in detail ? 

Mr. Walter. Yes. Let it be understood that henceforth when 
the witness declines to answer it is for the reasons stated in his 
refusal to answer to the second last question. That was when you 
answered in full. 

]Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. Yes, referring to an objection and to the privilege 
under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you ever meet Mr. David Aaron, A-a-r-o-n? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. I decliiie to answer that question for the same 
reason. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you acquainted with Mr. A. Marburg 
Yerges ? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. I decline to answer the question for the same 
reason. 

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

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. I decline to answer the question for the same 
reason. 

Mr. Kearney. If you were not a member of the Communist Party, 
would you so state ? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. I dccliue to answer the question for the same 
reason. 

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

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. I decline to answer the question for the same 
reason. 

Mr. Tavenner. I believe you stated that while in the Armed Serv- 
ices you were an officer in the Signal Corps and in charge of certain 
messages, the delivery of certain messages. 

What did you mean by that ? 



2666 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN, I was a message-center officer, a duty officer spe- 
cifically, which means that I was in charge of a communications 
center during a part of a 24-hour period, where I have the usual 
personnel in a message center. It is general supervision, not operation. 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes. At the time you were in the military service, 
were you a member of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. I decline to answer the question for the same 
reason. 

Mr. Tavenner. Now, Mr. Silberstein, the committee is in posses- 
sion of information which, if true, indicates that, whether knowingly 
or not, you may in the course of your activities have given aid and 
assistance to the Communist Party through front organizations or 
otherwise. And we would like to ask you about that, about some of 
those matters, and ascertain where the truth lies, and if in any instance 
you did give aid to the Communist Party we would like your explana- 
tion as to the circumstances under which you did and how it happened 
that you did. It is true, is it not, that the National Lawyers' Guild 
is affiliated with the National Association of Democratic Lawyers? 

Mr. Silberstein. It is not true, 

Mr. Tavenner. It is not true? Has the National Lawyers' Guild 
sent delegates to its convention ? 

Mr. Silberstein. It has in past years when it was affiliated. 

Mr. Tavenner. Oh, I see. It is not affiliated at this time. But it 
was affiliated. 

Mr. Silberstein. That is right. 

Mr. Tavenner. What was the period over which it was affiliated 
with the National Association of Democratic Lawyers ? 

Mr. Silberstein. I think from the time of organization. The year 
of that I am not certain of, but I would guess it is 1946 until 1950, I 
think. No; until sometime in 1951. 

Mr. Tavenner. During the period that the National Lawyers' 
Guild was affiliated with that organization, were you a delegate to 
one of its conferences, particularly the one held in Rome in October 
and November 1949? 

Mr. Silberstein. I attended a. conference of that organization in 
Rome at the time you state. 

Mr. Ta\tenner. As a delegate of your organization? 

Mr. Silberstein. Well, let's say a representative, now. 

Mr. Tavenner. What is the distinction between a representative 
and a delegate? 

Mr. Silberstein. I think in that organization there was a very loose 
definition of a delegate. They had no official form for credentials. 
And actually we had no tactical means for accrediting people. The 
fact is that I went. 

Mr. Tavenner. At the direction of the National Lawyers' Guild? 

Mr. Silberstein. Yes. At any rate with the understanding of the 
president that I was going as a representative of the organization. 

Mr. Tavenner. Who defrayed your expenses ? 

Mr. Silberstein. The expenses were clef rayed in part by myself and 
in part by contributions of some lawyers. Not by the Lawyers' Guild. 
We did not have the funds and did not defray the expenses. 

Mr. Tavenner. But aside from the question of how they handled 
the credentials in Rome, when you went there, you were the official 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2667 

representative or delegate from your organization, the National 
Lawyers' Guild. 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. I guess that is correct. 

Mr, Tavenner. I believe at that conference you presented a paper 
on civil liberties in the United States, did you not? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. I presented a paper on some aspects of that ques- 
tion. 

Mr. Tavenner. As a result of that, did the conference adopt a reso- 
lution condemning the trial of the Communist leaders in the United 
States? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. I don't think there was any connection between the 
two actions. I think, as a matter of fact, that the committee, which 
adopted the resolution on the recommendation of a British delegate, 
had already adopted its recommendation. 

Whether the conference had acted on the question or not at that 
point, I don't know. But I am quite sure there was no connection be- 
tween the two at all. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you appear before the committee which spon- 
sored the resolution condemning the trial of the Communist leaders in 
the United States ? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. I think I served as a member of that committee, 
but I did not participate in the discussion of this matter, as nearly as 
I can recall. 

Mr. Tavenner. Well, did you oppose the action of the Congress in 
criticizing the United States for prosecuting the 11 Communist 
leaders ? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. I dou't really recall the text of that, but I think I 
was in general agreement with what was done, and I think that what 
they did — I don't know about the words, but the substance was what 
we did and the American Civil Liberties Union did and quite a number 
of others did. That is, we took the position that a prosecution for ad- 
vocating ideas in the absence of a clear and present danger was a vio- 
lation of the first amendment and that it was a political persecution. 
We took that position, I think, in an amicus brief which we filed, per- 
haps several, that this committee knows about, and that we wrote about 
and we discussed quite fully in our reply, and I have the reply here so 
that I could read what we did. I think they did about the same thing. 

Mr. Tavenner. You advocated that action? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. I did not. 

Mr. Ta\'enner. You did not? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. I did not. That proposal was made by the British 
delegate, and not by me, and it was not urged by me upon the 
committee. At any rate, that is my best recollection. 

Mr. Tavenner. We understand during the course of the holding of 
that conference that you voted for the expulsion of the Yugoslav 
delegates. 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. That is correct. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was that proposal of expulsion initiated by the 
Soviet Union? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. It is awfully hard to remember this kind of de- 
tail, but my best recollection is that the proposal was made initially 
by a Belgian delegate. 

Mr. Tavenner. But I meant initiated. I am not speaking of who 
actually presented it. 



2668 COMT^IUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN, All I know about it is who got vip and read some- 
thing and made the proposal, and my recollection is that it was done 
by the Belgian delegate. 

Mr. Moulder. Do you recall, Mr. Silberstein, whether there were 
representatives from the Soviet Union there? 

Mr. Silberstein. Oh, yes. 

Mr. Moulder. How did they vote and how did they support the 
measure ? 

Mr. Silberstein. I don't know about that, but I would assume that 
they voted for it. 

Mr. Tavenner. The recorded vote was 16 to 1 for the expulsion. 
Do you know who the one was ? 

Mr. Silberstein. No; I don't remember. 

Mr. Tavenner. Well, you stood with the 16 ? 

Mr. Silberstein. That is right. I said I voted for this resolu- 
tion. 

I doubt very much, Mr. Tavenner, whether an internal matter of 
that character as to whether a particular group within an organization 
is entitled to continue as a member of that organization, is something 
which is a proper matter for the concern of this committee. 

Do you think it has to do with un-American activities in the United 
States ? Do you think there is something un-American about oppos- 
ing the presence of a Yugoslav delegation in an international bar 
organization? Do you, really? 

Mr. Ta\^nner. I' think it will when I ask you this question: Have 
you ever taken any action in opposition to the Soviet Union's foreign 
policy ? 

Mr. Silberstein. Have I personally? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes. Have you ever criticized in any way the 
action of the Soviet Union in the execution of its foreign policy ? 

Mr. Silberstein. Well, in general, I have followed the policy of 
devoting my attention to things about which I knew something, and 
toward which I might be able to do something, meaning the policies of 
the United States. Now, in that situation you are talking about, I 
was not taking any position on Yugoslav policy. I did not know any- 
tJiing about what they were doing, and I still do not know. 

Mr. Tavenner. Well, you were in opposition to Tito at that time ? 

Mr. Silberstein. I wasn't expressing any opposition to Tito. 

Mr. Tavenner. Well, that was the effect of it, in expelling his dele- 
gates from your convention, wasn't it ? 

Mr. Silberstein. Well, you are entitled to your opinion. 

Mr. Tavenner. I am asking you. 

Mr. Silberstein. I am saying that in voting I didn't mean to take 
any position on the policies of that government, about which I know 
nothing. 

Mr. Walter. AVliy did you vote to exclude the delegates from Yugo- 
slavia? 

Mr. Silberstein. You are asking now for the operation of my mind. 

Mr. Walter. Oh, no. 

]Mr. Silberstein. Which I am inclined to think is improper. 

Mr. Walter. I will withdraw the question. I think I know the 
answer. I will not press you for it. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2669 

Mr. Stlrerstein. I think I would make a general answer, whicli is 
that certain charges were made against the delegation, which it seemed 
to me the delegation ought to have answered. 

As the delegation did not answer the charges which were made 
against it, not based on wrongdoing on its part but based on its quali- 
fications to continue as a member, and as they didn't answer the ques- 
tion, and I simpl}^ felt the question ought to be answered 

Mr. Waltek. What was the question? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. I took a position. 

Mr. Walter. What was the question? 

Mr. Silberstein. In that situation, the charge was made, based on 
confessions which had been given in a public trial, that the Yugoslav 
Government had financed and armed a group within another country 
for the purpose of assassinating the leaders of that country and over- 
throwing that Government. Now, whether there was anything to that 
charge or not, I didn't really know, but it seemed to me that as a con- 
cession in open court and in the presence of the whole world, they 
ought to make an answer. 

Mr. Walter. What bearing did their failure to answer have on their 
being seated as delegates to a convention? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. The only question there was whether it was incum- 
bent upon an organization which supported the aims of this interna- 
tional organization to make some protest in line with the function of 
the organization, which was primarily to support the aims of the 
United Nations. 

Really Avhat happened there was that I was annoyed, I think, and 
angered by the fact that the delegation just didn't make any answer 
to a complaint that was made against it. In any event, whatever 
action that was taken there was wholly tentative and subject to ap- 
proval of the conference after submission of the matter to delegates 
and after a full report of the arguments on both sides had been care- 
fully prepared, et cetera. 

Mr. Moulder. To be consistent in that respect, were there any 
charges presented along that line against the delegates representing 
the Soviet Union ? 

Mr. Silberstein. There were not. 

Mr. Kearney. Were there any representatives at this conference 
of the American Bar Association? 

Mr. SiLBEllSTEIN. No. 

Now, as you know, the National Lawyers' Guild voted in opposition 
to the expulsion. 

Mr. Tavenner. After you returned to the United States, and your 
action at this conference became public knowledge, the National Law- 
yers' Guild took action, didn't it, at its 1950 May convention? 

Mr. Silberstein. That is right. 

Mr. Tavenner. In which they took the position that your action 
had been wrong? 

Mr. SiLBERSi'Eix. That is right. 

INIr. Tavenner. And their delegates to the next convention were 
directed to vote just the opposite from the way in which vou had voted ? 

Mr. Silberstein. That is right. 



2670 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. Tavenner. How long after that was it that the National Law- 
yers' Guild witlidrew from its affiliation with this organization known 
as the International Association of Democratic Lawyers? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. My best recollection is that it withdrew in Sep- 
tember of 1951. Wait a minute, I am not sure whether it was 1950 
or 1951, but at any rate it withdrew prior to the participation in any 
subsequent conference. 

Mr. Tavenner. That was what I was coming to. It withdrew 
before the next convention was held of the congress of the Interna- 
tional Association of Democratic Lawyers? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. I belicve that is correct. As far as I know, the 
next convention was delayed a long time. 

Mr. Ta\^nner. Can you tell the committee when this organization 
was formed, the International Association of Democratic Lawyers? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. I Said I thought it was in 1946, but its formation, 
the story of that, will be found in the Lawyers' Guild Review, which 
I think your investigators read carefully. 

Mr. Tavenner. And in reading that, we have not been able to find 
but one instance in which there has ever been a disagreement indicated 
with Soviet policy, but there has been a consistent opposition and 
disag]-eement with the policy of this country, the foreign policy. 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. Well, as to that, I want to make a comment. 
Based on my slight experience with the thing, what happens there, 
what happens in most organizations, I guess, is that resolutions come 
before a resolutions committee, and there different viewpoints are 
expressed. The fact that it didn't express opposition to action that 
was taken did not mean either tliat it had not violently objected to 
resolutions proposed in the resolutions committee, which were killed 
as a result of its objection and the objection of others. I know that 
happened at the conference I attended, for instance. The resolution 
that came out was one that was acceptable to the delegates. 

Secondly, the fact that a resolution was adopted and the delegates 
expressed no opposition, didn't mean that the guild would approve it. 
I mean, the guild was in no sense bound by any resolution which it 
adopted. 

Mr. Fraenkel. Wliich the association adopted. 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. Yes, which the international association adopted. 

The delegates who went there expressed their viewpoint. If some 
member of the guild thought that something they did was something 
V. e ought to object to, then it might have been done. And, of course, I 
don't really know anything about that in the period prior to my service. 
But I do know that resolutions were strongly objected to by members 
of the American delegation, and killed; resolutions which, for in- 
stance, were o'ffered by organizations Avhich would place the blame 
for the international situation on the United States, would be strongly 
opposed by the American delegation. 

Mr. Tavenner. The opposition to the Soviet Union never came out, 
but there was plenty of opposition to the foreign policy of the United 
States, wasn't there? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. Well, I don't know. I mean, I can't remember the 
resolutions. I would have to look at them. 

Mr. Tavenner. Well, now, you have mentioned the fact that a 
brief amicus curiae was filed with the Supreme Court with regard to 
the trial of the 11 Communist leaders. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2671 

I don't know whether you said the Supreme Court or not ; with the 
circuit court of appeals. 

Mr. Fraenkel. The Supreme Court wouldn't take any briefs amicus. 

Mr. Ta\^nner. I see. 

Was not your organization a participant in the filing of the amicus 
curiae brief with the Supreme Court of the United States in the 
Dalton Trumbo case ? 

Mr. Silberstein. We did either file a brief or petition for leave to 
file a brief. 

Mr. Taa^nner. You spoke of the resolution that was passed by the 
International Association of Democratic Lawyers in Rome in oppo- 
sition to the trial of the 11 Communists, which you stated was in 
substance the same as your own opposition. 

Mr. Silberstein. I said, "I think"; I don't remember it. That is 
my general impression. 

Mr. Kearney. Do you still hold a position with the Army Reserve? 

Mr. Silberstein. I do not. 

Mr. Walter. The committee will stand in recess until 2 o'clock. 

(Whereupon, at 12:20 p. m., a recess was taken until 2 p. m., this 
same day. ) 

afternoon session 

(The hearing was resumed at 2 p. m., with Representatives Francis 
E. Walter and Bernard W. Kearney present.) 

Mr. Walter. The committee will be in order. 

Proceed, Mr. Tavenner. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Silberstein, the Daily Worker for March 5, 
1941, page 2, contains a statement in defense of the Communist Party 
and lists the signers of the statement defending the Communist Party. 

Your name appears there as one of the signers. 

Do you recall the circumstances under which you signed that state- 
ment, or do you recall the statement, first ? 

JNIr. Silberstein. No ; I have no recollection of it. 

Mr. Ta\t:nner. I hand you the press statement, which is the issue 
of March 5, 1941. 

Mr. Silberstein. I have no recollection of that at all, Mr. Tavenner. 
I suppose it is conceivable that I signed it. 

I think that it is not properly characterized in the title, if the title 
is there, or in your question. Because, as I glanced over it, it seemed 
to me to be raising questions about interference with the right of a 
party to get on a ballot, and prosecutions based on utterances, and 
it was an objection to this kind of activity, and asking that this kind 
of activity cease. 

As I say, I might have. I have no recollection at all of it. 

Mr. Tam<:nner. You did find your name as one of those appearing 
in the newspaper as among the list of signers defending the Com- 
munist Party ? 

Mv. Fraenkel. There is no doubt the newspaper contains the name 
of Robert J. Silberstein, but, as Mr. Silberstein has pointed out, the 
heading under which those names are listed is not an accurate descrip- 
tion of the contents of the document, which does not deal with the Com- 
munist Party at all, as such, but deals with the party being allowed 
certain constitutional rights. 



2672 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

]Mr. Tavenner. Well, now, your name appears there as one of the 
signers of that statement, but t understand that you have no recollec- 
tion of permitting the use of your name for that purpose. 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. That is right. 

Mr. Walter. If that is the name. If it is the same name. 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. I didn't see it. Mr. Fraenkel says he saw it. 

Mr. Tavenner. I want you to look at it and state whether your 
exact name appears there. Will you read what appears in the column 
purporting to be your name ? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. I read here "Kobert J. Silberstein, New York 
City." It is printed in this piece. 

Mr. Tam2NNEr. Now I read from the text of the statement, to which 
a number of names were signed, including the name of Robert J. 
Silberstein : 

The Communist Party has been submitting itself to the franchise * * * for 
20 years. For all that time its program and its activities are an open record. 
In the few cases in which one of its members has been tried for advocating force 
and violence the evidence has not been about anything they have done nor about 
the party program, but about the writings of early Communists and in particular 
the implications drawn from these by the prosecution. 

Does that refresh your recollection to the point where you can recall 
having permitted the use of your name in connection with it? 
Mr. Silberstein. It does not. 
Mr. Tavenner. Then there appears also this paragraph : 

Consequently, we who are not Communists, whose concern goes beyond the 
preservation of their constitutional rights to the maintenance of the democratic 
way of life as the road into the futui-e, urge you, the President, to exercise your 
authority and influence to prevent those under you from stimulating un-American 
actions against Communists by undemocratic utterances. 

Now, does that refresh your recollection as to the use of your name 
in connection with this text? 

Mr. Silberstein. It does not. 

Mr. Tavenner. At the time of the publication of this article, March 
6, 1941, were you a member of the Communist Party ? 

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

Mr. Tavenner. Have you ever made a public statement criticizing 
the Communist Party? 

(Mr. Silberstein confers with his counsel.) 

Mr. Silberstein. I don't recall making such a statement. 

Mr. Tavenner. But you have made numerous public statements 
objecting to the United States Government's treatment of the Com- 
munists and the Communist Party, have you not ? 

Mr. Silberstein. To the best of my knowledge, any objections that 
I have made have been on the ground of constitutional rights which 
I think inhere in all Americans equally. To the best of my knowledge, 
I haven't taken a position on factual situations, but on constitutional 
issues. 

Mr.' Tavenner. Well, the Daily Worker for October 18, 1949, page 
9, contains an article stating that you had directed a letter to Attorney 
General J. Howard McGrath urging that Federal enforcement agen- 
cies take no action based on the verdict of the 11 Connnunist leaders 
until the appeal had been ruled on by the United States Supreme 
Court. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2673 

Your letter to Attorney General McGrath is alleged in this article 
to have contained the statement, and I quote, that : 

He- 
referring to yourself — 

said his organization and others had opposed the Smith Act) as incompatible 
with the Bill of Rights. 

Now, did you direct such a letter to the Attorney General ? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. I would Say yes, except that you say "take no 
action." It didn't say "take no action." My recollection is that it 
urged the Attorney General not to proceed with nias» arrests on the 
basis of the verdict, because we believed there was a very substantial 
question involved, constitutional question involved, as the Supreme 
Court later agreed, and until that substantial question had been 
determined we thought it inadvisable to take that kind of activity. 
In fact, we thought it would be in the interests of justice, as I recall, 
if the Attorney General would issue some kind of a calming statement, 
so that people wouldn't get the idea — and I believe the Attorney 
General did that, not because we asked him to, but I believe he did 
that within a few days later, indicating that he had no intention of 
doing that kind of thing. With that qualification, I think that is 
correct. 

Mr. Ta^-enner. Now, did you, in that letter, write the Attorney 
General, as I read, that your organization and others had o]3posed the 
Smith Act as incompatible with the Bill of Rights ? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. Yes ; we did. 

Mr. Tavenner. When did you first take that position with regard 
to the Smith Act ? 

Mr. Silberstein. I believe at the time that it was proposed, but 
I am not certain of that. 

Mr. Tavenner. Well, do you recall when the act became a law ? 

Mr. Silberstein. I think in 1940. 

Mr. Tavenner. That is correct. Do you also recall that the first 
indictment returned by a Federal grand jury based upon this law was 
on July 15, 1941 ? 

Mr. Silberstein. Are you talking about the Dunne case ? 

Mr. Tavenner. I am speaking of the trial of the 18 individuals who 
were convicted and sentenced to terms ranging from 1 year to 16 
months, who were affiliated with the Socialist Workers Party. 

Mr. Fraenkel. That was the Dunne case, D-u-n-n-e. I happened 
to have the privilege to have argued that case in the court of appeals 
in behalf of the defendants. 

Mr. Tavenner. All right. Do you recall that indictment ? 

Mr. Silberstein. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. Those persons who were affiliated with the Socialist 
Workers Party were frequently referred to as Trotzkyites, were they 
not? 

Mr. Silberstein. I think so. 

Mr, Tavenner. Well, you know that, don't you? 

Mr. Silberstein. No; I don't. 

Mr. Tavenner. Well, haven't you often heard them referred to as 
Trotzkyites? 

Mr. Silberstein. Who? 

95008— 52— pt. 1 16 



2674 COMMUNISM IX LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr, Tavenner. Those who were connected with that trial of the 
Sjocialist Workers Party. 

Mr. SiLBERSiT^iN. Yes; I think I have. 

Mr. Tav-enner. Now, that was back in 1941. Our study of public 
documents fails to reveal that you at any time voiced any objection 
to the trial of the Trotzkyites under the Smith Act. 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. Are you talking about me as an individual ? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes. 

Mr. Silberstein. I, as an individual, I don't think voiced opposition 
to the prosecution of the Smith Act either ; I mean these latter indict- 
ments you are 'talking about. I was acting in an official capacity. I 
was then secrteary and in an official capacity I did that. 

Mr. Tavenner. But you stated that you were opposed to it, and 
I asked you when you first expressed opposition to the Smith Act, 
and you told us that it was at the time that the bill was proposed. 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. I thought you were talking about the Lawyers' 
Guild. 

Mr. Tavenner. No ; I am speaking about you. 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. Well, I have never expressed opposition in an 
individual capacity. 

Mr. Tavenner. In your letter to the Attorney General, McGrath, 
in which you registered objection, did you act in your individual 
capacity? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. No. I was writing as executive secretary. 

Mr. Tavenner. Well, did you agree with it? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. Yes ; I did agree with it. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you agree with the trial of the Trotzkyites un- 
der the Smith Act ? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. No ; I wouldn't agree with it. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you make any jjrotest? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. Frankly, at the time, the trial just made no im- 
pression on me. Now, why that is, I don't know. I suppose it was 
at a time when I wasn't active in that way. 

Mr. Tavenner. Could it have been the fact that it was the Trotzky- 
ites that were being tried instead of the Stalin Communists that were 
being tried that had some bearing on that ? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. I dou't think so. Because I have aways felt that 
the rights of every person have to be treated equally, and that there 
could be no justification for making a distinction between the rights 
of one and the rights of another on the basis of their political belief 
or anything else of the kind. 

Now, I think that in that Dunne case — this may have had some- 
thing to do with it, but I actually don't recall what was going on at 
that time or what I was thinking or what I was doing, beyond prac- 
ticing law and making a living, trying hard to make a living. But 
my recollection of that case, which I have looked at subsequently, 
frankly, is that in that case there were allegations which were accepted 
and noted in the position of the appellate court, that the accused 
actually organized military formations and equipped them. And the 
charge against them, the essential charge against them, was inciting 
people not to serve in the Armed Forces, t think that was the crux 
of that case. And that may have been the reason — I don't say that 
it was, because I really don't remember it at that time — that may be 
the reason that the guild didn't rush into that. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2675 

Mr. Tavenner. There were two counts in the indictment, one based 
on the use, of force and violence and the other based upon sedition 
and taking action w^hich would tend to prevent the loyal service of 
men in the Armed Forces. 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. There is really very little that I can add to what 
I have said. I just wasn't somebody who wrote letters and took 
action on my own. If I did it, I did it "through an organization. 

Mr. Tavenner. Well, did the National Lawyers' Guild oppose the 
trial, under the Smith Act, in 1941 ? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN, I Understand that they did not. But I also under- 
stand that the question was never discussed, and no decision was made 
with regard to it. Why a position wasn't taken, I don't know, unless 
it was because of these other elements in the case, wdiich, it was felt, 
were sufficient and proper basis for a prosecution. Now, I really don't 
know. 

Mr. Tavenner. But if the National Lawyers' Guild takes the posi- 
tion that an act was unconstitutional, it was just as unconstitutional 
when the Stalin Communists were involved as when the Trotskyites 
were involved. 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. That is absolutely true, and I think they should 
have gone into that case. 

Mr. Tavenner. I posed the question before as to why it is that 
you and the National Lawyers' Guild, though frequently critics of 
the foreign policy of the United States, have never seen fit to criticize 
the foreign ]Dolicy of the Soviet Union. 

Now, in that regard, you are familiar with the recent situation, 
are you not, where the Government of Hungary imprisoned an Amer- 
ican citizen by the name of Robert Vogeler, and at the present time 
the situation of the incarceration of an American newspaper corre- 
spondent by the Czechoslovakian Government? Now, have you or 
have the National Lawyers' Guild at any time publicly criticized the 
satellite governments of the Soviet Union for that action involving 
the civil rights of American citizens ? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. You have quite a number of elements in that 
question. The first question was. Why have I not taken a position? 
You said. Why have the Guild and I not taken a position in oppo- 
sition to the policy of the Soviet Union ? 

Well, you know the Guild has. You know the Guild opposed the 
invasion of Finland, and I assume you know that the Guild condemned 
the North Korean invasion of South Korea. 

Now, as far as I am concerned, I have not taken a position on these 
questions on my own. I have acted on things through the Guild, and 
my own feeling has been that in this area, the most important thing 
to every American is to try to avoid another war, to try to be helpful 
in finding a basis for the solution of the questions which divide the 
Soviet Union and the nations associated with it, on the one hand, and 
the nations associated with us on the other hand. That has been the 
thing that I have been devoting my attention to. And what I have 
said, or what the Guild has said — because I haven't said anything, 
as far as I know — what the Guild has said primarily has been directed 
to that point. It has been directed to emphasizing the importance of 
doing everything humanly possible for finding a basis for resolving 
those differences. 



2676 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

I don't think it serves a useful purpose, at a time when we have this 
tremendous international tension, to go around and attack things on 
one side or another. 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes ; but you have very definitely attacked on one 
side, without considering the problems on both sides. And it is not 
a problem that can be divided. 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. We have not attacked on one side m a situation 
in which the Soviet Union is involved on one side and we on the 
other, to the best of my knowledge. If you can refer to something, 
I would be glad to discuss it, but I don't know of any such case. 

Mr. Tavenner. Now, you referred to the instance where the guild 
criticized the foreign policy of the Soviet Union with reference to the 
attack upon Finland. 

Now, when did the National Lawyers' Guild take such action ? 

Mr. Silberstein. When it occurred. 

Mr. Tavenner. When ? Did it ever make that information public 
or release it ? 

]\Ir. Fraenkel. Certainly. 

Mr. Ta\t:nner. I am addressing my question to the witness. 

Mr. Silberstein. I assume so. I wasn't the secretary in 1939 or 
1940, or whenever that occurred. 

Mr. Tavenner. Isn't it true, or do you know, that there was a 
resolution passed on December 4 or 6 — I don't have the date in Decem- 
ber, but it was in December of 1939. 

But as far as we can ascertain, there was no public mention of any 
such resolution until June the 6th of 1940, which was immediately 
after Mr. A. A. Berle and others resigned from the National Lawyers' 
Guild on the ground that it would not take a position opposed to the 
Communist Party line. 

I say ; Do you not know as a matter of fact, that there was no publi- 
cation or public mention of that resolution, which may have been 
passed in December 1939, until after this issue arose with Mr. Berle 
and others in June 1940 ? 

Mr. Silberstein. I do not know that, and I would add that if you 
think it is unusual for the guild to issue a release which is not 
published, you are greatly mistaken. 

It is very difficult for any progressive organization to get any 
publicity in the press unless it is attacked. 

Mr. Tavenner. It seems that you have given plenty of publicity 
to your opposition to the 11 Communists' trial which proceeded in 
1948. I have given you examples of it from the press. But it would 
seem that a matter as important as the attack upon Finland, if you 
were anxious for the public to know your position, you would have 
released your view on. 

Mr. Silberstein. I have the impression you have been reading from 
the Daily Worker. Maybe when this position was taken, the Daily 
Worker wouldn't publish it. That could be. 

Mr. Tavenner. Well, the Daily Worker seems to have given you 
pretty full publicity on these other matters. 

Mr. Fraenkel. When we agreed with them. Not otherwise. 

Mr. Tavenner. When you agreed with them. All right. 

Now, has the resolution that you referred to been officially released 
by your organization? 

Mr. Silberstein. Which resolution do you mean? 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2677 

Mr. Ta^tenner. The resolution wliich you referred to as condemn- 
ing the Soviet Union's attack on Finland. 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. Well, I said I assume so. I don't know any- 
thing about it. I mean, I wasn't the secretary in 1941, or whenever 
that was. I don't know that I was even a member of the board. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know whether it is contained in the quar- 
terly publication which your organization issues? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. I clou't kuow the answer to that. It is published 
in the reply to this committee which is printed in volume 10, No. 4, 
of the Lawyers' Guild Review. 

Mr. TAAT2NNER. lu 1950? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEIN. YcS. 

Mr. Ta^tsnner. They didn't make it public as far as you know, 
then, until 1950, when you were attacking this committee? 

Mr. SiEBERSTEiN. As I Say, I don't know the answer to that. 

Mr. Tavenner. Well, as secretary you seem to have made a pretty 
thorough study of this case, even back in 1940, of the Dunne case, 
and it would seem tliat you would be familiar with your quarterly, 
as to whether a resolution of that importance, which played a part 
in* your attack upon this committee, which was made while you were 
secretary, in 1950, would be a matter within your knowledge. 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. You mean whether it was made public? 

Mr. Ta'\t.nner. Yes. And whether it is in your printed quarterly, 
until 1950. 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. Oh, I don't think it is. 

Mr. TA^^i:NNER. Well, that is what I am trying to show. 

Mr. SiLBERSTETN. I clou't think it is. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long have you been a member of the guild? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. I was a member since it was organized. 

Mr. Taa^nner. And what date was that, approximately ? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. Approximately December 1, 1936; or that month 
in 1936. 

But I think I should add to the answer I have made that to the 
best of my laiowledge it was not published at the time in the Review; 
that it is my impression that at the time the Review was not serving 
the function of reporting on guild activities as a house organ. In 
other words, it was a scholarship publication. There were periods 
in which they carried a section on guild activities, as they do now. 
I don't know that they did at that time. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Silberstein, the Washington Post for May 18, 
1948, on page 18, contains a full-page advertisement in the form of 
a statement opposing the passage of legislation then referred to as 
the Mundt bill. This advertisement indicates that you were a signer 
of that statement. 

Mr. SiLBERSTETN. I was. I remember that. 

Mr. Tavenner. In signing that statement, before signing it, were 
you consulted by any member of the Communist Party with regard 
to the plan for opposing the passage of the Mundt bill ? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. I have no recollection of that occurring. I mean, 
the guild was very much concerned about that from the very incep- 
tion, as I recall, and was active in doin^ everything it could to bring 
that to public attention, bringing that bill to public attention. And it 
testified at all of the hearings that there were on that bill in all of its 
stages. 



2678 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you recall after the appearance of your name on 
the Washington Post advertisement of May 18, 1948, that you con- 
ferred with official representatives of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. I don't recall, but it may have occurred. 

In my official capacity, I have at times had telephone calls, had 
visits from official representatives of the Communist Party, who have 
discussed various things, who have urged that the guild do certain 
things, who have asked that the guild do certain things, who have 
asked for information; and when I was secretary I always followed 
the policy of seeing anybody who wanted to discuss any aspect of 
guild business. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you acquainted with Arnold Johnson, the legis- 
lative director of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. lu an official capacity, he was one of the people 
who did come in to discuss various things with me. Whether he dis- 
cussed this bill with me or not, I don't know, but I certainly wouldn't 
be surprised. I think he was the legislative representative of the 
Communist Party in Washington. 

Mr. Tavenner. If he met with you in your home about the matter, 
you would remember that, wouldn't you ? 

Mr, SiLBERSTEiN. I might or I might not. I don't know. 

Mr. Tavenner, You certainly couldn't be uncertain about that. 
You would know whether Arnold Johnson came to your home and 
conferred with you about the strategy that was to be used to defeat 
the Mundt-Nixon bill ? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. Now, it may be — it may be, now that you speak 
of this — that there was a meeting of various groups who were inter- 
ested in the opposition to this bill, and it may be that a meeting oc- 
curred in my house at which we discussed this bill. 

Mr. Tavenner. When you say "maybe," you are satisfied that it did 
occur, are you not ? 

Mr, SiLBERSTEiN. No ; I can recall such a meeting, but I cannot recall 
whether he was there or not. 

Mr. Kearney. Were there other representatives of other organiza- 
tions present? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. Yes. I have a vague recollection of a meeting 
at my home at which there were representatives of a number of organi- 
zations present, people who were active in opposition to this Mundt- 
Nixon bill. 

Mr. Kearney. Can you recall any of their names ? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. Well, not with certainty. I have the impression 
that there were 8 or 10 people there. The names of what organizations 
I wouldn't recall with certainty. I might say someone was there 
who wasn't there. But that meeting was devoted entirely — the meet- 
ing to which I am referring — entirely to the position of this bill and 
what could be done to inform people about the bill and interest them 
in expressing their viewpoint on the bill. 

Mr. Kearney. There were not any representatives of any organiza- 
tions present who were in favor of the bill, were there ? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. No, this was a group that was actively working in 
opposition. 

(Representative Bernard W. Kearney left the hearing room at this 
jT'oint.) 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2679 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. You Understand that I was participating in that 
meeting in an official capacity, 

Mr, Tavenner, Well, did you at any time confer with officials of the 
Communist Party regarding the policy of the National Lawyers' 
Guild in matters other than the Mundt-Nixon bill? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN, Did I as an individual, or did I in an official 
capacity ? 

Mr, Tavenner. Either, Let's take it both ways. Take it first : You 
as an individual, 

Mr, SiLBERSTEiN, As au individual, I decline to answer the question 
for the reasons previously stated. 

In an official capacity, the answer is "No," 

Mr. Tavenner. So in your official capacity, you did not consult 
with members of the Communist Party regarding the policies of the 
National Lawyers' Guild? That is correct? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. I am assuming that by "consult," you mean dis- 
cussing what the policy of the guild should be. 

Mr. Tavenner. That is right. Or seek suggestions or discuss with 
members of the Communist Party. 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. That is right. My answer is "No." Only if they 
asked to see me and they asked a question, or they requested that the 
guild should take certain action, as they might request any other 
organization to take certain action. I mean, they might ask to inter- 
vene in a case in which they were interested, for instance. They might 
ask what our position was with reference to a piece of legislation, in 
which case I would tell them. But I never discussed in any official 
capacity what the policy of the guild should be. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you in your personal and individual capacity 
discuss wath members of the Communist Party matters of policy of 
your organization, the National Lawyers' Guild? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. I decliiie to answer that question. 

Mr. Tavenner. Well, your declination to answer that question 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. For the reasons previously stated. 

Mr. Tavenner. Certainly could be construed as meaning that the 
Communist Party has been exercising some influence over the policy 
of your organization, the National Lawyers' Guild. 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. I doii't think that it is correct to draw any infer- 
ence from my exercise of a constitutional right, not to be a witness 
against myself. In any event, if an inference were drawn, the infer- 
ence would have to be, I assume, that influence were exercised over me. 

Mr. Ta\^nner. Or over your judgment? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. As I Say, I believe that it is not correct or per- 
missible to draw an inference from my exercise of a constitutional 
right. 

Mr. Walter. Mr. Silberstein, how do you reconcile the position 
you are taking today with respect to refusing to answ^er questions 
with the position you took in Rome when you voted to exclude from 
a conference the Yugoslav delegates only because they refused to 
answer questions? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. I doii't See any parallel between the situations. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Silberstein, we have received evidence, which 
probably you are acquainted with, from lawyers who were members 
of the Communist Party cell within the legal profession in California, 



2680 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

to the effect that tliey, as members of the Communist Party cell, were 
directed to join and required to join the National Lawyers' Guild. 
And instances were given of the manner in which the Communist 
Party, through these members, influenced the action of the local unit 
of the National Lawyers' Guild in Los Angeles. 

Now, do you have any knowledge of the exercise of such influence 
in the National Lawyers' Guild of a similar character in Los Angeles 
or in any other local chapter or in your national organization ? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiisr. I believe that the National Lawyers' Guild is as 
democratic an organization «s can be found in the United States. I 
know that all of its policies are decided openly on the basis of a dis- 
cussion in which everyone participates, and that the decisions which 
are made by the national board are subject to review by the national 
convention, and they make the decisions which they think are proper. 

Now, the guild has never concerned itself with what the political 
affiliation or opinion privately of any person may be. The decisions 
have been made on the merits of those questions. And the decisions are 
a matter of public record. I don't think there is anything in that rec- 
ord in which anyone presently a member of the guild does not take 
some pride ; though, of course, everybody in any organization disagrees 
with some decisions that are made. 

Mr. Tavenxer. I know, but you are not answering my question. 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. Then I didn't understand it. I am sorry. 

Mr. Tavenner. I referred you to the testimony of witnesses before 
the committee, who have testified thfi,t upon joining Communist Party 
cells organized within the legal profession they were directed to get 
into your organization. And they have testified as to policies carried 
out and action taken by the National Lawyers' Guild which were 
sponsored by the members of the Communist Party and their Commu- 
nist Party cells. 

Now J it is that relationship, that type of infiltration, that type of 
exercising of influence and control and domination of some chapters 
of your organization, which I am directing your attention to and 
asking you what knowledge you have and whether you do have knowl- 
edge that such a thing is being done and has been clone. 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. I happen to have read the testimony to which you 
are referring, and in my recollection there was nothing in the testi- 
mony indicating that the peoj)le to whom you referred were instructed 
to or carried out a policy, carried out any polic3% to the best of my 
recollection, carried out any policy within the organization, in the very 
testimony to which you are referring. 

As to the other part of your question, as to whether I know whether 
this went on there or in other places, I decline to answer the question 
for the reasons previously stated. 

If I am wrong about what I have said concerning policies carried 
out, I would like very much to be referred to it. 

(Representative Bernard W. Kearney returned to the hearing room 
at this point.) 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Silberstein, information has come to the atten- 
tion of the committee that the headquarters of the National Lawyere' 
Guild in Washington w^ere being used by the National Committee To 
Defeat the Mundt Bill ; that you were operating in your office, that is, 
the office of the National Lawyers' Guild, a campaign to defeat the 
bill; that long-distance messages, toll charges, amounted to consid- 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2681 

erably more than a thousand dollars, which were charged to the Na- 
tional Lawyers' Guild office. Are those matters true? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEix. An official statement with respect to that was sent 
to your committee by the president of the National Lawyers' Guild 
at the time, Prof. Thomas I. Emerson, explaining that in detail. I 
don't remember all the details, but in a general way the situation was 
that I was not operating my office in that fashion. I was away on a 
vacation at the time this occurred. I was not there. They were per- 
mitted to use the office during the period of my absence and permitted 
to make cliarges, on the understanding that the expenses incurred 
would be made available. The guild was actively active in the oppo- 
sition to this bill, as was the committee, and at least its president was 
a member of the committee, and their activity was in line with the 
activity in which the guild was concerned. They did it. I didn't 
do it. 

Mr. Tavenner. Has the National Lawyers' Guild been fully reim- 
bursed for the expenditures made ? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. They have, as the letter states ; every penny. 

Mr. Ta\-enner. You stated that you were not there, but the com- 
mittee subpenaed certain records, as you probably recall, among them 
some telegrams. And there was one telegram which was introduced 
in evidence before this committee as exhibit No. 9, dated July 18, 1950, 
addressed to Jerry J. O'Connell, in Montana, which states as follows : 

Greetings. Essential you talce first plane or train here. 

SiLBERSTEIN. 

You sent that telegram, didn't you? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEIN. I shoulcl Say that at the very tail end of this thing, 

1 would say the last 2 or 3 days, I returned from my vacation, and at 
that point the bill, which had been dormant for a period of time — 
this is recollection — the bill which had been dormant suddenly came 
to life, and Jerry O'Connell, who was the chairman of the committee, 
was out in Montana. And so, I, there acting in an individual capacity, 
suggested to him that he should come back. Now, if the inference is 
that the guild paid his expenses or any part of it, that is not correct. 

Mr. Tavenner. Then wasn't that followed by another telegram, of 
July 26, 1950, to Jerry J. O'Connell, in Seattle, Wash., which is in the 
following language : 

Sorry, funds not available here. Proceed other plans. Best wishes. 

SiLBERSTEIN. 

Mr. SiLBERSTEIN. Yes ; I sent that telegram. It is all explained in 
the letter which was sent to the committee. 

Mr. Tavenner. I know, but there is a question I want to ask you 
here based on it. Then is it not true that there was another telegram 

2 days later, July 28, addressed to Jerry O'Connell at Seattle, Wash., 
which reads : 

Means now available your travel. Telephone me collect today. 

SiLBERSTEIN. 

Mr. SiLBERSTEIN. That was sent. 

Mr. Tavenner. That was sent. Then you had arranged for the 
funds for his travel here within the interval of those 2 days. 

Mr. SiLBERSTEIN. I had not, but the treasurer had, and informed me 
that the funds were available. 

Mr. Tavenner. The treasurer of the National Lawyers' Guild ? 



2682 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. SiLEERSTEiN. No ; the treasurer of the National Committee To 
Defeat the Mmidt BilL 

Mr. Tavenner. Who was that? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. I believe it was Bruce Waybur. 

Mr. Tavenner. Why was this series of wires, telegrams, conducted 
by you, if actually it was the treasurer of the organization that was 
involved ? 

Mr. Silberstein. Because in his absence there was an informal 
understanding between us that I would act in his stead and would 
keep him informed. 

Mr. Tavenner. In whose absence? 

Mr. Silberstein. In O'Connell's absence. As soon as he returned, 
I stepped out of the picture. 

Mr. Tavenner. He was the chairman. Did you ever register as 
an agent for this organization under the Lobbying Act, you or the 
National Lawyers' Guild ? 

Mr. Silberstein. I did. 

Mr. Tavenner. You did personally? 

Mr. Silberstein. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. When did you do that? 

Mr. Silberstein. During the period that I was active primarily on 
this bill. 

Mr. Tavenner. And did the National Lawyers' Guild also register 
under the Lobbying Act? 

Mr. Silberstein. They did not. It was not doing any lobbying. I 
was doing it. I don't know that I was doing any lobbying actually, 
but at any rate I did file, because there was some doubt in my mind 
about it. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you, as executive secretary, or in any other 
capacity, permit the use of the mailing list, the membership list of 
the National Lawyers' Guild to be used by any other organization ? 

Mr. Silberstein. Never at any time without authorization of the 
national board. 

Mr. Tavenner. Well, were you authorized by the national board 
to do so ? 

Mr. Silberstein. I think there was, as nearly as I can recall at the 
moment, only one situation, in which it was authorized but never 
used. 

Mr. Tavenner. What situation was that? 

Mr. Silberstein. I think it had to do with the request of a com- 
mittee for a minister, an Episcopal minister. Rev. Howard Melish. 

Mr. Kearney. Of Brooklyn? 

Mr. Silberstein. Of Brooklyn. To mail out a statement regarding 
a policy that he had, or the case that was pending, involving his status 
as a minister in a church. But they never mailed it actually. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did the request come through the Civil Rights Con- 
gress ? 

Mr. Silberstein. No ; that request came through a member of a com- 
mittee, as I recall. 

Mr, Tavenner. Did you permit the Civil Rights Congress to use 
your membership list ? 

Mr. Silberstein. My best recollection is that I never permitted any- 
body to use the list during the period that I was secretary. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did the Civil Rights Congress use the mailing list? 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2683 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. Not to my knowledge. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did they request it ? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. Not that I recalL They may have. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you a member of the American Slav Congress ? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. Not to my knowledge. 

Mr. Tavenner. This committee issued a report in connection with 
the American Slav Congress. 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. I dou't rccall any connection with it of any kind 
or nature. 

Mr. .Tavenner. Did you endeavor at anj?^ time to answer or cause 
tliat report to be answered by any group or any individual? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. You are talking about a report of the committee? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes. 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. Of your committee ? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes ; an answer or criticism of the report. 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. Not that I can recall. The only thing I recall 
about that is that I think I did read or scan that report. 

Mr. Tavenner. Well, did you take any action on it ? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. Not that I can recall. 

Do you have an indication that I did ? 

Mr. Tavenner. I was merely asking a question. I have no evidence 
that you did. 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. I liave no recollection of doing anything at all 
in connection with that organization other than scanning a copy of the 
report. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did Kuth Kifkin ever work part time as a secretary 
for you ? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. For the Lawyers' Guild, yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. Why do you say "for the Lawyers' Guild"? She 
worked for you as executive secretary of the Lawyers' Guild ; is that 
correct ? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. That is right. She was there at the time I came 
into the office and remained for a certain period of time. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long did she remain there ? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. To gucss, uow, I would say about 1950. 

Mr. Tavenner. From 1947 until some time in 1950 ? 

Mr. Sllbersi'ein. Yes ; that is my best guess at the moment. 

Mr. Tavenner. And did she leave voluntarily ? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. I am not sure about that. It may be that we just 
weren't able to have two people. 

Mr. Tavenner. Who was the other person ? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. But I am not sure about that. 

Mr. Tavenner. Who was the other person ? Or let me ask you the 
question this way : Was Helen Shonik also a part-time employee? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. To the best of my knowledge, no ; unless she may 
have worked for a day or two on some emergency thing. But cer- 
tainly not regularly at all that I can recall. You are talking about 
during my regime ? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes. 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. While I was secretary ? 

Mr. Tavenner. Well, at any other time, to your knowledge. 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. I doii't recall that she ever worked in the office, 
until she came in for a day or two when there was a large mailing or 
something of that character. 



2684 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. Ta'stcnner. Were you personally acquainted with her ? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. Slightl}', yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. So you know the person that I am speaking of ? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. Yes ; I do. 

INIr. TA^^NNER. Well, can you try to refresh your recollection a 
little more clearly as to just how she was employed in your organ- 
ization and the time of her employment ? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. Well, I tan say certainly not recently, not within 
the last 2 years. 

And if she was there, it would have been in the very early, period, 
1947-48. And I am practically certain she was never on the payroll 
as a regular employee. 

Mr. Tavenner. In other words, her services were just used as needed, 
without any regular employment ? 

Mr. Silberstein. If at all. I am not sure she worked at all for the 
guild. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you know her to be a member of the Commu- 
nist Party? 

Mr. Silberstein. No. 

Mr. Taatsnner. Did you know Ruth Eifkin to have been a member 
of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. I decline to answer that question for the reasons 
previously stated. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you ever acquainted with a person by the name 
of ]\Irs. Mary Stalcup Markward ? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. To the best of my Imowledge, I never met her. 

Mr. Ta\^nner. Mrs. Markward testified before this committee and 
identified Ruth Rifkin as a member of the Communist Party. And 
I believe I should read that testimony to you. 

Mr. Owens. Are you acquainted with an individual, Ruth Rifkin? 

Mrs. Markward. Yes. 

Mr. Owens. What was the nature of your relationship with Ruth Rifkin ? 

First I should tell you, however, that Mrs. Markward is a person 
who had been in the Communist Party for a period of 9 years, and 
during that period of time had been furnishing information to the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation and had risen to the position of 
secretary of the Communist Party in the District of Columbia. 

So I will repeat the question : 

Mr. Owens. What was the nature of your relationship with Ruth Rifkin? 

Mr. Markward. I got a transfer card from this individual, together with a 
note saying if I contacted her I was to say I was Evelyn's cousin. I believe she 
was living at McLean Gardens at the time. I called and made an appointment 
to meet her. She was quite cautious about the way this meeting should take 
place. We met at T'nion Station and had dinner later. I learned later she 
was working for UNRRA. 

Do you know when she worked for UNRRA ? Wliether it was be- 
fore or after she left your employment ? Ruth Rifkin ? 
Mr. Silberstein. Before. 
Mr. Tavenner (continuing) : 

Mr. Owens. Where did she come from? 
Mr. Markward. New York. 

Mr. Owens. What was the purpose of your contacting her? 
Mrs. Markward. I contacted her as Evelyn's cousin. 
Mr. Owens. Did you pick her up on your rolls? 

Mr. Markward. Because of her working with UNRRA in the State Depart- 
ment, I could not transfer her into our organization as such. However, I talked 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2685 

with her. She seemed extremely capable and a good Communist. So I spoke to 
Elizabeth Searle about seeing if she could be picked up by some organization that 
did take members working for the Government. And Elizabeth dearie took the 
address and how to get in touch with her and said she would see what could 
be done. 

Mr. Owens. Did you subsequently see Ruth Rifkin? 

Mrs. Makkwaed. Yes. She seemed disturbed by the manner in which she had 
been contacted, and she asked if this otlier person was all right. I went to Eliza- 
beth Searle about that. She said it was all right, because this other i>erson was 
in a position that it would be assumed she was calling about union business. 

Did you know Elizabeth Searle? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. To the best of my knowledge, I did not. 
Mr. Ta\^nner. Do you recall sending greetings to the Daily Worker 
on its twentieth anniversary ? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEIN. I do UOt. 

Mr. Tavenner. According to the Daily Worker of January 13, 
1944, at page 11, in column 5, it is stated that you were one of the 
list of persons who did send greetings to the Daily Worker on its 
twentieth anniversary. 

Mr. SiLBERSTEIN. I am pretty certain that is not so. I was in the 
Army then. 

Mr. TA^'EN]s^ER. You don't know how j^our name came to be used? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEIN. I am quite certain that isn't possible. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you give anyone authority to use your name 
in such manner ? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEIN. I aui quite certain I did not. 

Mr. Tavenner. Can you offer any explanation as to how your name 
was used ? 

JNIr. SiLBERSTEIN. I cauiiot. 

IMr. Taat:nner. Do you recall having been invited to speak at a 
meeting of the IWO, 4402 Georgia Avenue, in January 1948? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEIN. I recall speaking at a meeting, and I think that 
was the location. The year, I don't recall. Probably it was the 
meeting you are referring to. 

Mr. Taa-enner. It was the IWO? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEIN. Well, some group of the IWO. 

Mr. Taa-enner. Were you a member of the IWO ? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEIN. To the best of my knowledge, no. 

Mr. Ta-s-enner. Well, it would seem that that is a matter that you 
should be able to be definite about, as to whether you were a member 
or were not of an organization of that character. 

My. SiLBERSTEIN. Well, I am pretty certain that I was not. I cer- 
tainly have no recollection of ever becomng a member. 

Mr. Walter. Did you address tliis meeting as an officer of the 
Lawyers' Guild, or as an individual ? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEIN. Well, I suppose I was introduced as the secretary. 

JNIr. Walter. You were not speaking for the guild, though, were 
YOU ? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEIN. No ; I was speaking for myself. I think I was 
speaking on the Mundt- Nixon bill. 

Mr. Ta"\t:nner. Do you recall who invited you to speak at that 
meeting? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEIN. I think it was a man who did some painting for 
me. But I am not sure. 

Mr. Tavenner. What was his name ? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEIN. Chaiisky. 



2686 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. Ta\'exner. What was his first name? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. Morris. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know whether any other person joined 
in the invitation witli him? 

Mr, SiLBERSTEiN. Well, I am not sure that he was the one who 
invited me, but I guess he was. I certainly don't recall anybody else 
inviting me. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did William Rosen ever speak to you about that? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. I dou't recall ever meeting anyone by tliat name. 
But it is possible that somebody by that name called me on the 
telephone. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you ever speak more than one time before 
the IWO ? Did you ever speak before the IWO on any other occasion 
than the one to which you have referred ? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. Not that I recall. 

And as to Washington or any period subsequent to 1942, I am 
pretty certain I didn't. I certainly don't recall it. 

Mr. Tavenner. What was your address in New York City ? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. WliCR do you mean ? 

Mr. Tavenner. Well, you lived in Washington a while. 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. That is right. 

Mr. Tavenner. What was the date you came to Washington ? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. I think in May of 1947. 

Mr. Tavenner. Prior to that time, vrhere did you live in New York ? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. I lived at Croton-on-Hudson, Westchester 
County, N. Y. _ _ 

Mr. Ta\tenner, Did you live at any other place besides that ? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. I had an office. A residence address? 

Mr. Tavenner. What was your office address ? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. Two eiglity-five Madison avenue. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you have any other residential address? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. You mean at times prior to that? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes; in New York. 

Mr. Siij3erstein. I lived at Croton-on-Hudson from about 1939 
until 1947, except for my period of absence on military service. And 
prior to that in New York I lived at 145 Columbia Heights, Brooklyn. 
How far back do you want me to go ? Indefinitely ? 

Mr. Tavenner. No; but just keep going a little while longer, and 
we will tell you. 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. I think that is about 1938-39, or 1937-38. And 
before that I lived on Washington Place. The number I don't recall. 

Mr. Tavenner. Back how far? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. Well, that would be immediately before that, 
probably for a year or maybe 2 years. 

Mr. Tavenner. And then prior to that ? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. I think I lived way over on West Twenty-first 
Street. I don't remember the number. 

Mr. Tavenner. Back to what date ? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. And before that I lived for a time on East Twelfth 
Street. I don't remember the number. I think that takes me baclv 
to the end of my history in New York. 

Mr. Ta\t:nner. The East Twelfth Street residence would take you 
back to approximately what date? 
Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. 1930-31. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2687 

Mr. Tavenner. And earlier than that? 

Mr. SiLKERSTEiN. I was in schooL 

Mr. Tavenner. Is that the first New York City address that you 
had? 

Mr. Silberstein. As nearly as I can recall; yes — no; it isn't. 

Mr. Tavenner. All right. 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. I lived in the East Thirties for a while. Just 
what years, or how long, I don't know. 

Mr. Fraenkel. Mr. Tavenner, niiglit I inquire how much longer 
you expect to be ? 

Mr. Tavenner. It is going to be a little hard to tell. Ten or fifteen 
minutes. 

Mr. Fraenkel. Because we would like to get the 4 o'clock train if 
we can. 

Mr. TA^'ENNER. Yes. I am doing the best I can. 

Were you acquainted with a person by the name of Morton Kent? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. I was. A very dear friend of mine. Knew him 
at college. 

Mr. Tavenner. At Harvard University ? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was he in your class ? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. I believe so. 

Mr. Tavenner. You graduated about 1927? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. 1927. 

Mv. Tavenner. Mr. Kent applied for a passport in 1931 or 1932, 
I do not have it before me at the moment. Do you recall executing 
the application as his identifying witness ? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. I do iiot. But I wouldn't be surprised if I had. 
I have no recollection of his having gone to Europe. 

Mr. Tavenner. In what business was he engaged when you knew 
him, after leaving school, of course ? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. I caiiuot recall that. He wasn't in any business 
that I can recall at any time. 

Mr. Tavenner. How was he employed? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. I dou't recall that. I think he worked for a title 
company at a certain stage. He didn't go to Harvard Law School. 
He went to some night school in New York, some night law school in 
New York, while he was working. And I w^as still in school. 

Mr. Tavenner. Well, how did you become acquainted with him? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. Hs was in my class. 

Mr. Fraenkel. At college. 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. Yes ; at college. And I think we lived in the 
same dormitory for a time. 

Mr. Tavenner. At Harvard? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. Ycs. He was a very close friend of mine. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know anything about the purpose of his 
trip abroad in 1932? I understand that is the correct date. 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. I liave no recollection of his ever going abroad. 
As I say, it is possible that I signed an identification paper or some 
paper, but I don't recall his going abroad at all. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know, according to your best informa- 
tion, was he born in Russia ? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. I Understood he was. 



2688 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. Tavenner. After 1932, did you have occasion to still continue 
your acquaintanceship with him? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. Yes. I think that I saw him off and on while 
I was in New York, and when I came to Washington I saw him, too, 
occasionally. 

Mr. Tavenner. What was he doing in Washington ? What was his 
position, or how was he employed ? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. He had a number of positions in the Govern- 
ment, and what they were 1 do not recall, except that I think he had 
something to do with UNRRA at the time that Governor Lehman 
was the head of it. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know whether or not he was a member of 
the Communist Party ? 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. Well, in the discussions that I ever had with him, 
I got the impression that he was quite apolitical; didn't have any 
definite political ideas; and I never got the impression that he was 
sympathetic to the Soviet Union. He quite definitely did not. 

Mr. Tavenner. But my question was whether or not he was a mem- 
ber of the Communist Party, to your knowledge. 

Mr. SiLBERSTEiN. I will liave to decline to answer that question for 
the same reasons. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Chairman, I had with me here before lunch 
an application for passport in 1932, to which there was the name of 
an identifying witness, Robert J. Silberstein. 

Mr. Walter. Mr. Silberstein stated that he may have signed some 
such affidavit but had no recollection of it. I do not know what the 
purpose is. 

Mr. Tavenner. The purpose is that we want to know whether that is 
his signature to the passport. 

Mr. Walter. All right. Let us assume that it was. Then what? 

Mr. Fraenkel. We can't assume without seeing the signature. 

Mr. Tavenner. That is the point. I am delayed because of the 
officer's taking it back with him, and it is on its way here now. That 
is what is holding me up. 

Mr. Silberstein. Can't you ask the question on the assumption that 
it is my signature? 

Mr. Fraenkel. Could you go on from there and come back to the 
signature later? 

Mr. Ta%^nner. Yes, sir; I can. 

Mr. Walter. Let us for the sake of moving forward assume that 
Mr. Silberstein signed this affidavit, and proceed. 

Mr, Taa^enner. I would like to ask one or two questions in executive 
session. If, by the time I finish the other question, the document 
is not here, we would call you back if you are that anxious to leave, 
at some other time. 

Mr. Fraenkel. If it is a photostat, you could send it up to us. 

Mr. Tavenner. I could do that and let you state it in the form of 
an affidavit. 

Mr. Walter. We will just send a photostat. 

Now we are ready to go into executive session ? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes. 

Mr. Walter. All right. 

The open session is ended, and the committee will now go into 
executive session. 



COMMUNISM IX LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2689 

(Whereupon, at 3:20 p. m., the committee continued in executive 
session. ) 

(At 3 : 26 p. m., the open session was resumed.) 

ilr. Tavenner. Let us go back into open session, so that this will 
be a part of the record. 

Mr. Silberstein, I hand you a photostatic copy of an application 
for passport of Morton E. Kent, bearing date of February 3, 1932. 

I see there your name as identifying witness, Robert J. Silberstein. 

Is that your signatured 

Mr. Silberstein. That certainly looks like my signature. 

Mr. Tavenner. What is the address given there? 

Mr. Silberstein. The address is 105 Broadway. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was that your office? 

Mr. Silberstein. This was 1932? 

Mr. Tavenner. At that time, in 1932? 

Mr. Silberstein. I believe it was. 

Mr. Walti:r. Have you identified the document? 

Mr. Tavenner. I have not. I would like to offer it in evidence as 
Silberstein Exliibit No. 1. 

It was obtained from the State Department under subpena duces 
tecum. 

Mr. Walter. It will be so marked and made a part of the record. 

(The document referred to was marked "SilberEtein Exhibit No. 
1," and made a part of the record.) 

Mr. ^;ilbei:steix. I lu.ve a : tatem -nt that I request be filed, a very 
brief statement^ as a part of the record. 

Mr. Walter. Very well. 

Is there anything further ? 

Thank you. 

(Whereupon, at 3 : 30 p. m. Wednesday, April 9, 1952, the hearing 
was recessed subject to the call of the Chair.) 



95008— 52— pt. i IT 



APPENDIX 

Aaron Exhibit No. 1 

[Pamphlet, Under Arrest, issued by the International Labor Defense] 



Under Arreit! 




tssmd by t NTERN AXIOM At 



LABOR- DEFENSE 
FIVE Cmts 



2691 



2692 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

UNDEE ARKEST! 

How to Defend Yourself in Court ! 
What to Do When Arrested and Questioned I 

FOREWORD 

This pamphlet is being issued in order to better prepare our whole organization 
to give leadership to workers on what to do when arrested and questioned, and 
how to defend themselves in the courts of capitalist class justice. It is not suf- 
ficient, however, merely to ask workers to read this material, depending upon 
them to be able to carry out successfully its directions on their own initiative. 
A broad education must he organized on the Msis of this pamphlet. Classes of 
leading workers in the International Labor Defense (I. L. D.) must be organized 
for the careful stuily of this material under the leadership of capable comrades. 
Efforts must be made to draw in sympathetic la/ivycrs who will volunteer their 
services for this purpose. This must become the basis for broader discussions of 
these problems. In some states (Massachusetts, for instance), arrested workers 
can be represented in court by others, not lawyers. This has been done very 
successfully and must be pressed in other states. Only on this basis will it be 
possible to make effective use of this material, and to develop properly the whole 
effort to inform workers what to do when arrested and questioned and how to 
defend themselves in the courts of the boss class. The worker should care- 
fully study this pamphlet, discuss it with other workers in their organizations, 
etc. Thus hundreds of thousands and the millions of workers who take part in 
strikes, unemployed demonstrations, and the like, will be better prepared to 
defend themselves and their rights. 

Issued hij the INTERNATIONAL LABOR DEFENSE 
Room 430, 80 East 11th Street, New York City 

No Intormation to the Police ! 

WORLD ORGANIZATION OF INTERNATIONAL LABOR DEFENSE TELLS 
WORKERS WHAT TO DO WHEN ARRESTED 

In a report on the work of the world organization of the International Labor 
Defense to the Third Congress of the section of the I. L. D. in the Soviet Union, 
Heleue Stasova, international secretary, declared : "We decided that it was neces- 
sary to follow the example of the czarist times, and to publish a pamphlet, How 
to Act When Arrested and Questioned. It is true that a large number of our 
sections have already issued literature on how workers must defend themselves 
before the courts. But this was not entirely the same as our pamphlet. How to 
Conduct Oneself Under Examination. It must be clearly pointed out in such a 
paniplilet that through a truthful or invented story a worker will not achieve 
anything. He will not ease the situation for himself. Instead he may be the 
cause of other workers being thrown into jail. This is particularly important at 
the present time when the number of arrests is on the increase. Arrests are 
taking place during every strike, during demonstmtions of the unemploiied, 
during farmers' struggles, etc. Where we have to deal with mass arrests, it is 
necessary to carry out our correct policy of not giving any information to the 
courts, to police officers or jail attendants, etc. 

"In assisting prisoners with written directions, we must not forget about legal 
assistance. But we cannot always give this legal assistance to a sufficient 
extent. Therefore, we must give directions to the workers on how to defend 
themselves. It is clear that when there were only individual arrests, or even 
arrests by the tens or himdreds, that the help of lawyers in the courts could be 
provided. Today, however, when the arrests run into the thousands, this is not 
possible." 



COMIVIUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2693 

WORKERS' SELF-DEFENSE IN COURT 

Necessity for this Pamphlet 
Class Struggle Coming to a Crisis 

The present depression and economic crisis, growing ever deeper and more 
•widespread, sees the employing class seeking to put the entire burden of the 
•crisis upon the working class. 

Millions of workers are unemployed. They and their families are starving. 
Millions of others are working part-time. They and their families are compelled 
to exist on a starvation level. Those remaining workers who are still em- 
ployed are faced with wage cuts, speedup and increased hours of work. They, 
too, are finding the problem of feeding, clothing and sheltering their families an 
«ver-increasing difficulty. 

It is obvious that the workers will not submit to this oppression without a 
struggle. They will fight to maintain whatever union conditions they have. 
They will resist wage cuts, speed-up and stretch-oiits. They will struggle for 
unemployment insurance, and generally will, by organization, resist the ever- 
increasing pressure against them by the capitalist class, which uses every means 
to put the burden of this depression solely upon the working class. 

Capitalists Using Terrorist Tactics and Frame-ups 

This increasing militancy of the working class will not be calmly watched 
by the capitalist class — nor by the agencies of the government, which reflect and 
serve the interests of the exploiting class. On the contrary, the master class 
of America, calling to its aid the government and its various agencies and de- 
partments — executive, legislative and judicial — -will use every means within Its 
power to beat down the rising tide of struggle and militancy of the workers, 
and by terror and oppression, seek to crush it. 

The terror now laging all over the land, in which workers are murdered, 
maimed and jailed, and the wholesale application of criminal syndicalism laws, 
anti-alien laws and other anti4abor legislation, proves this conclusively. 

This assault vrpon the working class claims as its first victims the more 
■class-conscious of the workers and the more militant of its leaders. Their de- 
fense becomes more and more a matter of vital necessity to the workers through- 
out the country. 

The Work of the I. L. D. 

The principal work of the International Labor Defense consists in arousing 
the widest mass protests, as the chief effective method with which to wrest the 
working class militants from the bosses' clutches. 

It also aids the families of the class-war prisoners while their breadwinners 
are in jails, and of the murdered victims. It supplies prison comforts to the 
imprisoned class fighters. It fights for the class war prisoners' rights and 
privileges inside the prisons, and against the attempts of prison administrations 
at petty tyranny and persecution. 

The International Labor Defense likewise helps to provide, as far as possible, 
legal aid and bail. But an ever-increasing l)urden is being thrown upon the 
forces of the International Labor Defense by the great increase in the number of 
nrrests. It cannot always provide the assistance of lawyers, unless the serious- 
ness and political importance of the case absolutely requires it. Therefore we 
print this pamphlet. 

HOW WORKERS FACE THE CAPITALIST COURTS 
See Behind Court Ceremonies! 

Once and for all, it is necessary to destroy the illusion that workers have 
concerning courts and court procedure generally. 

The "dignity" and "sanctity" of the courts are a means of paralyzing the 
struggle of the workers against capitalist institutions. It is not an accident that 
court procedure is conducted in a language and method not understandable to 
ithe average worker. It is not an accident that court procedure is clothed with 



2694 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

all sorts of pompous ceremonies. These fixings and stage settings are deliberately 
provided to confuse the workers, who thus are often unable to act intelligently and 
effectively because of their fear of making mistakes. 

Experience teaches that often the most militant woi'ker, who will not hesi- 
tate to go out on the picket line to prevent scabbing, who will fight workers' 
battles in a most courageous manner, will, when facing a coiirt, lose his militancy 
and capacity for struggle mainly because he is overwhelmed by court methods 
which confuse him. 

The Class Struggle Ooes on in the Court Room 

The class struggle goes on in the court room as well as it does on the picket 
line, in the shops, and in the mines. The worker must learn to carry into the 
court room the same determined militancy that brought him there. 

The worker must also understand that courts are not impartial, any more 
than any other agency of capitalist government is impartial. Those who drag the 
worker into court do so because they know that the court will serve the bosses 
and not the worker. 

To summarize the point : the workers must see thru the sham and ceremony, 
and recognize the capitalist court as a class enemy — as a weapon in the bosses' 
hands, with which to suppress workers' militancy. The worker must train him- 
self to bring the class struggle into the court room into which he was dragged 
by the bosses' servants. 

What To Do When Arrested 

A'o Information to the Arresting Officer 

The first step in the prosecution of the worker is usually the arrest. The 
arrest is made by a policeman, a state trooper, a government agent or person 
holding some such similar position. It is absolutely essential to remember that 
the policeman, etc., arresting you is a servant of the boss class. Otherwise, why 
should he be arresting you for working class activities? He is your enemy. 
Give him no information, or any kind ivhatsoeven^ either about yovrsclf or your 
fellow icorkers, or any organization which you ielong to, or in xvhich you are 
interested. No matter how innocently he may seek to get this information, no 
matter whether he tells you that this information is for the purpose of helping 
you, do not give it to Mm. 



COMJMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2695 









1 



Class Struggle m the Court R&<mt. 




MASS StrPFOET FOE WOREEES ON TRIAL.™~~¥««y 
of tea a court roo«« packed t® ilMi'dle^w with workesns hsm 
h&en tlj« decisJT* f^atiare tkat woa tfe® worker* cm««. 



L"''4**>^WftA'VWS! ^''■Va^fliyJlfrwIfewb^ 



2696 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

No Information When Booked. Give Your Name Only 

Give no information in tlie police station where you are brought by the arresting: 
officer and booked. (Booking means simply that a record of the arrest is made 
in a book.) Give no information to any assistant district attorney who may 
come to you smilingly, and in a kindly manner try to get information from you, 
stating that he is interested only in the truth and wants to help you. If, on the 
contrary, he comes to you in a threatening, bulldozing manner, trying to force 
information out of you, do not yield. And when we say ''no information," we 
mean, above all, that you shall not give the names of your fellow workers, the 
names of organizations that you belong to, details about your union, or any other 
information, regardless of how innocent it may appear to you. And if you are a 
foreign-born worker, no information of any sort, of the date you landed, the 
name of the boat, etc. 

Give your name. That is all. You should not even furnish an address. Too' 
often have we seen the police without warrants, and without right, even under 
their own laws, break in and raid the homes of workers whom they had arrested. 
Raids become possible because these workers themselves innocently furnished 
the address and information. It is clear, therefore, that aside from giving your 
name, you should give no information of any kind. 

Telephone from Jail 

After the arrest you will be taken to some kind of jail — a police court jail, or 
some other place where you are held before being taken to court. While you are 
being held, demand the right to telephone, "even if you have no money to pay for 
the call. That is still one of the '"rights" to which you are entitled. Insist upon 
it. Call up the International Labor Defense headquarters, if there is one. If 
not, call your union headquarters, or some responsible friend, and tell them : 
(i) who you are; (2) where you are held; (3) amount of bail set, if any; and 
(4) the charge upon which you are held. 

Remember that you are talking from a jail, and that the telephone conversa- 
tion is within the hearing, even though you do not know it, of the police or stool 
pigeons. The very policeman you refused to talk to may be sitting downstairs 
at the switchboard taking down everything you say. The purpose of the tele- 
phone call is simply to let those outside know that you are held. Later, when 
you see them, you can tell them the facts. 

CO-OPERATION OF FALLOW WORKERS 

The arrested worker is not in a position to reach the outside, get witnesses, 
etc., and the workers present at the time of the arrest must co-operate with the 
worker and the International Labor Defense. They must immediately, and 
while on the spot, take the names and addresses of all of the witnesses. Some 
worker must find out to which jail or police station the arrested worker is taken. 
Sometimes it is necessary to follow the policeman to see where the worker is being 
taken. Some worker must immediately notify the International Labor Defense, 
giving the name of the arrested worker, the place where he was taken to, the 
names of the witnesses, and the facts about the arrest. 

Talking About Case in Jail 

The arrested worker must be very cautious in discussing the case with other 
prisoners or visitors while in jail. It has frequently happened that the police 
intentionally bring prisoners together and allow visitors to talk freely to the 
arrested worker in a room where a policeman is secretly stationed to take down 
the conversation. The worker should, therefore, take extreme care in talking 
about the case at any time while in jail. Even walls have been known to have 
ears in jail. 

The Third Degree 

Very often while you are in jail, attempts will be made to question you. 
Threats or actual beatings may be used. All of the tortures commonly known 
as the "Third Degree" may be employed. They will attempt to bulldoze you into 
making "confessions," or to name others. Frequently the police will try to force 
the worker to sign a statement or confession prepared by them. Sign no state- 
ment, "confession," or any other paper, no matter hoic innocent it appears. 

Remember that answering one question will lead to another dozen being put 
to you. The best and only way is to refuse firmly to answer any question. Even 
the capitalist law cannot force you to answer the police or to give them any 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2697 

Information of any kind ; but the law permits any information you may give to 
be used against you. Have no faith in falie promises of the cops or district 
attorney, and do not be fooled by them. Their promises are given only to make 
you talk, and cannot possibly help you under capitalist law. 

One of the third degree methods commonly used by the police is to bring the 
worker into a darkened room, where a beating is given to the worker by the 
police. It is useless to strike back. If you do, the beating will be much more 
severe. The only way to fight the third degree is by mass protest in and out of 

court. 

The Charge Against You 

You should insist upon the right to an immediate hearing. If you are not 
brought to court on the night of the arrest or the morning following, demand 
that you be brought before the court for a hearing immediately. 

When you are brought to court, a complaint will be read by the clerk or judge 
to you. This is really a statement signed by the policeman stating what you are 
charged with. You will then be asked whether you plead guilty or not guilty. 
Insist that a complaint containing the specific charge against you be read to 
you. If this is not done, refuse to plead. 

The Real Charge Is Not the Complaint 

The worker must realize that the real charge against him will not appear in 
the complaint. The worker is brought into capitalist courts only because of his 
working class activities, and the charge against him is only the legal frame-up 
of the capitalist courts. The State and the courts do the bosses' bidding, and 
the criminal laws are used to suppress the activities of the class-conscious 

workers. 

Plead Not Quilty 

Etven though capitalist law makes what you have done a crime, you must 
plead "not guilty." The object behind the charge against you is to suppress 
your working class activity. Even the police are interested in the technical 
crime. The worker must assert his right to participate in working class activi- 
ties, regardless of- boss laws. To plead guilty puts the worker at the mercy of 
the bosses' judge. Never plead ''guilty." 

Insist that the Charge be Proved 

Often the judge or clerk will deliberately try to confuse you. For example, 
you have been distributing leaflets in a strike situation, or calling for a mass 
meeting or protest against some outrage against the working class. The charge 
will be that you blocked traffic or littered up the sidewalks, or a general "buck- 
shot" charge of disorderly conduct, — one of those charges which says everything 
and means anything. The judge or clerk will say, after reading the charge, "Did 
you or did you not distribute leaflets?" If you say, "Yes," he will enter a plea 
of "Guilty." In other words, he will say that you admit guilt. Do not permit 
yourself to be railroaded in this way. Plead "not guilty," and demand that your 
plea be noticed by the judge or clerk. Demand that witnesses take the stand to 
prove the charge against you. If the worker does not understand the complaint, 
he should insist that it be reread, or that he be permitted to read it himself. 

Do Not be Fooled by Promises of Suspended Sentences 

Very often the judge, or district attorney, or policeman will advise the worker 
to plead "guilty" upon the promise or assurance that he will get a suspended 
sentence or a light sentence. These promises are as treacherous as the promises 
made in the police station or in jail, "Not guilty" must be the answer of the 
worker. 

Insist Upon a Preliminary Hearing 

In certain cases the judge can only decide whether or not the worker is to be 
held for the grand jury. In those cases, the worker must demand that hearing 
be held, and that witnesses be produced to prove the charge against him. It is 
very important that this hearing be held, and that the worker should be very 
careful that he does not waive this examination. By demanding this hearing, he 
may prevent this case being brought before the grand jury, and so get a final 
dismissal of the charge. If the case does go to the grand jury, the testimony 
at the preliminary hearing will be very helpful at the trial. 

95008— 52— pt, 1 18 



2698 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

The Trial 

When to go to Trial 

After you have pleaded "not guilty," the court will usually ask you whether 
you are ready for trial, or want au adjournment. Here you must learn to use 
your judgment. If the charge is a serious one, state that you want an adjourn- 
ment so that you may secure witnesses and prepare your case. In any case, if 
you do not feel that you are ready, insist upon at least one day's adjournment. 
In a small case, if in the meanwhile you are being held in jail, do not permit an 
adjournment for a long time because you wiU have already served your sentence 
when the case comes up for trial. 

Demand a Jury Trial 

In many states (California, Illinois, etc.) you have a right to a jury trial even 
on a minor charge. Demand that jour case be tried before a jury and do not let 
the judge force you into a trial then and there. In a jury trial, the worker will 
have much more opportunity to raise class issues and to resist being bulldozed by 
a bureaucratic judge. 

If there is an adjournment, usually the judge will hx bail without any request. 
However, if the judge does not fix bail, demand that bail he fixed and that bail he 
low. Point out to the court that you are not a criminal, that you are a political 
prisoner, that you are a worker without money in the bank, that you have been 
engaged in a struggle for your class, the working class and that bail, therefore, 
should be your own promise (recognizance) to appear for trial. Remember, 
that regardless of what the charge is, other than murder, you are entitled to 
bail, as a matter of right, and to low bail. The purpose of bail is merely to in- 
sure your presence in court at the time of trial. Point out to the court that you 
are not the kind that will run away, that you will be there to face the trial and 
therefore bail should be made low. 

Notify the I. L. D. 

After bail has been fixed, notify the I. L. D. Also notify the workers familiar 
with the case. Here again the workers outside must assist the arrested worker 
in getting witnesses and evidence. It is up to them to assume responsibility for 
the securing of witnesses and for seeing to it that they are available in the 
court room at the time of trial. 

Prepare for Trial 

The worker should make himself familiar with the particular charge against 
him, and with the political importance of the class struggle which brought about 
his arrest. He must study and muster all of the facts of his case and come to 
court having completely planned his defense and the manner of presenting it to 
the court and jury. Many workers pay no attention to their cases until they 
actually come up for trial, and thus are completely unprepared. The worker 
must never take a fatalistic or indifferent attitude toward his case. Even 
though it may be necessary to try your own case, you should try to get legal 
advice before the trial. Call on the I. L. D., which will, of course, help you. 
Wherever possible, discuss your case with representatives of the I. L. D., with 
workers who have had experience in court cases or with lawyers, so that you 
may come into court prepared on the particular points and issues of your par- 
ticular case. Even though you may be represented by an attorney, prepare and 
study your own case. Remember that lawyers are limited by the technical rules 
of the courts, and the real burden of presenting class issues will faU upon you. 

Conduct in Court 

At all times, while in the court room, conduct yourself in a calm and delib- 
erate manner, with working class straightforwardness. Remember that you are 
not speaking for yourself alone. You are speaking as a representative of the 
entire working class. Do not let yourself he confused or annoyed by the bureau- 
cratic working of the court. Avoid unnecessary friction and do not let the issue 
become merely a personal one. On the other hand, do not allow yourself to be 
railroaded into jail because of meekness. Remember that the judge and prose- 
cutor are, as a rule, extremely ignorant about social and economic questions, and 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2699 

can only express themselves by anger and open hostility. You, as a class-con- 
scious worker, have the greatest advantage over them. Keep this advantage 
by remaining calm and thoughtful. Do not, however, underestimate your en- 
emy. The legal machinery is theirs. You must be alert and resourceful. 

Make the Court Your Forum 

Bring out the class issues at the trial. In most cases the judge and prose- 
cutor will try to evade the class character of the case. Force into the trial the 
real reason for your arrest. For instance : if you are charged with distributing 
leaflets, then the prosecutor will stick to the point that the streets were littered 
up with your leaflets in violation of the ordinance. 

Your answer may be that if you were distributing Republican, Democratic or 
religious leaflets, you never would have been arrested. State that you never 
heard of a Salvation Army preacher, a Republican or a Democrat being held on 
such charges. The law is used only against workers when they are active for 
their class. 

If you are charged with criminal syndicalism, i.-e., with teaching or advocating 
the overthrow of government by force or violence, or charged with membership 
in an organization that advocates and teaches such a doctrine, and the proof 
by the district attorney consists of speeches that you made, articles that you 
wrote, newspapers that you read and support, then it is absolutely necessai-y for 
you to use tlie court for a clear and correct explanation of the economic and 
social views which you hold, of the facts of the class struggle as applied to your 
case. 

Bring out the Class Issues 

Point out what you stand for, and what you believe in. Always keep in 
mind, and bring out, that it is in the interest of the working class, who are the 
vast majority in society, that you are fighting in the struggle which has brought 
you into court. Wherever possible, expose the anti-working class activities 
of the police, stool pigeons, and courts. If you are arrested on the picket line, 
tell the judge the rotten conditions which brought about the strike, and outline 
the demands of the strikers. If you were arrested in a demonstration bring 
out the objects of the demonstration. If you were arrested in an anti-imperialist 
war demonstration, show the constant and immediate danger of war under the 
capitalist system. This is your defense. Do not try to crawl out of the charge 
against you by lies and dodges. You will only involve yourself in a net of con- 
flicting statements. The experience of the I.L.D. has proved that a militant, 
straightforward defense is tlie most effective weapon against legal oppression. 
Por instance, if you are charged with assaulting a policeman, do not deny 
your acts, but assert your right to defend yourself and your fellow workers. 

Remember that the courts oppress not only class conscious workers, but all 
workers, and that nearly all the people in the court room are workers who feel 
this oppression. You are speaking to them. By the strength of your cause, 
make capitalism the defendant, and yourself the prosecutor, in the name of 
millions of toilers. 

Ansicer Questions Your Oion Way 

It is Important that you insist upon answering questions put to you in your 
own way. Do not allow yourself to be bulldozed by the prosecutor and judge 
who may demand of you a "Yes" or "No" answer. You either answer your own 
way, or not at all. You must not i)ermit yourself to be caught by trick questions 
of the prosecution. You must insist upon making explanations in your own way. 

Force and Violence 

In criminal syndicalism and other political cases, the worker will be con- 
fronted with the question, "Do you believe in force and violence?" If you are 
forced to answer this question, refuse to give a "yes" or "no" answer. Insist 
upon your own explanation along the the following lines: 

"Class conscious workers believe that all the tools and means of production, 
all of the social wealth belong to the toiling masses, who alone produce it. It 
must not be the private property of a handful of bosses. A greater and greater 
number of workers and poor farmers are becoming conscious of this, and are 
organizing themselves to take over all the wealth, natural and social, in order 
to receive the full product of their toil." 



2700 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Capitalism Guilty of Fokce and Violence 

Militant workers, in defending themselves in capitalist courts, upon being- 
questioned as to the "overthrow of the government by force and violence," 
have aruiied as follows : ''As in past history, so at present, the masses of workers 
will be fully justified, historically and socially, in using means, including force 
and violence, in defense against capitalist force and violence and in a revolu- 
tionary situation, to dislodge capitalism and replace it with a classless social 
order that will have neither oppressors nor oppressed." 

Workers in court have also argued : 

"History proves that no ruling class gives up peaceably its rule of economic 
and political oppression of the masses. Capitalism is no exception. Capitalists 
will drown many workers in blood rather than give up the social wealth in 
their possession. 

"At this period, while the workers are organizing themselves on the one hand 
for immediate betterment of their living conditions, and on the other, for the 
final aim of changing the social order, it is the capitalist class that every day 
uses pitiless force and violence against the workers." 

The I. L. D. defends the right of workers to hold and advocate such views. 

Capitalists Use Gunmen to Break Strikes 

Take an ordinary strike situation, — in mines, for example. Gunmen and thugs 
are imported as mine guards. They shoot down striking miners and their fami- 
lies and children. Then these miners who are shot, are arrested, and charged 
with assault. Did you ever hear of police fighting on the side of the strikers? 
Did you ever hear of scabs being arrested? And still, in every strike situation, 
it is the strikers who are being arrested and beaten up, and charged with all 
sorts of "crimes." Their crime was that they defended themselves against the 
assaults of the police. Such a right of self-defense they have, and will maintain. 
In the same way, the working class as a whole, has a right to defend itself 
against the force and violence of the exploiting class, and that right they will 
defend and maintain. All use of force and violence by the boss class must be 
exposed, when it becomes necessary so to do, by clearly understanding and 
stating the correct position. 

Is There a Right of Revolution in Amebica? 

District attorneys will often attempt to prove tliat a defendant in a working 
class prosecution advocates "R-r-r-revolution." The way he rolls the word off 
would make you think that this is the worst crime there is. Point out, if you 
are compelled to answer this question, that revolution is a word which should 
have a particularly favorable meaning to an American. The right of revolution 
has never been taken away, and never can be taken away. The Declaration of 
Independence clearly recognizes and holds that the right of revolution belongs 
to the people. Quote the Declaration of Independence: 

"... governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from 
the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes 
destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, 
and institute new government . . . when a long train of abuses and usurpations, 
pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under abso- 
lute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, 
and to provide new guards for their security." 

This right of revolution has been recognized by those who are constantly being 
held out as glowing figures in American history. It is important here to quote 
these men in support of this question. For example : 

Thomas Jefferson : 

"I hold a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the 
political world as storms in the physical. . . . What signify a few lives lost in a 
century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with 
the blood of patriots and tyrants." 

Abraham Lincoln : 

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people. . . . Whenever they 
grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional 
right of amending it or the revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." 

Woodrow Wilson : 

"We have forgotten the very principles of our origin, if we have forgotten how 
to object, how to resist, how to agitate, how to pull down, and build up, even to 
the extent of revolutionary practices. . . ." 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2701 

Trial Pkocedtjke Explained to the Wokkeks 
How to Select a Jury 

You should insist upon a jury trial, instead of being ti*ie<l by a single bureau- 
crat, the judge. In most cases you have a right to jury trial. If a jury trial is 
-denied you, after you have demanded it, take an exception, as explained later in 
this pamphlet. In case of a jury trial, it is necessary that in picking one, you 
should be careful to get on that jury, as far as possible, persons who are not 
prejudiced against you and your cause from the outset. 

Very few workers are called into capitalist courts to act as jurors. Generally, 
jurors are of the parasite portion of the middle-class, the only ones who can spare 
time for the couple of dollars they receive as jurors. For example, — retired rich 
farmers, real estate men, pensioned widows, etc. 

Demand a Working Class Jury 

These elements are generally prejudiced against the militant worker as one 
who threatens their social position. The worker defending himself should ex- 
I)ose this. Before the jury-panel is sworn in by the clerk, get up, and state 
that you challenge the entire panel of prospective jurors on the ground that it 
is composed of people whose social and economic interests will prejudice them 
against you, the defendant. 

Expose the method of selecting jury-panels, for which no workers actually in 
industry, are called to serve. Make a demand for a new panel to be picked from 
a cross-section of the working class population in the city, — Negro and white 
workers from basic industries, etc. State that only such a jury can judge your 
case properly, and without prejudice to your cause. 

Of course, the judge will deny this challenge. Yet this motion will make a 
profound effect upon all present, especially the workers, before whom the court 
will at once stand exposed as the bosses' tool for suppression of the work- 
ing class. 

Question the Jury-Panel 

While picking the jury, ask them whether they are prejudiced against you 
because you are a worker, because of your nationality (if you happen to be 
an alien or foreign-born worker), or because of your color (if you hapipen to be 
a Negro or Asiatic). A.sk them whether they are employers of labor, and whether 
they have had any trouble in the past on the part of the workers who have 
attempted to organize, and whether such experience has prejudiced them against 
you. Try to draw from them whether they are prejudiced against you as a 
militant worker ; whether they have read about the case, and whether their 
reading of the case has prejudiced them against you. As far as possible, try 
to get workers on the jury, — jurymen of your own class. 

Challenge for Cause 

If your examination of a juryman indicates that he is prejudiced against you, 
say to the judge that you challenge that particular juryman for "cause." The 
judge, if he agrees with you, will dismiss the juror. If he disagrees, you still 
have the right to challenge the juror "peremptorily." Simply say, "I challenge 
this juryman." In each criminal prosecution, you have a certain number of 
'peremptory challenges." This means that you can excuse and dismiss a cer- 
tain number of jurors for any reason, or for no reason whatsoever. Find out 
from the court how many such challenges you have ; if you find a juryman 
whom you think is deliberately trying to get on the jury, and yet is prejudiced 
against you, even though he refuses to admit it, do not hesitate to exercise your 
peremptory challenge. 

Trial Procedure — Witnesses 

It is also necessary to know something about the usual procedure of a trial. 
The prosecution puts in its case first. In doing this it calls various witnesses, 
who are supposed to testify concerning what they saw and heard the defendant 
do, or what took place at the time the (alleged) crime is supposed to have 
happened. 



2702 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Cross-examine the Witnesses of the Prosecution 

After the district attorney gets through questioning a witness, the defendant 
has the right to cross examine him — tliat is, to question him to prove that he 
was not telling the truth, or that he left out matters which were favorable 
to the defendant. It might be that the witness is a person not worthy of belief 
because of his connection with the complaining witness, or because he is prej- 
udiced on the issues involved in the particular struggle. Such matters must 
be brought out by tlie defendant. 

Object to Unnecessary Questions and to Hearsay Evidence 

If the witness is asked questions which you think have nothing to do with the 
case, object to the questions upon that ground. If he makes answers which 
do not reply to the questions, move to strike out the answer on the ground 
that it does, not reply to the question. If he is trying to testify concerning 
matters which he could not possibly know through his own experience, but 
which he heard somebody else say, object to the question or move to strike out 
the answer upon the ground that the witness is not suitable because he did not 
testify of his own knowledge, but that his testimony is merely hearsay. Again, 
remember that a witness should only be permitted to testify about what he saw 
or heard, only if what he saw or heard was in the presence of the defendant, 
and what he saw or heard was mhat the defendant did, and not what others did 
when the defendant teas not around. 

Move for Dismissal of Case Before Putting in Defense 

After the prosecution has finished its case ask the court to dismiss the charge 
upon the ground that the State has not made out a case against you. You 
should make this motion before you put in your defense. In criminal cases, 
remember that you are presumed to be innocent imtil you are actually found 
guilty, and it is up to the prosecution to prove your guilt beyond a reasonable 
doubt before you are required to put in any defense. If the judge denies the 
motion to dismiss the case after the prosecution has completed its case, take 
your exception. Then proceed to put in your defense. 

Your Defense 

You have the right, just as the prosecutor, to call your witnesses and to take 
the stand yourself, and to ask your witnesses what they saw and what they heard 
and what they know about the situation. Bring out those facts which will prove 
your innocence, and will prove that the prosecution witnesses are falsifying and 
not telling the truth. 

Summing Up to the Jury 

After both sides have finished, you, as well as the prosecutor, have the right 
to sum up the evidence in the case, and to point out to the jury that the evidence 
proves your innocence. 'Indicate how and why it proves that you are innocent. 
Take advantage of this opportunity, in summing up, to point out why you are 
being prosecuted, and why yon should be acquitted. This is your last opportunity 
to speak in the case, and you should prepare yourself well to bring forth all the 
main issues brought into the case. 

Exceptions 

The question of exceptions generally is important. During the course of the 
trial, whenever you object to the testimony of a witness, or any other proceed- 
ing that has happened, you get up and say, "I object to the question," giving the 
reason why you object, if you can. The judge will either overrule, or sustain 
the objection. If he sustains the objection, then it means that the question was 
improper, and should be stricken out. If he overrules the objection — which he 
usually will do — then, having an appeal in mind, you take an exception to his 
ruling. This means that you merely say, "I except," or "Exception." The 
stenographer who takes the minutes, or notes of what is done and said at the 
trial, will thereupon note in the minutes that you take an exception. This 
means that when you go on appeal, the record of the trial will show that these 
various matters (which you are pressing on appeal as errors committed in the 
trial, for which you think the conviction should be set aside), were considered by 
you to be errors, and that you pointed out to the court at the time of your trial. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2703 

Do not forget to take an "exception" whenever your object is overruled, regard- 
less of how often you find it necessary to do so. 

The Judge's Charge 

After both sides have finished the case, and you have summed up to the jury, 
the judge charges the jury. This means that lie makes a short summary of 
what the case is about and tells them what the law is on the question. Make 
sure that he tells the jury that if they find you guilty, it must be on the evidence 
beyond a reasonable doubt. If he makes any statement which you think will 
prejudice your case, take an exception after he gets through, making a note ia 
the meantime, of that portion which you think is prejudical and say "I take 
an exception to that portion of the judge's charge wherein you said so and 
so." 

Sentence and, Appeals to Higher Court 

If you are found guilty, the judge will either pass sentence upon you im- 
mediately, or will remand you, that is, order you taken to jail for some future 
date when you will be brought before him for sentence to be pronounced upon 
you. Or you may, whether or not you are already out on bail, be now released 
on bail to return on the day set for sentence. 

Immediately upon sentence, you must file notice of appeal, if this has been 
the legal advice given you. 

Take Opportunity oj Stating Why You Should Not Be Sentenced 

At the time of sentence, the judge or clerk will ask, "What have you to say 
why sentence should not be pronounced upon you?" Take advantage of this 
opportunity to state why you should not be sentenced. Point out that you are 
not guilty of the crime of which you have been found "guilty." Point out that 
your "crime" has been tliat you were fighting for your class ; that you are not 
a criminal and should not be sent to jail ; that if you are sent to jail, you will 
know that it is because of the struggle in which you were engaged, tlie fight 
for the liberation of the working class from the oppression of its masters. Also 
if, in this struggle it becomes necessary for you to go to jail, you are not afraid. 
You should also state that workers expect no justice in a capitalist court. 

Criminal Syndicalism, Anarchy and Sedition 

Definition 

Sedition laws have existed in this country since 1798. Sedition can gener- 
ally be defined as inciting resistance or opposition to the government, state or 
federal. The language of the sedition statutes does not follow any definite 
form, like the syndicalist statutes. This makes them extremely dangerous to 
the militant worker. 

The first criminal anarchy statute was passed in New York State in 1901. 
Criminal anarchy is defined as the doctrine that organized government should 
be overthrown by force and violence, or by any unlawful means. Several states 
have since copied this law. 

Criminal Syndicalism 

Criminal syndicalism was created by the States of Idaho and Minnesota in 
1917 to crush tlie growing militancy of the workers under the leadership of 
the I. W. W. At the present time, twenty-one states have criminal syndicalism 
laws. Criminal syndicalism is usually defined by the statutes as the advocating 
of crime, sabotage, or unlawful acts of force and violence as a means of accom- 
plishing a political change or a change of industrial ownership or control. 

How These Laws Work 

These laws are class laws, brazen and undisguised, forged by the capitalist 
state to suppress the struggle of the masses. They are different from all other 
capitalist criminal laws in one important respect — the worker does not have 
to commit any so-called criminal act. Spe.aking, writing, or membership in 
a militant working class organization is a crime. 

Neither is there any real difference among these three crimes. Every one 
of them is used to suppress the activities of the revolutionary worker. Tlie 



2704 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

worker must realize at the start that these three crimes are directed against 
his growing economic and political consciousness and his resistance to class 
oppression. The worker must have no illusions regarding the technical word- 
ing of these laws. The same State which makas these laws, decides what are 
"unlawful means," which phrase is found in all of these laws. Not the slightest 
faith should be had in the wording of the law. 

These laws are used most frequently during periods of "labor trouble" and 
social unrest. At the time of arrest police seldom have these statutes in mind. 
The active worker must know that any arrest may suddenly develop into an 
anarchy, syndicalist or sedition case. The circumstances of his arrest should 
not deceive him, because a charge can always be manufactured. 

Suggestions to the Worker 

Where these laws are used, the worker must be particularly careful what 
lie says, when arrested. Silence is the watchword. Here particularly the 
address of the worker arrested and of other workers must be carefully guarded. 
If literature can be found, it can form the basis for a frame-up. If the worker 
is charged with any of these crimes, he should immediately make himself 
familiar with the law, the indictment, and with the political significance of 
these charges. He must not rely upon the technical defense of the attorney 
who may be emplo.ved. The worker must study all of the facts and the major 
issues of his case, so that he himself may present them to the jury. No attorney 
can do this for him. The worker must be ready to defend himself, his activities 
and his principles. He must stand for no pussyfooting, either by the attorneys 
or other comrades, who may advise opportunistic and legalistic tactics to avoid 
the real issues. If the charge is membership in an organization, the worker 
must train himself to be ready at the trial to explain and defend the ideas and 
work of the organization. If the charge is based upon literature, the worker 
must familiarize himself with this literature and defend the doctrines contained 
in it. These are political crimes and the worker must be the spokesman for his 
fellow workers, who may be on trial with him. 

In case of mass trials, the defendants who had studied the case most care- 
fully, should assume the responsibility of presenting the class issues, on behalf 
of all of the workers. An attorney should be employed only for instruction and 
technical defenses. 

The capitalist laws theoretically grant the right of freedom of speech and 
press. These rights should be used as a weapon of the worker on trial for these 
crimes. The workers should expose the contradictions and demand that this 
right to express themselves be given to the workers, as well as to the boss class. 

Deportation 

Aliens 

An alien is a person who was not born in the United States and who has not 
become a naturalized citizen by obtaining citizenship papers. 

Deportation Not a Punishment for Crime 

Deportation is the method used by the Department of Labor to return aliens 
from the United States to their native countries when the government has de- 
clared them to be undesirable. The purpose of deportation proceedings is to send 
alien workers out of the United States and not to jails within the country 
(Deportation is a weapon of the bosses to try to weaken the strength of the 
militant working class). 

Deportation Must he Started T)ij Warrant of Arrest 

The Department of Labor has no right to arrest an alien worker in deporta- 
tion proceedings without a warrant of arrest which should be shown to him. 

If you are an alien, and an immigration inspector asks you to accompany him 
to an immigration station, you should not do so unless the inspector shows you 
a warrant of arrest issued by the Department of Labor. Do not answer the in- 
sprcfor's questions. 

If an attempt is made by an immigration inspector to arrest you without a 
warrant, you should refuse to be taken into custody. 

If an inspector attempts to search your home, he must have a search warrant 
which he must show you. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2705 

Do not permit him to search your home without first showing you his search 
warrant. Likewise, do not permit any police agent to do so without a warrant. 

If in spite of your protests, you are arrested without a warrant, you should 
immediately notify the local secretary of the International Labor Defense or a 
friend or comrade, or the local I. L. D. lawyer. 

Don't Talk When Arrested 

In any event, whether you are arrested with or without a warrant of arrest, 
do not answer any questions put to you hy the inspector, except to give your 
name. Do not give the inspector your address or place of employment, etc. In 
refusing to give your address state your reason — that you have a right to pro- 
tect yourself against an illegal raid and search of your home. Do not give him 
amy information as to the time, place or manner in which you entered th0t 
United States. 

Do not enter into any discussion with the inspector who arrests you. The 
government seldom has much information about a worker when a deportation 
proceeding starts, but usually obtains enough information when the worker 
talks freely with an inspector. In many instances the alien worker has lost his 
case by loose talking before his hearing. 

If you are in jail awaiting trial or serving sentence for a "criminal" offense, 
an immigration inspector may visit you and ask you questions about your right 
to be in the country. Don't answer his questions. 

Don't Give Information About Other Workers 

The immigration inspector may attempt to obtain information from you about 
other alien workers. Do not give him any information. 

Refuse to answer such questions as "Where did you obtain this literature?" 
"Do you know such and such an individual?" (some well known radicals), or 
*'What do you know about him?" Don't sign written statements. 

Right to Have a Laivyer 

You are entitled to be represented by a lawyer or a representative of the 
I. L. D. or your union, etc. When he comes, give him all the facts as well as any 
possible reasons that you may know for your arrest. 

Deportation Hearings are Private 

Deportation hearings are held in private. The only people present in the room 
are the commissioners, the stenographer, the alien, and the alien's lawyer. Work- 
ers are not present. The testimony is secret and is not given to the newspapers. 
Do NOT try to propagandize the government officials at such a hearing. You will 
only be talking yourself into a swift deportation. 

Party Membership 

If you are questioned concerning party or union membership, or the character 
of any organization, you should be guided by your organization's instructions. 

Naturalization 

Before applying for citizenship papers always consult your organization which 
will furnish you with additional information on this subject. 

NOTE : Foreign-born workers are being tricked into giving information to the 
Immigration Department in the following manner: Rumors are spread that if 
an alien worker registers with a government department, he will thereby be 
"safe." This is just a scheme to get workers to give infoi*mation which can be 
used as a basis for deportation. 

The police and courts are using printed forms upon which they place the 
answers given and then have it signed by the prisoner. Among these questions 
are those asking the prisoner about his citizenship and arrival in the country. 
These questionaires can then be used by the deportation authorities for further 
investigation and jailing, or deportation of the workers. Workers should abso- 
lutely refuse to answer any of these questions and refuse to sign the form after 
it is filled in. The questions appear harmless but are extremely dangerous, 
■especially in cases of alien workers. 



2706 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mass Support foe Woekees on Trial 

The previous sections dealt with the questions of workers' self-defense in. 
courts. However, a worker's self-defense in itself is not sufficient. His cause 
must be backed by his fellow-workers in the city where the trial is held, as well 
as by the workers generally. 

A most important consideration of workers' self-defense as already mentioned, 
is to use the capitalist courtroom as a forum from which the workers on trial 
can expose before their fellow toilers the true nature of the courts — as a tool 
in the bosses' economic and political oppression. 

A courtroom packed to the doors with workers during a class trial, on the 
one hand, serves for the masses of workers as a practical study of class justice 
in operation ; on the other, it strengthens the workers' case as a whole, through 
the display of solidarity of workers, in the face of the bosses' attack upon their 
militant workers and leaders. Very often a court setting has been the decisive 
feature that won the worker's case. 

However, this alone is also not enough. In the average size courtroom 200 
or 300 people may crowd in. That's not enough. A worker's case generally 
comes out of some definite struggle — strike, lockout, demonstration, hunger- 
march, etc., — involving many hundreds or thousands of workers. 

Where the I. L. D. is established, it is the first duty in the branch or the city 
committee to energetically help the union, vmemployed council and other organ- 
izations interested and involved in the definite issue, to link up the trial of the 
worker with the immediate struggle from which the case arose, as well as the 
general fight against boss-terror, through the maximum mobilization of workers' 
protests. 

In localities where there is not yet a branch of the I. L. D., other groups of 
workers must take immediate and energetic steps to arouse the sentiment of the 
local working class to carry over into the defense action the mass basis of the 
struggle that brought about the worker's arrest and thus build a mass movement 
for the freedom of the arrested worker. Out of this struggle the I. L, D. should 
also be built. 

For this purpose, preparations should be made in advance as follows : 

1. A leaflet should be issued in which should be set forth simply and briefly 
the arrest of the worker and the issue involved. 

2. The leaflet should also announce a mass meeting to protest against the 
worker's arrest. In the course of this mass meeting, into which as many workers 
as possible should be drawn, a short but vigorous resolution should be adopted 
and sent to the local ofticials and the press, and should demand the immediate 
and unconditional r( ';^ase of the arrested worker. 

3. The workers leading this fight, should visit factories, and at their gates, 
address the workers employed there, explaining to them the issues involved and 
asking for the support by a vote or protest resolution, also by contributions for 
the defense fund. 

4. When the date of the trial becomes known, a special leaflet should announce 
the date of the trial, the court, the issue involved and a call to all workers to 
attend the trial in mass. 

5. On the date of the trial, there should take place a demonstration in front of 
the court house — ^with signs demanding the immediate and unconditional release 
of the workers on trial. Similar demonstrations should be arranged for the date 
nearing the end of the trial. 

WoEKERs' Duty to Help the I, L. D. 

It is of vital importance that immediate contact be established between the 
workers involved in the struggle and the I. L. D. The nearest branch, or city 
oflice, of the I. L. D. should be at once informed about the issue. If none is 
available in the vicinity, communicate with the District Ofiice of the I. L. D. In 
the meantime the activities to arouse workers' support for the arrested worker 
should be in the name of the Provisional Committee of the I. L. D. — in that 
manner, laying the foundation for the existence of a strong branch of the I. L. D. 
in the vicinity where none has as yet been organized. Such a committee should 
be composed of responsible representatives of other organizations, such as the 
Trade tlnion Unity League, etc. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2707 

The mass organization such as a union, an unemployed council, etc., which led 
the mass activity, out of which the arrest arose, must take a leading part in the 
whole matter of defense of the arrested worker. This means mass protest, rais- 
ing of funds, securing bail, contact with prisoners and witnesses, etc. This 
organization must closely cooperate with the I. L. D. in order to arouse the 
greatest possible mass protests of the workers against the bosses' attack. 

We must never forget that when the bosses attack and persecute one worker, 
they attack the entire working class, and it is the duty of all workers to fight 
against such an attack with all their might. It is the duty of all workers, espe- 
cially of class struggle organizations, to help the defendants, prisoners and their 
families by energetically helping and cooperating with the I. L. D. 

SeLF-DeFENSE Is THE BEST DEFENSE FOR THE WOKKEBS 

The most successful defenses in prosecutions of workers are often those which 
they themselves make. Most lawyers have to be paid to defend labor cases, 
and they usually will look upon their work in only a legal, technical, professional 
manner. Defendants trying their own cases bring in the spirit and enthusiasm, 
which dramatize the situation as lawyers very often fail to do. You may not be 
able to use the long words and fancy phrases that he does. But a worker who 
understands clearly the issues involved can state them best in his own simple 
language. The jurymen, especially if you are successful in getting some workers 
on the jury, will appreciate and understand you, provided you yourself are clear 
as to what you want to say. Such jurymen will appreciate your courage and the 
earnestness of your convictions, which will often react in your favor. 



2708 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 



wmmmmmemnwmmmmmmnamvamuBm 



USSSSmm 



LABOR 0EFEMPEE 

Support the X>tiYe for 5,000 Hew Subscribers 



AJRE YOU A nW^GRO WORKER r 
ARE YOU NATB'E BORNr 
ARE YOU FOEEIGH BORN? 
ARE YOU A WHITS WORICF.FJ 



► 



fights eq»ii^ fur 
y^m dot! 

Bght tynch Isw md Bm$ Ttrrer by Building the 

S«l>acr«l» Y<»at»cill -Set BuswII* Owkwl 



INTEEHATIOHAL LABOR DEFENSE 
80 Zmt ink Sfer€*t, K&tm 4Ja, N«w Yoi^ C**y 

/ tmftt m mheriiti to ih^ l^hbr Defender, J am tttchshfg *1 

f&r a y^ar ^'-^^r $Qe lar a Matf yt&r. 




INTERMATiOMAL LABOR DEFEND, 
80 E. ! 1^ St., H. T, C, Room 4>0. 
I want to |«»a tli« I.tJt>. auyi l«!j 

cbu» war pm/6smm* £»c!d»e4 &emI my 

$ . , .'.,,.. tp 

Mji? Kwrjifcp ..,......,..,«..-,,.. 

Addrm* '..,.... 

City md Maie ■...,.. 






wiVjiwu.iiMwiiwww II «iww4wwiy«w»w<wwwiwwfr rii>ii 



<>wwww<!y»^ywi»wwMpwjW 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 2709 



Have You Read Enough 
About the Working Class 



You Agree You Have Not 
Then Read 

1. SPYING OH WORKERS, hy Robi. W, Dunn lOc 

2. THE AMERICAN NEGRO, .I'y |. S. Atten !0c 

3. MOPR'S (tL.D.) BANNERS ABROAD, by 

Helen S$min>a 5c 

4. SCOTTSBORO, ALA., ky Pant Peters 2c 

5. THE FRAME-UP SYSTEM, by y«m SmUh lOc 
<J. WAR IN THE FAR EASTf by Mmry HMl 10c 
7, THE PARIS COMMUNE— A STORY IN PIC 

TURES, by WtUiiim Siegel 10c 

«. THE CHINESE SOVIETS, by Jfam^s and 

Doenping 10c 

9, UNDER ARREST -~~ WORSLERS» SEEF-DE- 

FENSE 5c 

hx qtoMatit^ 20% xtdivicttosu 

Write t& the 

LABOil DEFENBEIt 

«« EAST Il«l» STREET ROOM 430 

Ntw Y<mK cirr 



BOSTON PUBI 




rf a^flflsa 0544& 




t 



BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY 

'illililillilllll 
3 9999 05445 3996