(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"

rF 



-E_ 






i^^A^.rm 




^ 



'K 



Given By 



.t7.S,SUPT 



T"-ir>'~"T7T> ^T-iX T'-r\r 



COMMUNIST ACTIVITIES AMONG PROFESSIONAL 
GROUPS IN THE LOS ANGELES AREA-PART 3 



HEARING 



BEFORE THE 



COMMITTEE ON UN-AMEEICAN ACTIVITIES 
Cc.^. ess, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 



EIGHTY-SECOND CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 



SEPTEMBER 30, OCTOBER 1 AND 2, 1952 



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




UNITED STATES 
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
95008 WASHINGTON : 1952 



f tJL/A 



COMMITTEE OX UX-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES 

United States House of Representatives 

JOHN S. WOOD, Georgia, Chairman 
FRANCIS E. WALTER, Pennsylvania HAROLD H. VELDB, Illinois 

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

CLYDE DOYLE, California DONALD L. JACKSON, California 

JAMES B. FRAZIER, Jb., Tennessee CHARLES E. POTTER. Michigan 

Frank S. Tavexner, Jr., Counsel 

Louis J. Russell, Senior Investigator 

John W. Carhington, Clerk of Committee 

RArHAEL I. Nixon, Director of Research 

II 



CONTENTS 



September 30, 1952: Page^ 

Testimony of — 

FredH . Steinmetz . 3903 

Pauline Epstein 391S 

Mathew ^l. Richman 3930' 

Ben Margolis 3939 

Esther Shandler 3947 

John Walcott Porter 3950 

October 1, 1952: 

Testimony of — 

Grover Johnson 3969 

George T. Altman 3974 

Spencer Austrian 3975 

Robert D. Katz 3983 

WiUiam B. Esterman 3986 

Charles J. Katz 3991 

Sam Houston Allen 3994 

Richard L. Rvkoff 3998 

Fred Al. Snider 4001 

Laurence R. Sperber 4005 

Rose S. Rosenberg 4009 

Jack Tenner 4013 

William M. Samuels 4018 

Aubrey Finn 4023 

J. Allan Frankel 4024 

Victor E. Kaplan 403 1 

Seymour Mandel 4033 

Frank S. Pestana 4035 

October 2, 1952: 

Testimony of — 

Dr. Oscar Mehille Elkins , 4040 

Dr. Bertram L. Roberts 4046 

Edwin Ho\yard Dayis 4049 

Dr. Frederick G. Reynolds 4053 

Dr. Benjamin M. Lieberman 4055 

Dr. Jacob S. Druckman 4056 

Dr. Thomas L. Perry, Jr 4062 

Dr. Gordon Rosenblum 4069 

Owen Vinson 4072 

Paul Marion 409 1 

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES 

Allen, Sam Houston 3994 

Altman, George T 3974 

Austrian, Spencer 3975 

Dayis, Edwin Howard 4049 

Druckman, Dr. Jacob S 4056 

Elkins, Dr. Oscar Melyille 4040 

Epstein, Pauline 391 8 

Esterman, William B 3986 

Finn, Aubrey 4023 

Frankel, J. Allan 4024 

Johnson, Grover 3969 

Kaplan, Victor E 4031 

Katz, Charles J 399 1 

111 



rv CONTENTS 

Page 

Katz, Robert D 3983 

Lieberman, Dr. Benjamin M 4055 

Mandel, Sevmour 4033 

Margolis, Ben 3939 

Marion, Paul 4091 

Perry, Dr. 'J homas L., Jr 4062 

Pestana, Frank S 4035 

Porter, John Walcott 3950 

Reynolds, Dr. Frederick G 4053 

Richman, Mathew M 3930 

Roberts, Dr. Bertram L 4046 

Rosenberg, Rose S 4009 

Rosenblum, Dr. Gordon 4069 

RykofF, Richard L 3998 

Samuels, William M 4018 

Shandler, Esther : 3947 

Snider, Fred M . 4001 

Sperber, Laurence R 4005 

Steinmetz, Fred H 3903 

Tenner, Jack 4013 

Vinson, Owen 4072 



COMMUNIST ACTIVITIES AMONG PEOFESSIONAL GEOUPS 
IN THE LOS ANGELES AREA— PAKT 3 



TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 1952 

United States House of Representatives, 

Subcommittee of the Committee 

ON Un-American Activities, 

Los Angeles^ Calif. 

PUBLIC hearing 

A subcommittee of the Committee on Un-American Activities met, 
pursuant to recess, at 10 a. m., in room 518 Federal Building, Hon. 
John S. Wood (chairman) presiding. 

Committee members present: Representatives John S. Wood (chair- 
man), Francis E. Walter, Morgan M. Moulder, Clyde Doyle, James 
B. Frazier, Jr., Harold H. Velde, and Donald L. Jackson. 

Staff members present: Frank S. Tavenner, Jr., counsel; Thomas 
W. Beale, Sr., assistant counsel; Louis J. Russell, senior investigator; 
William A. Wlieeler and Charles E. McKillips, investigators; and 
John AV. Carrington, clerk. 

Mr. Wood. Let's have order, please. In case there are persons pres- 
ent who were not here on yesterday, I desire to repeat this announce- 
ment, that there will be no demonstration of any character in this 
room during the process of these investigations, and the officials have 
requested that the audience refrain from smoking in the room. Please 
observe these precautions. 

(The following statement, made by the chairman on the preceding 
day, September 29, 1952, at which time the witness testified on Com- 
munist infiltration of the Hollywood motion-picture industry, has 
been ordered inserted at this point as being applicable to this day's 
proceedings:) 

Mr. Reporter, please let the record show that, acting under the 
authority of the resolution establishing the House Committee on 
Un-American Activities of the Seventy-ninth Congress of the United 
States. I have set up a subcommittee for the purpose of conducting 
hearings beginning in Los Angeles today and composed of the follow- 
ing members : Representatives Francis E. Walter, Morgan M. Moulder, 
Clyde Doyle. James B. Frazier, Jr., Harold H. Velde, and Donald L. 
Jackson, and myself, John S. Wood, as the chairman. 

In this connection, I desire personally to express my very deep 
appreciation to these members of tliis committee who have left their 
respective districts in this election year where the general election is 
so near at hand to come here and aid in the discharge of this very 
important task and responsibility tlie Congress of tlie United States 
has placed upon us. 

3899 



3900 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

I feel that I bespeak the sentiments of the law-abiding American 
citizens of this community. 

During the course of the hearings conducted by a subcommittee of 
the Committee on Un-American Activities of the House of Repre- 
sentatives a little more than a year ago in this room, Mr. Harold Ashe, 
who has been downtown section organizer of the Communist Party in 
Los Angeles and a State chairman of the State Central Committee of 
the Communist Party, testified that he convinced the Communist 
Party that a professional unit of the party should be organized in 
Los Angeles. Mr. Ashe, according to his testimony, organized the 
Communist Party unit known as "The One Hundred," from which 
another Communist Party unit, designated "The One Hundred Fifty," 
was formed. 

The members of various ])i'ofessions were recruited into these pro- 
fessional units of the Communist Party on the basis that their identity 
would not be exposed. One of the purposes of this hearing is to 
ascertain whether this organizational work begun by Mr. Ashe has 
developed into an organized effort on the part of the Communist Party 
to establish Communist Party cells within various professions in the 
Los Angeles area, the extent and nature of such alleged Communist 
Party penetration into the various professions, and the purpose and 
objectives of the Communist Party in such alleged activities. 

(End of statement.) 

Mr. Wood. Call your next witness, counsel. 

Mr. Ta\t:nner. Is Mr. John Porter present ? 

Mr. Marshall. Mr. Porter is not present. Mr. Porter is engaged 
in trial in department 19 of the superior court of this county, which is 
just two blocks away. Being unaware of the precise order in which the 
witnesses would be called and being engaged in trial, he has asked me 
to advise the committee that he will be through today and will be 
available. 

Mr. Tavenner. Tlie subpena reads that the witness was subpenaed 
for 10 o'clock. This is the first notice that I have had of any desire 
for continuance or postponement. 

Mr. Marshall. No request for a continuance could have been made, 
because we were uncertain as to whether or not Mr. Porter would be 
called. 

Mr. Tavenner. The subpena required him to be here at 10 o'clock. 
There is no uncertainty about that. 

Mr. JVIarsitall. There is no uncertainty about that, but by reason 
of the fact that he is a lawyer engaged in practice and is actually 
engaged in trial, that is the situation. 

Mr. Walter. When was his case attached ? 

Mr. Marshall. You mean when did the trial commence? 

Mr. Waltor. Yes. 

Mr. MarrhatJv. The trial commenced either Thursday or Friday of 
last week, and he expected to be through on ^Monday, but because of a 
certain holiday the case was continued over the holiday until this 
morning. 

Mr. Ta\t.nner. Will counsel state his name, please? 

Mr. Marshaix. My name is Daniel G. IVfarshall. 

Mr. Doyle. Is it a jury trial or court trial? What court is it in, 
please? 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 3901 

Mr. Marshall. Department 19. 

Mr. Doyle. Before what judge? 

Mr, Marshall. Judge Thomas Cunningham. 

Mr. Doyle. Do you have any definite word of when the trial will 
finish? 

Mr. Marshall. Sometime during the day. 

Mr. Wood. In view of the statement of counsel, Avhile it is not a 
good showing for a postponement of the testimony of this witness, 
how^ever, if it doesn't interrupt this program that counsel has outlined, 
I personally feel that some indulgence should be extended to him until 
he can finish this trial today, if it is just today, because we will be here 
longer than today. 

Mr. Tavexner. I would like, Mr. Chairman, if possible, to have a 
definite understanding about it as to when the trial of that case is 
expected to be concluded. I understood him to say at noon today. 

Mr. Marshall. At sometime during the da}- was the word that Mr. 
Porter gaA'e me. Now, I can be in contact with him at noontime to 
find out just what the situation is. 

Mr. Tavexner. Mr. Chairman, I suggest that immediately upon the 
conclusion of that trial that the witness report here to the committee 
and we then determine when he shall appear as a witness. 

Mr. Wood. Will that be satisfactory? 

Mr. Marshall. That will be satisfactory. He is to report here at 
the conclusion of that trial. 

Mr. Wood. Yes, and not later than today. 

Mr. MarshalTj. Not later than this afternoon. 

Mr. ^YooD. Yes. 

Mr. Marshall. Thank you. 

Mr. Tavexner. INIr. Fred Steinmetz. 

Mr. Wood. Is Fred Steinmetz in the hearing room? 

Mr. Kex'xy. I might say that Mr. Marshall and I are representing 
Mr. Steinmetz, and he may have had some confusion, thinking it was 
tomorrow. However, we will check his office and see where he is. 

Mr. Wood. Mny I inc{uire, Mr. Counsel, if the witness has been 
subpenaed? 

Mr. Tavexx^er. Yes, sir; the witness was subpenaed, just as the 
other witness was, for 10 o'clock this morning. 

Mr. Wood. ]\Ir. Counsel, if you have evidence of the fact that he 
has been subpenaed. tlie record should be completed to that effect. 

Mr. Tavexxer. Will you bear with me just a moment ? 

Mr. Marshall. With respect to the witness Steinmetz, I have just 
telephoned his office and they advise me that he left there at 9 : 30 for 
this committee hearing. I have looked for him out in the hall. I 
don't see him. 

Mr. Tavexxer. Well, if he left at 9 : 30, would he have had time to 
be here by this time ? 

Mr. Marshall. It might be a rather close fit with traffic, and so 
forth. The office is in Hollywood. Parking is rather scarce around 
today. 

Mr. Wood. Counsel, of course it will be appreciated that the com- 
niittee is without authority to act with regard to these witnesses until 
it is in the record that they have been subpenaed to appear here, and 



3902 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

that is why I suggested that if you are in position to put forward the 
proof that a subpena has been issued to them, that you do so. 

As to ]Mr. Steinmetz, I assume that there is no controversy, because 
they say lie has been subpenaed and is on his way. 

Mr. Tavenner. We are not in position to do that at this moment, 
for the reason that the subpena issued w^as for an earlier date. We 
have that subpena with the return on it. When the hearing was con- 
tinued, telegrams were sent to these individuals, and we do not have 
copies of those telegrams present in the room with us. That is why 
I was asking for a little time to see if we had them. 

Mr. Wood. Is it the desire of counsel that we take a recess until such 
time as the}^ can be produced ? 

Mr. Tavenner. No, sir. I wouldn't want to hold up the proceedings 
for that, but I do suggest that we wait a few minutes to see if Mr. 
Steinmetz Avould arrive, which would conclude this matter if he did 
arrive, I assume. 

Mr. Kenny. I have a suggestion. Mr. Marshall and I represent Mr. 
Steinmetz and others, and we do have a motion to quash his subpena, 
as well as the subpenas of other lawyer witnesses who have been 
subpenaed here. 

Mr. Wood. May I suggest, counsel, that you identify yourself for 
the record? 

Mr. Kenny. My name is Robert W. Kenny. It might give the com- 
mittee something to consider while Mr. Steinmetz is making his way 
through traffic. Mr. Marshall and I are ready. We have copies of 
the motion ready for each member of the committee. 

Mv. Wood. Would you present them ? 

Mr, Neusom. Before that is done, I am also appearing as attorney 
for some of the witnesses, and I have joined in the motion to quash. 
My name is Thomas G. Neusom. 

Mr. Kenny. Laurence R. Sperber is the fourth attorney who is 
associated in this motion. 

j\Ir. Sperber. I am Mr. Sperber. 

Mr. Wood. The motion is embodied in the writing? 

Mr. Kenny. It is. I could summarize it, or perhaps the committee 
wants to look through it first. 

Mr. Wood. The committee will stand in recess for 10 minutes while 
it considers the motion. 

(Short recess was taken.) 

Mr. Wood. I will file a copy of the motion with the reporter for 
inclusion in the record, the motion to quash the subpenas that have 
been presented to the committee. 

The committee, after consideration of the motion to quash, has 
unanimously directed that I inform counsel that the motion is over- 
ruled. 

^Vlio do you have, Mr. Tavenner ? 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Fred Steinmetz. 

Mr. Wood. Do you solemnly swear that the evidence that you will 
give this subcommittee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 
but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Steinmetz. I do. 

Mr. Wood. Be seated, please. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 3903 

TESTIMONY OF FRED H. STEINMETZ, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUN- 
SEL, ROBERT W. KENNY, DANIEL G. MARSHALL, THOMAS G. 
NEUSOM, AND LAURENCE R. SPERBER 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you represented by counsel, Mr. Steinmetz? 

Mr. Steinmetz. Yes ; I am. 

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

Mr. Kenny. I think we have already done that. That is, it is 
myself, Mr. Robert W. Kenny, Mr. ^Marshall, Mr. Xeusom, and Mr. 
Sperber. We appear as counsel for Mr. Steinmetz. 

Mr. Taa^enner. When and where were you born, Mr. Steinmetz ? 

Mr. Steinmetz. I Avas born in Los Angeles in 1909. 

Mr. Tavenner. Where do you live ? 

Mr. Steinmetz. In Los Angeles. 

Mr. Taa^nner. AVhat is your profession ? 

Mr. Steinmetz. I am an attorney. 

Mr. Tavenner. IIow long have you practiced your profession in 
Los Angeles? 

Mr. Steinmetz. Since 1940. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you state briefly to the committee what your 
educational training or preparation has been for the practice of your 
l^rof ession ? 

Mr. Steinmetz. Well, I attended high school and college. I 
received my bachelor of arts degree from the University of California 
at Berkeley. Thereafter I received my bachelor of laws degree from 
the University of California at Berkeley. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Steinmetz, when the first lawyer was called 
to testify in ])ublic session before this committee in January of this 
year with regard to his knowledge of the existence of the Communist 
Party cells made up exclusively of the legal profession in the Los 
Angeles area, three matters were specifically pointed out to him. 

I desire now to repeat those matters so that you yourself may be 
clear on the subject. 

It was pointed out to him that in interrogating him there was no 
intention of asking him any questions which would violate the confi- 
dential relationship of counsel and client. 

It was also pointed out to him that the right and duty of a lawyer 
to represent his client and the reciprocal privilege of a client to 
employ the lawyer of his choice were not involved in the proceedings 
and no questions would be asked the witness regarding such matters. 

And, third, that the Congress of the United States in placing upon 
this committee the duty of investigating the extent, character, and 
objects of un-American activities in the United States, the diffusion 
within the United States of subversive and un-American propaganda 
emanating from abroad or arising in this country and which attacks 
the principles of the form of government guaranteed by our Consti- 
tution, and all other questions relating thereto that would aid Con- 
gress in any necessary remedial legislation, has not exempted law- 
yers from the scope of its inquiry. 

In addition to making these things clear to you, I want to state that 
neither you nor any of the other lawyers who have been subpenaed 
as witnesses at this hearing have been subpenaed because you or they 



3904 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

have appeared as counsel for any witness who has been subpenaed be- 
fore this committee. 

In fact, it is not believed that more than two lawyers who have 
been subpenaed before these hearings has at any time appeared be- 
fore this committee as counsel for a witness, and I think only one of 
those since I have been connected with the committee, which has been 
for a period of more than 3 years. 

You have been subpenaed as a witness because the committee has 
sworn testimony that you have knowledge concerning the subject of 
this inquiry. 

Now, that sworn testimony will be found in the printed record of 
the committee and consists of the testimony of Mr. David Aaron, who 
w^as an attorney practicing law in the city of Los Angeles; a witness 
by the name of Albert M. Herzig, who was also a practicing lawyer 
in this area; Mr. A. Marburg Yerkes, also a practicing lawyer here; 
and Mr. William G. Israel, also a practicing lawyer. 

I think I should refer, before asking yoii specihc questions, to the 
testimony of Mr, Aaron, who appeared before the committee in Jan- 
uary of this year. Mr. Aaron testified as to how membership in the 
Communist Party was solicited by lawyers in the city of Los Angeles, 
how he joined a cell of the Communist Party made up exclusively of 
members of the legal profession ; that this cell had a name called the 
Engels Club. 

Mr. Aaron testified that, after having had explained to him the 
testimony of Mr. Ashe regarding this original decision to organize 
cells within the professions, they were instructed not to advise any 
pereon, even though they knew that person to be a member of the 
Communist Party, that they were members. In other words, that 
there was a certain character of secrecy regarding membership in 
the professions that did not exist within the Communist Party gen- 
erally. In fact, this is his exact testimony on that : 

I asked him this question : 

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 Communist Party, 
we weren't even supposed to admit to them that we belonged to it. Nobody was 
supposed to know that. 

Mr. Kenny. Mr. Tavenner, we have the record here, and it would 
be helpful if you would give us the record reference. 

Mr. Tavenner. Page 2513.^ 

Mr. Aaron also testified regarding the Communist Party literature 
which he studied and which was given to him to study in his Com- 
munist Party cell, made up exclusively of members of the legal pro- 
fession, which appears on page 2515.- 

He was asked this question : 

AVhat was the character of this literature which you discussed? 

Mr. Aaron. Well, we were told to read books on the Connnunist 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 got 
too involved for me. 



^ romninnist Activities amonff Professional Groups in the Los Angeles Area, pt. 1, p. 2513. 
= Ibid. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 3905 

Question. Yoii referred to Political Affairs, I believe? 
Mr. Aaron. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Aaron then went on to describe his activity within the Coni- 
nuinist Party and the circumstances under which he left it. During 
the course of the testimony, page 2518/ he identified you as one of 
the members of this group or cell of the Comnuniist Party. You were 
also identified by Mr. Herzig as having been a member of this same 
group or cell. You were also identified by Mr. A. Marburg Yerkes 
and also by Mr. William G. Israel. 

Now, that testimony being correct, you are in position to advise 
this connnittee regarding the manner of formation of this organiza- 
tion, the extent of its operations and its objectives, and I would like 
to call upon you to do tliat. 

Mr. Stoinmetz. Well, Mr. Tavenner, first of all, 1 would like to 
refer to that portion of your statement wherein you referred to hav- 
ing previously stated eitlier to a witness or to someone that it wasn't 
the intention "of this committee to interfere with the lawyer-client re- 
lationship. 

Now, I recognize that that was either you or a member of this com- 
mittee stating that or making that statement. I just want to say that 
in my opinion there isn't the slightest possibility that that is true. I 
think that is the very intention of this committee, to interfere with the 
freedom of choice of the American people of a lawyer of their own 
choosing, despite what you said to that witness, Mr. Tavenner. I 
think that is the exact purpose of this committee in calling lawyers 
to the stand. 

I think it is the intention of this committee in the future to give 
lawyers pause before they take cases to caref itlly examine their clients 
and, if they happen to have unpopular views, to refuse to take them 
because of fear of this committee, because of fear of an inquisition 
into their associations and their political thoughts. 

Mr. WoDD. Well, the question asked you doesn't call for a summa- 
tion of your present beliefs on the subject. The question asked you 
is whether or not you are willing now to give the committee the bene- 
fit of what information you have on the subject that this committee 
is now engaged in investigating, and that is the extent, nature, and 
character, and objective of the Communist movement in this area. 

Are you willing to do so or not? 

Mr. Steinmetz. Well, now, in view of my beliefs regarding the 
purposes of this committee and my training as a lawyer, my training 
in the field of constitutional law 

Mr. Tavenner. We can't quite hear you. 

Mr. Steinmetz. I say in view of my feelings and beliefs concern- 
ing the intent of this committee, and in view of my training as a 
lawyer, especially in the field of constitutional law and the rights 
guaranteed to the American people under the Bill of Rights, I cer- 
tainly feel that my conscience compels me not to enter into any activ- 
ity or to say anything which in any way would help this committee 
in what I conceive to be its purpose: That of destroying the liberties 
of the American people. For that reason, my conscience compels 
me to decline to answer that question, both on the ground that to 
do so Avould make me a participant in undermining the guaranties 

1 Ibid. 



3906 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

contained in the first amendment to the United States Constitution 
as well as to undermine the privileges accorded me and all the other 
American people by the fifth amendment to the Constitution of the 
United States. 

I therefore, because I feel compelled by my conscience to do so, 
decline to answer. 

Mr. Tavenner. Is that your only reason for declining to answer? 

Mr. Steinmetz. For all of the reasons I have just stated. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the witness be di- 
rected to answer the question as to what knowledge he has of the 
Communist Party cell made uj) exclusively of lawyers in Los Angeles. 

Mr. Wood. It is the view of the chairman that the reasons offered 
by the witness as his justification for refusing to answer are not valid 
reasons. It would be a rather sad commentary if a lawyer of the 
bar of this Nation was to be singled out as a group with special 
privileges over and above and against other citizens. 

I direct that the witness answer the question. 

Mr. Moulder. May I interpose a suggestion? The question was 
would he be willing to answer such questions and such questions 
haven't been propounded to the witness. 

]Mr. Tavenner. I believe the question should be more specific. 

Mr. Wood. Very well. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Steinmetz, do you have any knowledge of the 
existence of a Communist Party cell made up exclusively of members 
of the legal profession in the city of Los Angeles ? 

Mr. Steinmetz. For the reasons which I just advanced to the 
previous somewhat ambiguous question, I decline to answer. I want 
to make it clear in declining to answer that I am standing upon my 
constitutional rights, including the rights accorded me under the 
fifth amendment not to incriminate myself. 

Mr. Tavenner. You have now mentioned the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Steinmetz. I thought I had before, Mr. Tavenner. I believe 
the record will show that I did. 

Mr. Tavenner. I am told that you did. I had not understood it. 

Mr. Steinmetz. I also mentioned the first amendment. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was the testimony of Mr. Aaron with regard to 
your own membership in that group true or false ? 

Mr. Steinmetz. For the same reasons previously given, I decline 
to answer that question. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was the tep^imony of William G. Israel, A. Mar- 
burg Yerkes, and Albert M. Hi^rzig, identifying you as a member of 
this Communist Party j^ioup made up exclusively of members of the 
legal profession in Lot Angeles, true or false ? 

Mr. Steinmetz. For the same reasons, I decline to answer that. 

Mr. Tavenner. Then, having determined that you will not testify 
regarding those matters, I would like to ask you whether or not you 
were properly quoted and correctly quoted in an issue of the Los 
Angeles Examiner published on January 24, 1952, at which time ,you 
were reported as saying in comment upon the testimony received in 
Washington from Mr. Aaron and others [reading] : 

That's interesting. Tliis tiling will undoubtedly be followed by some attempt 
to intimidate me. If that happens, I shall have counsel and then will l)e glad 
to give a statement. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 3907 

Were you properly and correctly quoted ? 

Mr. Steinmetz. That was quite sometime ago, Mr. Tavenner. Ac- 
cording to my recollection, I think it is substantially a correct quota- 
tion. 

Mr. Tavenner. Well, in making that statement that you would be 
glad to give a statement, did you mean you would be glad to give a 
statement as to what you know about the subject under inquiry^ 

Mr. Steinmetz. Well, among other things, Mr. Tavenner, in a 
proper forum, where I wasn't confronted with what I consider to be 
a table including some 8 or 10 persons, all of whom I consider to be 
intent upon destroying my liberties and with mine, those of the other 
American people. I think I would be glad to make statements, not one 
but many. However — and I would today make the same statement, in 
substance, that I made at that time, but I don't believe that I care to 
make any further statements at this time. 

Mr. Jackson. May I ask a question^ Would you, Mr. Steinmetz, 
before what you call "a proper forum," under oath testify that you 
were never a member of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Steinmetz. Well, I think, Mr. Jackson, I will reserve my de- 
cision on that until the occasion arises, if you don't mind. 

Mr. Walter. What would you consider the "proper forum"; a 
Communist Party cell meeting^ 

Mr. Steinmetz. AVell, because of the nature of the question, Mr. 
Chairman, I think I Avill decline to answer that question for the rea- 
sons previously given. 

Mr. Wood. Do you so decline? 

Mr. Steinmetz. I thought I said I did. 

Mr. Wood. You said you "thought" you would. 

Mr. Steinmetz. Very well. I feel compelled by my conscience to 
decline, and I will decline. 

Mr. Wood. Do you decline to answer it for that reason, for the rea- 
sons you have given? 

Mr. Steinmetz. Yes, because my conscience compels me to, I do 
decline. 

Mr. Ta-s-exner. Is that the only reason that you refuse to answer 
that question ? 

Mr. Steinmetz. For the reasons previously given, Mr. Tavenner. 

Mr. Tavenner. State the reasons. It looks like you are not coming 
to the point. 

Mr. Steinmetz. My rights under the first amendment to have free- 
dom of speech and freedom of thought, and my rights under the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. Walter. In other words, you decline to answer it because you 
feel to answer it might incriminate you in some future proceedings; is 
that right ? 

Mr. Steinmetz. Or tend to subject me even to an unwarranted 
prosecution, Mr. Wood, is my understanding of the fifth amendment. 
I'm sorry, I mean Mr. Walter. 

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

Mr. Steinmetz. For the same reasons previously given 

Mr. Tavenner. AYliat reasons? 

Mr. Steinmetz. Well, as I stated before, I feel that the activities of 
the committee, and particularly that question which you have just 



3908 COMMUN^ISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

asked me, is a constitutional invasion of my rights as an American 
citizen under the first amendment of the United States Constitution. 
That is ])art of my reason. 

The second part of my reason is that I feel that in answering that 
question it amounts to a surrendering of my rights under the fifth 
amendment of the United States Constitution. 

Mr. Tavenner. I ask that he be directed to answer the question. 

Mr. Wood. I am not sure I get the answer clearly. Anyway, the 
question that was asked you is pertinent to this inquiry, and you are 
directed to answer the question. 

Mr. Steinmetz. Well, again, I say that I feel compelled by my con- 
science and therefore do decline to answer that question on the basis of 
the constitutional privileges which I have stated previously, including 
my rights not to incriminate myself and give evidence which might 
incriminate myself or subject me to a prosecution, however unwar- 
ranted, and under my rights under the first amendment to have free- 
dom of speech. 

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

Mr. Steinmetz. For the same reason, I decline to answer that ques- 
tion. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Steinmetz, during the testimony of Mr. Aaron 
and others, it was indicated that members of this Communist Party 
cell took part in other activities in the community, and that has been 
true in regard to the testimony with reference to many Communist 
Party cells in other phases of activity. 

Now, we have information that your name appeared in connection 
with a nmnber of activities, and it is the desire of the committee to 
know and understand to what extent those activities originated within 
the Communist Party or resulted from dii'ection and suggestion of the 
Communist Party. 

I show you a page from the November 2, lO-tO, issue of the Long 
Beach Independent. It is a full-page advertisement of the Civil 
Rights Congress, demanding dismissal of certain contempt charges as 
well as what is referred to as a witch-hunt grand jury. 

Will you please look at it and state whether or not your name ap- 
pears there as one of the signers ? 

Mr. Steinmetz. Well, may I have the question reread, please, just 
the last part of it? 

Mr. Tavenner. My question was whether or not your name appears 
on that document as one of the signers. 

Mr. Steinmetz. In m^^ looking at that document, Mr. Tavenner, I 
gather that it refers in some way to the protection of civil rights. My 
understanding of the activities and the philosophy governing this 
committee is such that anything having to do with the field of civil 
rights would be subject to inquisition and punishment to the ex- 
tent 

Mr. Wood. Please confine your answer to the question. 

Mr. Steinmetz. May I not explain my answer? 

Mr. Wood. The question asked you first is does your name appear 
on that document ? That is a very simple question. 

Mr. Steinmetz. I understand that, but I thought I would be per- 
mitted to explain it. I will now answer the question. I feel that for 
those reasons and for the constitutional reasons which I have hereto- 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 3909 

fore advanced in declinino- to answer other questions, I do decline to 
answer this question. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you advise the committee as to how your name 
became used in that connection, whether you permitted it to be used, 
and if so, tlie circumstances under which the use of your name was 
obtained ? 

Mr. Steixmetz. Same answer to that question. 

Mr. Tavenner. I desire to offer the document in evidence and ask 
that it be marked "Steinmetz Exhibit No. 1." 

Mr. Wood. Let it be marked. 

(The document above referred to was marked "'Steinmetz Exhibit 

No. 1.") 

Mr. Tavenner. The Civil Rights Congress issued a call to a Bill of 
Rights conference to be held in New York City July 16 and 17, 1949. 
Did you sponsor that call f Were you one of the sponsors ? 

Mr. Steinmetz. For the same reasons heretofore given, I decline 
to answer that. 

Mr. Tavenner. The Daily Worker of August 10, 1950, at page 5, 
carries a news item regarding an open letter to the President of the 
United States, released by the American Committee for Protection of 
the Foreign Born, signed by a number of persons who declare their 
concein over the announcement by the Department of Justice that it 
would seek denaturalization of a number of American citizens. 

Your name appeal's in the article as one having signed this open 
letter. Will you examine it, please, and state if your name appears as 
one of the signers ? 

Mr. Steinmetz. AVell, Mr. Tavenner, while I have no doubt that in 
these times, with concentration camps I understand being built in the 
State of California to house hundreds of thousands of people whose 
views this committee does not like, that the foreign born need pro- 
tection. 

]\Ir. Walter. Just a minute, in that connection. Let me tell you 
that those places are being built to house approximately 2,800 people 
who have been convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude and for 
Avhom it is impossible to obtain passports from the countries from 
whence they came. It is not hundreds of thousands. It is about 2,773. 

Mr. Steinmetz. I saw a newspaper account, at least, by officials 
of our Government to the effect that they were capable of housing 
hundreds of thousands, and I will be glad to 

Mr. Walit:r. You just take my word for it. I happen to be the 
chairman of the Immigration Committee, and I know what this is 
all about. 

Mr. Wood. In any event, let's confine our discussions to answers 
to the questions that are asked, and we will proceed a lot faster. 

Mr. Taa^nner. Now, will you answer the question, please ? 

Mr. Wood. The question is. Does your name appear on this paper? 

Mr. Steinmetz. For the reasons heretofore given, while I feel this 
way about the need for protection 

Mr. Wood. Answer the question. 

Mr. Steinmetz. I decline for the constitutional reasons heretofore 



given 



Mr. Tavenner. Well, do you believe that persons who have ob- 
tained citizenship by fraud should not be in a proper case denatu- 
ralized ? 



3910 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. Steinmetz. I believe that a person's political tliouglits, liis 
associations, his exercise of his rights of speech in this country should 
in no wise be made a test as to whether he is or is not a desirable resi- 
dent of the United States. Our country was founded, in my opinion, 
as a haven of the oppressed, and I believe we are fast losing that 
under the impetus given to this hysteria by this committee. I do 
believe that 

Mr. Walter. Do 3'ou know of a single case where a court has re- 
voked the citizenship of a person because of his political beliefs if 
they were not communistic ? 

Mr. Steinmetz. I think by the standards of this committee and 
because of the entire atmosphere surrounding this hearing, I feel that 
1 should and do decline to answer that question for the constitutional 
I'easons heretofore given. 

Mr. Walter. What criminal ])rosecution*do you feel that you are 
confronted with if you are asked to answer the question of whether 
(u* not you know of a single case where a person other than a Com- 
munist has had his citizenship revoked ? How do you think you could 
be prosecuted for answering that question '. 

Mr. Steinmetz. Mr. Walter, I believe vou are a lawyer, are you 
not ? 

Mr. AValter. You have a look at Who's Who and you'll find out. 

Mr. Steixmetz. I think you are. I think that you must know, 
therefore, that if I claimed my constitutional privileges in answer- 
ing the first question, that to answer the second question now would 
be, in effect, a surrender of my privileges claimed in answering the 
first question. I therefore decline to answer the last question for the 
same constitutional reasons. 

Mr. Wood. There is no constitutional provision that bears out that 
statement that you have a right to decline to answer the question as 
you see fit. But let's keep our legal conclusions in the clear, if we can, 
particularly when they are not founded on sound law. 

Proceed. 

Mr. Tavenner. I desire to offer tlie document in evidence and ask 
that it be marked "Steinmetz Exhibit No. 2." 

(The document above referred to was marked "Steinmetz Exhibit 
No. 2.") 

Mr. Moulder. May I ask if his signature does appear in that docu- 
ment or what name does appear^ 

Mr. Taa^nner. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Moulder. Mr. Chairman, I make a request in that connection 
that the approju-iate citation on the American Connnittee for Protec- 
tion of the Foreign Born be made in the record. 

Mr. Wood. Yes. Let it be ordered for the American Committee for 
Protection of the Foreign Born and also the Civil Rights Congress. 

Mr. Tavenner. According to the People's Daily World of April 6 
1950, at page 10, you sponsored a conference and convention of the 
Civil Rights Congress to be held in Los 'Angeles on April 13, 1950. Is 
that information correct? 

Mr. Steinmetz. For the same reasons, Mr. Tavenner, the same con • 
stitutional reasons that I have heretofore elaborated upon — I assume 
that you do not want me to repeat the particular constitutional pro- 
visions. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 3911 

Mr. Tavenner. Now that you have made it clear on what grounds 
3'oii rely, there is no objection as far as I am concerned to stating it is 
on the same grounds. 

Mr. Wood. It will be considered when he refers to the same grounds, 
if he does again, that it raises the grounds he has given, including the 
pertinent constitutional provisions. 

I would like the record to disclose at this time that the Civil Eights 
Congress is an organization that has been cited as a subversive organi- 
zation by the Attorney General of the United States. 

Mr. Taa^nner. The citation is as follows: 

''Cited as subversive and Communist" by Attorney General Tom 
Clark, December 4, 1947. 

I desire to offer the document referred to ; that is, the issue of the 
People's Daily World, in evidence and ask that it be marked ''Stein- 
metz Exhibit No. 3." 

(The document above referred to was marked "Steinmetz Exhibit 
No. 3.") 

Mr. Wood. And since the question was asked this witness with ref- 
erence to the American Committee for the Protection of Foreign 
Born, I would like to have the record disclose the status of that com- 
mittee also determined by the Attorney General of the United States. 

Mr. Tavenner. The American Committee for the Protection of 
Foreign Born was cited as subversive and Communist by Attorney 
General Tom Clark on June 1, 1948. 

I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Wood. Mr. Walter, do you have any questions of the witness ? 

Mr. Walter. INIr. Steinmetz, are you of the opinion that the Con- 
stitution of the United States offers some sort of guaranty to people 
who advocate the overthrow of the Government of the United States 
by force and violence? 

Mr. Steinmetz. I feel in view of the nature of the forum with 
which I am confronted here this morning, while I would be glad to 
debate that question under other circumstances under which I had a 
free choice, but being here under compulsion, under the circumstances 
I feel compelled to decline to enter into a discussion of my oj)inions in 
that area or in that field. 

Mr. Walter. You have already expressed your opinions in that 
area and in that field, and I gathered from what you said that you be- 
lieved that the Constitution of the United States guarantees to the 
citizens of the United States some sort of a right to attempt to destroy 
that very document. 

Mr. Steinmetz. Well, Mr. Walter 

Mr. Walter. Am I erroneous in that conclusion that I reached ? 

Mr. Steinmetz. Well, I think apparently that you are pointing out 
that this is an inconsistency in my willingness on some occasions to 
express my opinions and my unwillingness on other occasions. That 
may be due, Mr. Walter, to the fact that you are asking the questions 
and I have to ansAver under compulsion. I don't have the same ad- 
vantage and therefore I want to claim one of the few advantages that 
I think I have left, and that is to express those opinion questions that 
I want to discuss and to decline to discuss that which I don't want to 
discuss. 

95008— 52— pt. 8 2 



3912 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. Wood. Will you yield to me at the moment, Mr. Walter, to make 
this observation? 

If you are willing to answer these questions truthfully that have 
been asked you with respect to your connection, association, or affilia- 
tion with the organizations about which you have already been inter- 
rogated, I will give you all the opportunity you want to elaborate on 
them and explain them. 

Mr, Walter. I have no further questions. 

Mr. Wood. Mr. Moulder, do you have any questions ? 

Mr. Moulder. Yes, sir, just two or three questions. 

Where is your office located from which you engage in the practice 
of law? 

Mr. Steinmetz. In the city of Los Angeles. 

Mr. Moulder. In what building and what office number ? 

Mr. Steinmetz. Does this have any pertinency? What is tlve 
pertinency of that ? 

Mr. Moulder. I just wonder if you would refuse to answer that as 
3^ou have all the other questions. 

Mr. Steinmetz. I ask you what the pertinency is to this. 

Mr. Moutj^er. To properly identify you, as to who you are. Your 
name is Fred H. Steinmetz. We are trying to designate as to just 
exactly who you are. 

Mr. Steinmetz. I believe it is in the telegram as correctly stated 
there, Mr. Moulder. That is the telegram which I received summon- 
ing me to this postponed hearing. 

Mr. Moulder. Then do you refuse to answer that question ? 

Mr. Steinmetz. Well, my address, as I say, is correctly' stated in 
the telegram. I believe you have a copy. It is 6513 Hollywood 
Boulevard. 

Mr. Moulder. Is that your residence address or your law office? 

Mr. Steinmetz. That is my law office. 

Mr. Moulder. In view of the answer to that, the thought occurs 
to me, in the event of a conflict or war with Communist Russia, would 
you fight on the side of our own country? 

Mr. Steinmetz. Well, Mr. Moulder, it just seems to me that you are 
asking a pretty hypothetical question. Are you expecting a war ? 

Mr. Moulder. That is a very evasive response to my question. I 
tliink any loyal American citizen would have no hesitation whatso- 
ever in answering that question. 

Mr. Steinmetz. I didn't say I would have any hesitancy in express- 
ing my predictions about my future conduct if I were discussing the 
matters, sitting around even with you, if I were not here under com- 
pulsion, but personally, my belief and certainly my hope is that there 
is not going to be a war. 

Mr. Moulder. We also hope that there will not be, but you cer- 
tainly are going around a circle in answering that question. By what 
reason would any loyal American citizen hesitate to answer that ques- 
tion immediately if he is a loyal American? 

]Mr. Steinmetz. I have been asked other questions here, Mr. Moulder, 
which I would have no hesitancy in discussing witli you, as I say, 
or anyone else if I were not here under compulsion. I just desire not 
to discuss my opinions, and I believe that my opinions don't have any 
relevance to the purpose of this hearing, and for that reason 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 3913 

Mr. Walter. Maybe we can clarify this whole situation by excusing 
you from testifying under the subpena and then inviting you to come 
back this afternoon when you are not under any compulsion, and if 
that were done would you answer frankly the questions that were 
asked you ? 

Mr. Steinmetz. I think, Mr. Walter, my answer is that if you were 
willing to sit down with me and plan, with me liaving an equal voice 
in the arrangements for the occasion in the invitation of the audience, 
subject matter to be discussed, limitations on the subject matter, the 
agenda, if I were to have an equal voice in arranging the agenda of 
such a discussion, I certainly would be willing to discuss with you 
the possibility of holding such an occasion and to the possibility of 
my participating in it, but to come here as you say, I think you will 
j'.gree with me as a lawyer, Mr. Walter, that it still takes place in this 
atmosphere which has been created by the committee, and I think the 
air of compulsion would still exist and be in effect, and I am inclined 
to doubt that I would avail myself of that opportunity. 

Mr. Walter. I understand, of course. I understand exactly. 
That's all. 

Mr. Wood. In other words, if I understand you correctly, you are 
willing to discuss these subjects about which you have been inter- 
rogated here if you are not under oath and subjected to the penalty 
of violating the oath. 

Mr. Steinmetz. I don't believe the record will show that that was 
my answer. 

Mr. Wood. Would you discuss them and answer them frankly under 
oath subject to the penalties of violating the oath? 

Mr. Steinmetz. I don't understand the meaning of that question. 

Mr. Wood. You know that there are penalties attached to violating 
m oath to testify truthfully, don't you? You know that. 

Mr. Steinmetz. Yes; I do. 

Mr. Wood. Is there any forum in which you would be under that 
obligation with the penalties attached to violating it that you would 
be willing to testify in concerning the matters about which you have 
been asked here? 

Mr. Steinmetz. If you are asking me if there is any place in which 
I would consent to giving up my constitutional rights, my answer 
to that is that I believe not. 

Mr. Wood. ]Mr. Moulder, any further questions? 

Mr. Moulder. No. 

Mr. Wood. Mr. Doyle? 

Mr. Doyle. Mr. Steinmetz, you are a member of the California 
bar and so am I, as you know. 

Mr. Steinmetz, I don't happen to know that. I will take your 
w^ord for it. 

Mr. Doyle. I assumed that your three worthy counsel knew it, 
I am sure they do. I assumed that you did, because I am a member 
of the State bar legislative committee of the State bar of California. 
1 noticed you repeated to my worthy colleague time and again that 
you are under compulsion. Have you read Public Law 601? 

Mr. Steinmetz. I believe that I did, Mr. Doyle, at some point. 

Mr. Doyle. And you remember the essence of it that this com- 
mittee is challenged or detailed by Congress, by your Congress, by 



3914 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

the way, also, to investigate the extent of subversive activities in the- 
United States, and the United States Congress, your Congress by 
the way, gave us the power of subpena. 

Now, you received one of those subpenas, didn't you? 

Mr. Steinmetz. I did receive a subpena ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Doyle. Well, that was a subpena from the Congress of the 
United States, wasn't it? 

Mr. Steinmetz. It was a subpena which stated that it was by order 
of the committee. 

Mr. Doyle. You don't question that, do 3"ou, at this time, that it 
was by order of the committee? 

Mr. Steinmetz. I might, of course, question the telegrams which 
were sent to me from Fullerton, which I wasn't aware was the seat 
of tlie United States Government, but that is what I am here iiL 
response to today. 

Mr. Doyle. Are you taking the position now, although you didn't 
disclose it until I asked this question, that because the committee 
offered you the courtesy of a postponement which you wanted from 
January — which courtesy was extended — are you raising the point 
that the seat of the Government is not in Fullerton ? 

Mr. Steinmetz. Are you implying that I at any time asked for a 
continuance? 

Mr. Doyle. It has been continued and you raised the point that 
you got a telegram. 

Mr. Steinmetz. I thought you were suggesting that I had requested 
a continuance. 

Mr. Doyle. Are you raising the point that the telegrams were not 
sufficient to bring you here ? 

Mr. Steinmetz. Not seriously, although I think I might very well 
do so. The point is that I am here, Mr. Doyle. 

Mr. Doyle. Thank you. Now, do you feel that the United States 
Congress has no power to authorize one of its committees to issue 
subpenas to call American citizens before it to question them on 
anything affecting the welfare of the United States as to subversive 
activities? 

Mr. Steinmetz. I think Congress correctly has the power to compel 
testimony on any subject provided the call is in accordance with 
the Constitution of the United States to which Congress is subjected,, 
and in my opinion the purposes of this committee do not fall within 
that category, and I believe that ultimately it will be so held. 

Mr. Doyle. I believe you stated, and I wrote it down, unless I made- 
the mistake of one or two words, which I don't thing I did — I wrote 
down and you volunteered this, by the way : 

I believe a person's political beliefs in this country should not be the basis of" 
deportation. 

You volunteered that statement just a few minutes ago. Do you 
remember that? 

Mr. Steixmetz. Well, I wouldn't want to have the record read. If" 
3'ou are asking me whether that is exactly what I said — — 

Mr. Doyle. Substantially. 

Mr. Steinmetz. I think something like that. 

Mr. Doyle. In other words, if a person's political beliefs in this 
country should in the mind of that person, including any Communist 
or any other person, should be that it was all right to advocate the- 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 3915 

forceful overthrow of the Constitution of the United States, I under- 
stand your testimony to be that that shoukhi't be grounds for deporta- 
tion. 

Mr. Steinmetz. Now Mv. T>oy\e, I think this is an attempt around 
the back door 

Mr. Doyle. No, I am going in the front door, sir. I am going right 
at you to get a statement from you as to what you believe if you are 
Avilling to give it to us. 

Mr. Steinmetz. I believe I stated my beliefs rather fully before on 
this subject, so I don't think that I care to go over the same ground 
:again. 

Mr. Doyle. That isn't the same grounds, sir. You referred to po- 
litical beliefs, and I am asking you now whether or not if the political 
belief of a person in this country is that they have the right to ad- 
vocate the forceful overthrow of the constitutional form of this 
government, do you or do you not believe that that should be grounds 
for deportation? 

Mr. Steinmetz. Well, Mr. Doyle, I feel that I have stated my beliefs 
in this area as much as I care to. I don't feel that I want to go further 
at this time. 

Mr. Wood. Do you refuse to answer the question for the grounds 
previously stated ? 

Mr. Steinmetz. Yes; I think I do decline to answer that. 

Mr. Doyle. For what reasons do you decline? I didn't hear you 
say for the same reasons. 

Mr. Steinmetz. For the reasons previously given throughout. 

Mr. Doyle. You made a voluntary statement : 

In a proper foriiin I will be willing to discuss that, Imt not in the presence of 
a forum made up entirely of persons interested in destroying my freedom of 
speech. 

You Avere conferring with counsel. Did you hear all I read? 
Mr. Steinmetz. Would you mind rereading it? I am sorry, sir. 
Mr. Doyle. I thought you hadn't heard it. 

In a proper forum I will discuss that, but not in the presence of a forum made 
up entirely of persons interested in destroying my freedom of speech. 

Do you remember so stating ? 

INIr. Steininietz. I remember some such statement. I don't recall 
Avhat it was in response to, but I recall making some such statement. 

Mr. Doyle. Well, now, as one member of this committee, I want to 
make it crystal clear to you, young man, that I am not interested nor 
will I participate directly or indirectly in destroying anyone's free- 
dom of speech, not yours, even, but I do take the position that no person 
in my country has a right to claim the constitutional privilege and yet 
claim under that privilege the right to advocate the forceful overthrow 
of my form of government. [Applause.] 

Mr. Wood. Mr. Marshal [addressing United States marshal], the 
next outburst of that character that occurs in this room, I will direct 
that you expel the people from the room who engage in it. If it be- 
comes necessary to clear the room, we will do that. 

Mr. Doyle. In other words, Mr. Steinmetz, I couldn't.let your volun- 
tary statement challenging the position of all of the members of this 
committee, myself included, go unanswered, because it is absolutely 



3916 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

false. But I will not tolerate knowingly any citizen advocating- the 
forceful ovei'throw of my Government. 

Just one statement, Mr. Chairman. I want to make it clear to this 
member of the California bar, which I am : I haA^e just returned from 
Korea Avithin the last few days, and I saw plenty of evidence that the 
Communist Party principles in the United States of America emanate 
from Moscow in Soviet Russia over there, and I wish to make it 
crystal clear that my position is that the Communist Party in the 
United States is part of an international conspiracy to forcefully over- 
throw our democratic constitutional form of government. 

One thing further. I am a hnvyer. I want to make it crystal clear, 
too, that neither directly or indirectly Avill I participate in any ques- 
tion or any activity Avhicli directly or indirectly undertakes to go into 
the relationship of attorney and client. So, when you charge that this 
committee is doing that, I say your charge is absolutely false. 

Mr. Wood. Mr. Frazier ? 

Mr. Frazier. No questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Wood. Mr. Velde ? 

Mr. Velde. Mr. Steinmetz, have you ever been a member of the 
Armed Forces of the United States ? 

Mr. Steinmetz. Yes ; I have. 

Mr. Velde. When was that ? 

Mr. Steinmetz. I believe the period was from September 1943 
until September or October of 1945. 

Mr. Velde. You have been asked, I believe by Mr. Moulder, whether 
or not you would participate in a war on the side of the United States 
in case it came between the United States and Communist Russia. 

There is a war going on at the i)resent time in Korea between the 
United States and other allies and Chinese Communists and Korean 
Conmiunists. Would you participate in that war on the side of the 
United States? 

Mr. Steinmetz. Well, in the first place, my understanding is that 
the President of the United States has classified that as "a police 
action." 

Mr. Velde. Regardless of how he classifies it, I think you can get 
killed in a police action just as definitely as you can in a war. 

Mr. Steinmetz. I am inclined to agree with you on that. I am 
confused as to whether it is a war or a police action. 

Mr. Velde. If it is a police action, Avould j'ou participate on the 
side of the United States? 

Mr. Steinmetz. Well, my own opinion, Mr. Velde, is that it would 
be in the best interests of the United States and the people of the 
United States that there be peace throughout the world, including in 
Korea, at the earliest possible time. I think lives are being lost need- 
lessly over issues that ought not to be made the occasion for the losing 
of lives. 

I will say, however, that I have alwaj's obeyed the laws of my 
country, and I Avould continue to do so. 

Mr. Wood. Mr. Jackson ? 

Mr. Jackson. Mr. Steinmetz, just in order that the record my be 
. clear as far as' this matter of attorneys versus this connnittee is con- 
cerned, it should appear in the record that the American Bar Associ- 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 3917 

atioii gave its eiulorsenient to the work of this committee hist year; 
I believe the first time in the history of the American Bar Association. 
Am I correct in that, counsel? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jackson. Now, Mr. Steinmetz, you have stated on several occa- 
sions during- the course of your testimony that in tlie atmosphere 
created bv this committee vou Avould refuse to answer certain ques- 
tions. 

Do you believe that the acts of aggression on the part of the Soviet 
Union which have brought 10 or 12 million free peoples to their knees 
has had an^'thing to do with creating the atmosphere of which you 
speak? 

Mr. Steinmetz. My belief is that the atmosphere to which I ob- 
jected and which today I think can be amply described as a state of 
hysteria, so that people are getting afraid to talk and to write wliat 
they please, I believe that hysteria is the product of the work and 
activities of this committee almost primarily, though there are other 
agencies possibly in my opinion who contributed to it. 

Mv. Jackson. Do you believe further that the estimated 7 to 10 mil- 
lion people, human beings, in the concentration and slave camps of the 
Soviet Union have contributed anything to the state of hysteria on 
the part of the American people? 

Mr. Steinmetz. In answer to that, I don't feel that I have any 
beliefs on that subject. 

Mr. Jackson. Do you believe that the theft and transmission of 
hundreds of documents by Communist agents in this country has had 
an^^thing to do with the feeling on the part of the American people 
that perhaps communism represents something of a menace to this 
country ? 

Mr. Steinmetz. The only thing I care to say on that is to repeat 
what I said before about my beliefs in connection with the hysteria 
engendered in this country. 

Mr. Jackson. Your statements on that carry no considerable amount 
of weight with me. 

Mr. Steinmetz. I am aware of that. 

Mr. Jackson. We have taken millions of words from Communists 
and former Communists which would indicate that this international 
conspiracy does seek to overthrow this Government and to affect 
the freedom, yes, and the peace and the security of every American 
citizen. 

So far as I personally' am concerned, I believe you were a member 
of the Communist Partv cell and the lawyers' branch. I have cer- 
tainly heard nothing that you have said today that has tended to 
clear my mind that you are not still a member of the Communist Party. 

You play fast and loose with the committee. You haven't pulled 
3'our punches. You have told us what you think, and I am happy to 
tell you what I think. 

Mr. Steinmetz. I might say in response to that, while my opinions 
don't carry nuich weight with you, I think the feeling is somewhat 
mutual. I am inclined to hope that the American people will share 
in my opinion more than 5'ours. 

Mr. Jackson. I woukhrt want youi* su})port. 



3918 COMMUIsTISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mv. Wood. Any further (questions, counsel? 

Mr. Tavennek. No. sir. 

Mr. AVooD. Is there any reason wliy this witness shouldn't be excused 
from further attendance? 

Mr. Tavenner. No, sir. 

Mr. Wood. So ordered. We Avill stand in recess for 10 minutes. 

(A short recess was taken.) 

Mr, Wood. Let's have order, please. 

Mr. Tavenner. I would like to call again Mr. John Porter. 

Mr. Marshall. As I reported to Mr. Tavenner during the recess, the 
State court adjourns at 12 o'clock. I have sent word to Mr. Porter to 
jneet me here at 12 o'clock, or as soon thereafter as he can arrive here, 
so I can find out from him whether or not his trial has finished. 

Mr. Tavenner. May I inquire again what court he is in ? 

Mr. Marshall. He is in department 19 of the superior court, the 
presiding judge of which is Judge Thomas Cunningham. 

It is my information that some inquiry was made at the courtroom, 
presumably by someone attached to the committee, as to whether or 
not Mr. Porter was in attendance at that courtroom, and that the 
clerk erroneously replied that he was not in attendance, but he is 
actually there. 

Is that what Mr. Tavenner had in mind ? 

Mr. Tavenner. That satisfies me, because we had information he 
was not there. 

Mr. Walter. What is the name of the case ? 

Mr. Marshall. I don't know the title of the case. 

Mr. Tavenner. Then I w^ll call Miss Pauline Epstein. 

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

Do you solemnly swear that the evidence you will give this sub- 
committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 
truth, so help you God? 

Miss Epstein. I do. 

Mr. Wood. Do you have counsel ? 

Miss Epstein. Yes; I do. 

Mr. Wood. AVill counsel please identify himself for the record? 

Mr. Marshall. The witness is represented by Mr. Thomas G. Neu- 
som, Mr. Robert W. Kenny, and myself, Daniel G. Marshall. 

TESTIMONY OF PAULINE EPSTEIN, ACCOMPANIED BY HER COUN- 
SEL, EOBEET W. KENNY, THOMAS G. NEUSOM, AND DANIEL G. 
MARSHALL 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you state your name, please? 

Miss Epstein. Pauline Epstein. 

Mr. Tavenner. When and where were you born ? 

Mr. Marshall. If Mr. Tavenner please and if the committee please, 
I had assumed that the next question to be asked is what is her pro- 
fession or occupation, and the witness would then reply that she is 
an attorney at law. 

Mr. Wood. Can't you let the witness do her own replying? 

Mr. Marshall. I wanted to ask the committee at this time for the 
opportunity to proceed, if I may, with an argument on our motion 
to quash. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 3919 

Mr. Wood. The motion has ah-eady been acted npon by the com- 
mittee unanimously. 

Mr. Marshall. May ^ye submit that the motion is one which we 
think is well taken, to' which we have devoted considerable effort — — 

Mr. Wood. We don't gainsay the good faith of counsel in urging 
the motion. The point is that the motion has been overruled and we 
don't care to hear any further argument about it. 

Mr. Marshall. It seems to us that it is a rather summary disposi- 
tion of our argument which, in a 10-minute recess 

Mr. Wood. I assume that counsel are familiar with the procedure 
here. The only thing this committee can do is act on motions that are 
made, and they have done so. So as far as that motion is concerned, 
it is a matter that has already been passed upon and is closed. 

Mr. Marshall. I take it you refuse us leave to present our argu- 
ment at this time in support of the motion. 

Mr. Wood. Surely, because the motion has been acted on. 

Mr. Marshall. You will recall that the motion had no presenta- 
tion whatsoever except to hand up printed copies to the committee. 

Mr. Wood. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Marshall. And we believe that a proper development of it 
requires at least some remarks in support of the grounds. 

Mr. Wood. The committee has considered the argument in the mo- 
tion which embraces 11 pages of argument. That was considered and 
acted on, and the rulin,g has been announced. The matter is closed as 
far as the committee is concerned. 

Proceed, Mr. Tavenner. 

Mr. Tavenner. When and where were you born? 

Miss Epstein. August IT, 1907, Brooklyn, N. Y. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you now a resident of Los Angeles? 

Miss Epstein. I am and have been since August 17, 1918. 

Mr. Tavenner. What is your profession ? 

Miss Epstein. Attorney at law. State of California, and have been 
admitted to practice in some of the courts of the Federal Government. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long have you engaged in the practice of law 
in California? 

Miss Epstein. Since December 8, 1933. 

Mr. Tavenner. What was your educational preparation for your 
work ? 

Miss Epstein. I attained a certificate as bachelor of laws at South- 
western University here in Los Angeles. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you present in the hearing room this morn- 
ing when Mr. Fred Steinmetz first appeared as a witness? 

Miss Epstein. I was. 

Mr. Tavenner. You heard the statement that I made to him with 
reference to the witnesses who testified in Washington regarding the 
existence of a cell of the Communist Party made up exclusively of 
members of the legal profession in the Los Angeles area? 

Miss Epstein. I diet hear you make your statement. 

Mr. Tavenner. Well, the purpose in calling you as a witness, as it 
was in calling Mr. Steinmetz, was to ascertain what information you 
have regarding the subject under inquiry, inasmuch as the sworn tes- 
timony given to this committee is to the effect that you have personal 
knowledge of that situation. 



3920 COMMUIsTISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS  

Now, before I ask you any questions in re«fard to it, liowever, I want 
to refer to an issue of the Los Angeles Examiner which contained 
statements made by various persons subpenaed — various persons whose 
names were mentioned in the course of the testimony in Washinfcton, 
by the lawyers who testified that they themselves had been members 
of such a group. You are quoted as follows [reading] : 

Anybody who talks about Communist Party membership one way or the other 
today is a little silly, I tliink. I know David Aaron is a lawyer. I have talked 
to him. Otherwise, I have no comment. 

Now, let me assure you that the subject of comnumism in this coun- 
try is not a silly question. 

Mr. Marshall. Is this a question or a speech ? 

Mr. Tavenner. I am preparing a question. 

This committee feels that it is a very serious matter and it desires 
such information, if 3'ou are willing to give it, as to what you know 
about the extent and character of that organization within the legal 
field and what its objectives are. 

Are you willing to cooperate with the committee in giving it such 
information as you have? 

Miss Epstein. I am not willing to cooperate with the committee at 
all. I believe that the committee is engaged in an unconstitutional 
attempt to inquire into the philosophy, into the affiliations, into the 
belief of citizens, and I believe that any inquiry or any question as to 
a person's belief or affiliations is entirely one which a person may an- 
swer or may refuse to answer within their own discretion. 

I believe that a person should decide whether or not he or she wants 
to answer those questions, because I believe that there should be no 
force used or any kind of stress or any kind of punishment to stand 
as the alternative to answering tlie question. 

In these days I believe that anybody who does answer a question 
concerning communism is certainly not protecting himself or herself 
or using the discretion Avhich a person with ordinary intelligence 
shoidd use. 

Mr. Tavenner. Then you disagree with the statement of Mr. Yerkes 
in his testimony where he testifies to the general effect 

Mr. Marshall. May we have the page reference ? 

Mr. Tavenner. I haven't the page right before me now. [Continu- 
ing:] Where he testified to the general effect that while a member of 
the Communist Party he came to the conclusion that a person could 
not be a loyal American and still be a member of the Communist 
Party? 

Do you believe that a person can be a loyal American and at the 
same time be a member of the Communist Party of the United States? 

Miss Epstein. Severing the parts of your statement from the parts 
of your question — in other words, disregarding your statement con- 
cerning Mr. Yerkes, for the reason that I do not wish to discuss him 
in any way and will refuse to answer any questions that concern him — 
if you are willing to do that and restrict your question to "Do I [you] 
believe that a person may be a member of the Connnunist Party and a 
loyal citizen?" — w^ould you do that? — and then I'll answer it. 

Mr. Tavenner. Surely. 

Miss Epstein. All right. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you believe that a person can be a member of the 
Communist Pai-ty and be a loyal citizen today? 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 3921 

Miss Epsteix. I believe that the affiliation of a person does not 
necessarily reflect his loyalty or disloyalty to the American people or 
to the Government of the United States or to the blueprint from free- 
dom which we have in our Constitution, and I believe that any appel- 
lation of a person merely by the fact that he is or is not a member of 
the Communist Party would have no probative value. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you believe that the Communist Party is a con- 
spiratorial group desioned to overthrow the United States Govern- 
ment by the use of force and violence if necessary ? 

Miss Epstein. I would refuse to engage in any discussion concern- 
ing the nature of the Communist Party or its principles or Avhether or 
not it is or is not a conspiracy for the reason that any answer would 
imply that I do have knowledge concerning the nature and the form 
of the Communist Party. As to those questions I would refuse to 
answer. 

Mr, Tavenner. If you are unwilling to answer, if you refuse to 
■answer whether or not the Communist Party is a conspiratorial group 
designed to overthrow our form of government by the use of force and 
violence if necessary, how is it that you can say in your opinion that 
to become a member of such an organization would put one in the posi- 
tion of not being a loyal American, if a member? 

Miss Epstein. I don't believe that I said it would put one in the 
])osition of not being a loyal citizen. I believe that was your state- 
ment. 

Mr. Tavenner. I think you said it would not. 

Miss Epstein. JNIy statement was that mere membership would not 
determine whether a ])erson was loyal or disloyal. 

Mr. Tavenner. Just mere inactive membership? 

Miss Epstein. I am not saying mere inactive membership. 

Mr. Tavenner. What kind of membership are you saying? 

Miss Epstein. Let's get this straight. All of us here are schooled in 
the laws which pertain to the Constitution of the United States. You 
gentlemen have made a career of it, and within the last 9 months or 
so I also have lived with the Constitution. 

So let's put it this way, that under the Constitution Congress may 
not make a law that is a bill of attainder. I don't know of anything 
that can be less than a bill of attainder than is a law that says that 
all persons belonging to group A or B or C. if C is a Communist Party 
or some other party, are disloyal, and I believe that constitutionally 
speaking and speaking as one lawyer to another that no person who 
has within his heart the meaning of the Constitution of the United 
States could say that membership, whether it is a passive or active 
or thinking membership, would automatically make him loyal or 
disloyal. 

Mr. Tavenner. But if a person believes in the overthrow of the 
Government of the United States by use of force and violence if nec- 
essary, he cannot be a loyal person. Isn't that true? 

Miss Epstein. I agree with you there, if — however, you gentlemen 
have had it in various ways, in every way which you know how — 
you have had it that this organization does believe in the overthrow 
of the Government of the United States by force and violence and you 
are trying to demonstrate it now merely by your repetition of a phrase, 
and I don't think that any person has a right to absorb a dogmatic 
statement that is not followed by facts. 



3922 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Now, I will refuse- 



Mr. Taa^nner. Maybe you can help us Avith the facts. 

Miss Epstein. I refuse for the reason that I believe that your entire 
inquiry is in a field that is protected against your actions under the 
first amendment. Now, when the Constitution is changed, then you 
will have the right to inquire, because then there will be no first 
amendment and there will be no fifth amendment. 

Mr. Tavenner. The Constitution changed by whom? 

Miss Epstein. By the people of the United States or by Congress.. 
There are several ways of changing the Constitution, and until the 
Constitution is changed • 

Mr. Taatenner. And still another way of changing it is by destroy- 
ing it by the use of force and violence, isn't it ? 

Miss Epstein. I don't believe there is any real threat to the Govern- 
ment of the United States on the point of force and violence, and I 
don't believe that this Government will ever be changed by force 
and violence, and I don't believe that force and violence will ever ac- 
complish a change in any country. 

Mr. Wood. Might I point out to the witness at this time that there 
is no provision of the Constitution that requires a person to surround 
themselves with the fifth amendment in order to avoid answering ques- 
tions as to subversive influences in the community. If indeed it is a 
privilege at all, it is merely a privilege ; it is not a requirement. 

Miss Epstein. If I may be permitted to answer the gentleman, I 
believe that whenever the Constitution of the United States is attacked 
it is the obligation of a lawyer to meet that attack. I believe that you 
are attacking it now. 

Mr. Wood. We are attacking communism now. 

Miss Epstein. You are attacking the Constitution. 

Mr. Wood. We are seeking information from people who we 
hope will not take advantage of a privilege to shield themselves 
behind the fifth amendment in order to avoid answering direct ques- 
tions as to their own affiliation or knowledge concerning others affili- 
ated with this organization. We might as well get the record straight. 

Miss Epstein. Are you the chairman of this committee ? 

Mr. Wood. Yes. 

Miss Epstein. Mr. Wood, look. This business of surrounding- 
yourself or hiding behind the fifth amendment is just so much poppy- 
cock, if you will excuse me. If a citizen comes before you and claims 
the privileges that were meant for him — and remember the fact that 
these 10 amendments were created to prevent the Government from 
acting against the people 

Mr. Wood. I am not going to enter into any argument with you. 
I haven't asked any question. What I am simply saying, in order 
to keep the record straight, is that there is no requirement in the 
Constitution of the United States, and counsel knows that, which 
requires any person to claim a protection of the fifth amendment in 
order to avoid answering a question. If it is anything at all, it is a 
privilege. It is not a requirement. 

Now wait a minute until I get through. 

And this idea of saying when you are under oath and you are asked 
a question as to whether or not you have Communist affiliations your- 
self or whether you know of anyone else that has it, and then to say 
that "I won't answer that because it may tend to incriminate me," 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 3923 

mid that is what the fifth amendment says, you are either swearing 
falsely, or it w^ould do just that, one or the other. 

Any further questions ? 

Miss ErsTEiN. You don't know what I think. 

Mr. Wood. I don't hope for any agreement between your philosophy 
and mine. 

Miss Epstein. You don't know my philosophy. 

Mr. Wood. I am beginning to find out a little bit. 

Mr. TA^^:NNER. I am not so much interested in your philosophy as 
I am your knowledge and what is going on in this group or cell of 
the Communist Party, of which only members of the legal profession 
are said to be members. 

jMiss Epsi'ein. 1 have already answered, and though I know the 
privileges may be waived and privileges may be sold for money or for 
other tilings, I still believe that under the first amendment and under 
the fifth amendment I h^ive the right and I claim that right to refuse 
to answer your questions. 

Mr. Tavenxer. Now, you have stated in the press that you knew 
Mr. Aaron. "I know David Aaron is a lawyer." How long have 
you been acquainted with David Aaron? 

Miss Epstein. I refuse to answer any questions concerning David 
Aaron, for the reason that any answer I may give may possibly be 
used against me in some future area, not this inquiry, but area of 
judiciary inquiry, and under my rights under the fifth amendment 
I will refuse to answer. I do refuse to answer. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you also know Mr. William G. Israel ? 

Miss Epstein. I will refuse to answer any questions concerning Mr. 
Israel for the same reasons. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Israel, in the course of his testimony in Wash- 
ington, said that he had been a law^yer in Seattle, that he came to Los 
Angeles, that he had been a member of the party where he had lived 
and that after arriving in Los Angeles he found that he had been 
transferred here and he was asked by two lawyers to become a member 
of this special group which was composed only of lawyers. 

He testified that he did not attend more than about seven meetings 
until he withdrew from it after learning more about it, he testified 
that among the ]ilaces where the meetings were held — well, he said 
Ihis in his exact language — - 

Mr. Marshall. What page? 

Mr. Tavenner. 2619.^ 

After I joined the party I attended approximately seven meetings, six or seven. 
I can even remember wliere the meetings were. 

Q. Where were they? 

A. (Ry Mr. Israel). I attended three meetings at the home of Ben Margolis. 
I attended one meeting at the home of I'auline Epstein. I attended one meeting 
at tlie home of Victor Kaplan, and I attended one meeting at the home of Jack 
Frankel. 

Was Mr. Israel telling: the truth or not when he said he met in a 
Communist Party meeting in your home? 

Miss Epstein. As to Mr. Israel, I will answer no questions for the 
same reasons. 

Mr. Moulder. Were any Communist Party meetings ever held in 
your home? 

^ Ibid. 



3924 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Miss Epstein. I will answer no questions in that mood; in other 
words, any questions with respect to the Communist Party which 
^\■ould link me with the Communist Party 

Mr. Wood. Do you refuse to answer that question ? 

Miss Epstein. I answer that under the fifth amendment that I 
refuse to answer. Any answer, yes or no, would be a false answer 
because it presumes that he has a right to ask 

Mr. Wood. Just wait a moment. Is that the reason for your an- 
swer ? 

Miss Epstein. My answer was stated under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Wood. Well, is it based on your conception that a member of this 
committee hasn't the right to ask a question, or is it based on the fifth 
amendment, protection against criminal prosecution? Which is it 
based on ^ 

Miss Epstein. My first objection is based on the first amendment 
because I believe the committee has no right to inquire. My second 
objection is based on a very real danger under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Moulder. I ask the question : Are you now or have you ever 
been a member of the Communist Party ? 

Miss Epstein. I refuse to answer that question under the fifth 
amendment, based primarily on the fifth amendment and also on the 
first amendment. 

Mr. Tavenner. Now, Mr. Aaron in the course of his testimony be- 
fore the committee, after having admitted his own membership in this 
special cell of which lawj^ers only were members, was asked to tell the 
committee something about his activities. This question was asked 
him : 

Was there any requirement within your group, that is, your Connuunist group, 
that you as Ct)mmunists also become members of the Lawyers Guild? 

Mr. Marshall. What page ? 
Mr. Ta\t:nner. 2512.^ 

Mr. Aaron. It is my understanding that we absolutely had to be members of 
the Lawyers' Guild. 

Were you a member of the Lawyers' Guild ? 

Miss Epsteix. Are you asking me with reference to Mr. Aaron or 
with reference to myself ? I said I will answer no questions concerning 
Mr. Aaron. If you divorce your question from Mv. Aai'on 

Mr. Wood. The question asked you was, were j^ou a member of the 
Lawyers' Guild? 

Miss Epstein. Wait a second. Did you hear all that preceded it? 
He stated things that had to do with Mr. Aaron. I will not comment 
on Mv. Aaron's statement whatsoever, under the fifth amendment or 
over the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Wood. That is the only question asked 3'ou now: Are you a 
member of the Lawyers' Guild ? 

Miss Epstein. I will assume that the first part of the statement 
is excluded. I am a member of the National LaAvyers' Guild. 

Mr. Tavenner. When did you become a member ? 

Miss Epstein. I really don't know. I became a member as soon 
as I was aware that it existed and I was eligible. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was David Aaron a member of the Lawyers' Guild ? 

1 Ibid. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 3925 

Miss Epstein. He was a member of the Lawyers' Guild. 

Mr, Tavenner. I liave just stated to you what Mr. Aaron's testi- 
mony was about the directions members of this Communist Party 
had received with rejjard to joinino^ the Lawyers' Guild. Do you 
know as a member of the Lawyers' Guild whether Communists were 
advised to become members of it ? 

Miss Epstein. Your question is a little bit lopsided. Two things 
would have to be known. One thing is the policy of the Connnunist 
Party and the other thing is the policy of the National Lawyers' Guild. 
As to the policies 

Mr. Tavenner. Su])pose you answer it separately. 

Miss Epstein. As to the Communist Party, I will refuse to state, 
because I stand on the tifth amendment. As to the National Lawyers' 
Guild, I know of no such requirement for entry into the Lawyers^ 
Guild as membership in the Communist Party. 

Is that what you are referring to? 

Mr. Tavenner. No. I didn't ask whether there was any require- 
ment on the part of the guild. 

Miss Epstein, State it again. 

Mr. Tavenner. My question was whether or not you had any 
knowledge that members of the Connnunist Party were being directed 
to enter the Lawyers' Guild. 

Miss Epstein. As to the Communist Party, I stand on the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. Tavenner. I have no further questions. 

Mr. Wood. Any questions, Mr. Walter? 

Mr. Walter. No. 

Mr. Wood. Any further questions, Mr. Moulder ? 

Mr. Moulder. I ask the same question that I asked the other witness, 
as to where your office is located. 

Miss Epstein. My office is located at 3028 Wabash Avenue. Los 
Angeles, Calif., directly across from the branch office of the Bank of 
America, next door to a cleaning establishment on one side and next 
door to a theater that has been closed for a couple of years. 

Mr. Moulder. I am just asking that in order to identify you. Some 
other person might have the wrong person in mind, and we wouldn't 
want the implication that someone else was testifying other than 
vourself. 

Can you state whether or not Communist Party meetings are now 
being held in your home? 

Miss Epstein. You know I will not answer any questions concern- 
ing the Communist Party, because I believe you do not have the right 
to ask them under the first amendment, and because under the fifth 
amendment any answer I might give would tend to be used against me 
if in the future I am faced with a judiciary inquiry. 

Mr. Moulder. That is all. 

Mr. Wood. Any questions, Mr. Doyle? 

Mr. Doyle. Are you familiar wdtli the brief text of Public Law 601 ? 

Miss Epstein. I don't know if I am familiar with it. 

Mr. Doyle. That is the provision under which this committee func- 
tions. 

Miss Epstein. Yes. I believe that Congress has even appropriated 
money for the purpose of your inquiries. 



3926 coMMuisrisM in los angeles professional groups 

Mr. DoTLE. Yes ; of course. That would logically follow, wouldn't 
it? 

Mr. Wood. And I might interpolate at that point, if you will permit 
me, that the appropriation was by unanimous vote. 

Mr, Doyle. Unanimous vote of the United States Congress. 

Miss Epstein. And for the purpose of uncovering subversive propa- 
ganda activities, not necessarily to uncover whether or not a citizen 
was or was not a member of the Communist Party. 

Mr. DoTLE. Our duty is to uncover subversive activities, wherever 
they are. 

Miss Epstein. Propaganda activities. 

Mr. Doyle. The word "propaganda" I think is not used in the text. 

Mr. Marshall. Do you have a copy of the resolution ? We would 
like to read it. 

Mr. Doyle. I am directing your attention now to our direction that 
we investigate subversive activities. 

Miss Epstein. To give us all of the bases of the discussion that will 
follow, if there is a text of it, I would like to have it read, because it 
is my belief that the word "propaganda" precedes "activities" wher- 
ever it is used. 

Mr. Doyle. That's right. I will read it. 

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

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

Miss Epstein. Mr. Doyle, "propaganda" precedes "activities" and 
follows "subversive" in the part of the text wdiich you have read. 
I would like to explain 

Mr. Doyle. Well now, let me ask you my question, please. The part 
I refer to is "the diffusion within the United States of subversive and 
un-American propaganda." 

Directing your attention, therefore, to point 2 — and I am glad to 
see you were perfectly familiar with the section ; I assumed you were 
from your previous statements — you feel, don't you, that this com- 
mittee, acting under congressional authority unaniiftously voted by 
Congi-ess, should investigate subversive and un-American propaganda 
wherever we find it? 

Miss Epstein. You are authorized to do so. However, I think that 
the basic reason for your existence is to investigate in order to be able 
to propose legislation. 

Mr. Doyle. We are here 

Miss Epstein. I haven't finished my statement. 

Mr. Doyle. All right. 

Miss Epstein. The end of my statement is this, that since the pur- 
pose is to investigate into those areas wherein you may have the ability 
because of your investigation to propose legislation, you see — well, 
since Congress may make no law concerning tlie freedom of the press 
or expression of religion and so on — I have it right here — but you see, 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 3927 

any results of your investigation would lead to unconstitutional legis- 
lation. 

Mr. Doyle. I am not yielding time for you to make a speech for 
which you are prepared. 

Miss Epstein. I have the Constitution in front of me, State of 
California and of the United States. 

Mr. Doyle, I am familiar with the Constitution the same as you 
are. I am a member of the bar also. 

Miss Epstein. Do we have to be reminded ? 

Mr. Doyle. We are reminded every day. We are reminded by our 
responsibilities every day, I assure you. 

Miss Epstein. Both of us. 

Mr. Doyle. You don't have to open the book to be reminded. What 
I am calling your attention to is this: You would expect us to in- 
vestigate, therefore, under point 2, subversive activities, wherever 
we find them, wouldn't you ? 

Miss Epstein. Subversive propaganda activities I would expect you 
to investigate. However, I don t 

Mr. Doyle. To investigate for the purpose of recommending reme- 
dial legislation. 

Miss Epstein. But the only recommendation you could make would 
be to change the Constitution. I also question if the Constitution will 
permit it. 

Mr. Doyle. We can recommend constitutional legislation to be en- 
acted by Congress. 

Miss Epstein. And until the first amendment is revoked, I will not 
help you. 

Mr. Doyle. We are not intending to do that. 

May I ask you this one question finally? We are representing 
the United States Congress by unanimous approval. We feel that 
the Communist Party, or the John Doe Party, or members of the 
Communist Partj^, or the John Doe Party, have been or are partici- 
pating in subversive activities. 

Miss Epstein. Propaganda. 

Mr. Doyle. And propagandizing subversive activities. Whether 
the whole party was doing it or just a portion of the party were 
doing it, you would expect us to come to Los Angeles and even ques- 
tion members of the bar and get them to help us, wouldn't you? 

Miss Epstein. Of course. The only thing is this 

Mr. Doyle. What is your answer? May I have your answer? 

Miss Epstein. I say, of course, I would expect you to come because 
you are being paid to come and to make inquiry into this field. 

Mr. Doyle. And we would have a right as a member of the bar 
to expect your truthful cooperation, wouldn't we? 

Miss Epstein. You have a right to expect from me nothing less 
than support of the Constitution of the United States and the Con- 
stitution of the State of California, and you will get nothing less than 
that. 

Mr. Doyle. I think we have gotten less than that, because we are 
asking about subversives wherever it exists. 

Miss Epstein. You are asking about propaganda activities, and you 
are asking questions without authority. I believe that no group lias 
a right to tell me where to look for the truth, and hear everything 

95008— 52— pt. 3 3 



3928 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

that is written and everything that is said, but I have a right to pre- 
vent you from curtailing expression, either oral or written, under the 
Constitution. 

Mr, Doyle. I take this position, and you are a fellow member of 
the bar and so am I. I take this position, that merely because we 
are members of the bar we have no right to plead exceptions to the 
bill under which we are operating, whether you are a Communist or 
no matter who you are. We are not inquiring into the relation of 
attorney and client. 

Under the basis of having the right to assume or having people 
assmne that we are loyal American citizens, we have a right under 
the law under which Ave operate to expect your loyal cooperation, 
and that is all we are asking. We are not inquiring into the rela- 
tionship of attorney and client at all. 

Miss Epstein, Just a moment. I think it is unfair 

Mr, Wood. One at a time, please. 

Mr. Moulder. You made a statement we were paid to come out here. 
I want to clarify that. 
Mr. Wood. Just wait a moment. Will you run down just a minute? 
Miss Epstein, I have a right to defend myself. 
Mr. Wood. A member of the committee desires to make a correction 
in a statement you made. 

Mr, Moulder. You made the allegation or charge that the committee 
was paid to come out here. 
Miss Epstein. You are acting by authority of Congress and under 

appropriations. Without appropriations, naturally you wouldn't 

Mr. Moulder. Tliat isn't paid to individual members. 
Miss Epstein. It is no shame to any of you to be a part of the 
committee. I think it is an honor to be a member of a committee and 
to work under the direction of Congress. 

Mr, Moulder. We are not paid, Miss Epstein. 
Miss Epstein. Are you working without pav as a Member of 
Congress ? 

Mr. Moulder. Members of Congress receive their salary, but there 
is no extraordinary compensation given to any member of this com- 
mittee to come out to California to conduct the hearing. 
_ Miss Epstein. I am not accusing you of coming "^out here as an 
interloper. 

Mr. Wood. Have you any f urtlier questions, Mr. Doyle ? 

Mr. Doyle. No further questions. 

Mr. Wood. Mr, Frazier, have you any questions ? 

Miss Epstein. Mr, Chairman. 

Mr, Wood, Just a moment, 

Mr. Frazier. Miss Epstein, why do you feel that you would subject 
yourself to criminal prosecution if you honestly answered the question 
whether you are or are not a member of the Communist Party ? 

Miss Epstein. I refuse to answer that. The same fifth amendment 
protects me. However, I would like to answer Mr. Doyle. Mr. Doyle 
asked whether a lawyer has a right to more than the privileges of other 
citizens. My answer is that a lawyer, by reason of his calling and 
training, does not have to give up the right which other citizens have. 
I don't intend to become a second-class citizen because I have assumed 
the obligation and the responsibility of a lawyer. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 3929 

Mr DoTLE. We don't ask a lawyer to g^ive up any citizenship rights, 
but we don't take the position either that because you and I are ^^jwyers 
that we are entitled to any special exception under the text of the bill 
under which we operate. 

Miss Epstein. Your answer is correct. , 

Mr. Doyle. Thank you. We are in agreement on that point, at 

Mr. Wood. That is gratifying. Any further questions, Mr. 

Frazier ? 

Mr. Frazier. No further questions. 

Mr. Wood. Mr. Velde? 

Mr. Velde. No questions. 

Mr. Wood. Mr. Jackson ? 

Mr. Jackson. Miss Epstein, I assume that you are for peace. I be- 
lieve you mentioned peace during the course of your testimony. 

Miss Epstein. I am for peace. 

Mr. Jackson. Do you believe it is possible for us to reconcile our 
differences internationally with the Soviet Union? 

Miss Epstein. I believe that any disagreement can be settled in the 
area of discussion and negotiation. I believe after the last World 
War we hadn't settled any questions and we are still negotiating peace. 

Mr. Jackson. You believe that at the conference table it is possible 
to work out a coexistence between the Soviet Union and the United 
States? 

Miss Epstein. We must for our own survival. 

Mr. Jackson. Let me remind you that Stalin said it is inconceivabte 
that the United States and the Soviet Union can exist side by side 
in the same world. Do you agree with that or are you in disagreement 
with that statement? 

Miss Epstein. In the first place, I don't know what Stalin said 
or didn't say. I believe that all differences between peoples must 
be negotiated ; that arms solve no questions. 

Mr. Jackson. You believe then that in spite of the statement made 
by Stalin — and I assure you that the statement is true — your feeling 
is that Mr. Stalin is wrong if he states that we cannot coexist side 
by side in the same world ? 

Miss Epstein. I am not discussing Mr. Stalin at all. If you ask 
me about my own opinion, my own opinion is we must negotiate 
peace. We may riot have peace by vanquishing other people or by 
subjecting them to our type of living. 

Mr. Jackson. You believe then that through negotiation that it 
is possible for the United States and the Soviet Union to exist side 
by side in the same world ? 

Miss Epstein. We must find a way. 

JSIr. Mouj^der. Do you have any knowledge concerning communistic 
or subversive activities whatsoever? 

Miss Epstein. Are you talking about propaganda activities? 

Mr. Moulder. Either one. 

Miss Epstein. If you are talking about activities, I consider it 
out of the scope of your inquiry. If you are talking about propa- 
ganda activities, I will stand on the fifth amendment and not dis- 
cuss any question that has to do with communism. 
Mr. Wood. Any further questions, counsel ? 



3930 COMMUN'ISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. Tavenner. Nq, sir. 

Mr. Wood. Is there any reason why the witness shouldn't be ex- 
cused from further attendance? 

Mr. Tavenner. No, sir. 

Mr. Wood. So ordered, and the committee stands in recess until 2 
o'clock. 

(Whereupon at 12: 30 p. m. a recess was taken until 2 p. m. of the 
same day.) 

AFTERNOON SESSION 

(The subcommittee reconvened, pursuant to recess, at 2:00 p. m.) 

Mr. Wood. Let us have order, please. 

Who do you have, Mr. Counsel ? 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Matthew M. Richman. 

Mr. Richman. I am here, sir. 

Mr. Wood. Will you raise your right hand and be sworn, please ? 
' Do you solemnly' swear the evidence you shall give this subcom- 
mittee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, 
so help you God ? 

Mr. Richman. I do, sir. 

TESTIMONY OF MATHEW M. RICHMAN, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS 

COUNSEL, MORRIS E. COHN 

Mr. Wood. Do you have counsel representing you ? 
' Mr. Richman. Yes, sir, I have counsel here; the old adage about; 
"He who represents himself has a fool for a client and a bigger fool 
for a lawyer." 

Mr. Wood. Will you identify yourself? 
 Mr. Richman. My good friend, Mr. Morris E. Cohn, office neighbor. 

Mr. Wood. Proceed. 

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

Mr. Richman. Matthew M. Richman, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. When and where were you born? 

Mr. Richman. Philadelphia, Pa., on December 11, 1910. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you now live in Los Angeles ? 

Mr. Richman. I do, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long have you lived here ? 

Mr. Richman. You want the exact date. Counsel ? 

Mr. Tavenner. Not the exact date. Approximately. The year is 
certainly close enough. .. ^ . ,. 

Mr. Richman. I think it was 1944, Counsel; April, I believe, 

of 1944. 

Mr. Tavenner. I understand you are engaged in the practice of 

law. 

Mr. Richman. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long have you been engaged in the practice 

of law ? n ' T n A 

Mr. Richman. Approximately 14 years, except for a period ot 4 

years when I was in the armed services, and even then I engaged in 

the practice of law there, too. , . n i 

Mr. Tavenner. Would you tell the committee briefly what your 

educational preparation consisted of ? 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 3931 

Mr. RicHMAN. Well, I graduated from the public schools and high 
school, and I hold a bachelor of science and bachelor of arts and a 
bachelor of laws degrees, and I have taken a number of courses which 
have, I hope, prepared me to qualify for participation as a member of 
the bar. . 

Mr. Ta\t3Nner. Mr. Richman, there were four attorneys from this 
area who testified before the Committee on Un-American Activities 
in Washington. One of those four, Mr. Albert M. Herzig, testified 
that, according to page 2529 ^ of the record, soon after coming to Los 
Angeles he w^as informed that he had been transferred, his Communist 
Party membership had been transferred, from the place where he 
formerly resided to Los Angeles, and that he and his wife were asked 
to attend a meeting in Los Angeles, of the Communist Party, and he 
says : "* * * at, if I recall, Ben Margolis' house." He said he also 
attended Communist Party meetings at Marburg Yerkes' home, and 
he thought at Charlie Katz' home. 

I am reviewing this testimony so that you may know the exact 
character of it, because I want to base several questions upon it. 

Mr. Richman. May I see the record, Mr. Tavenner, if you are going 
to question me about that statement? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes ; I think I have an extra copy. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Tavenner. It is on page 2532.^ 

(The volume of proceedings referred to was handed to Mr. Rich- 
man.) 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Herzig, on page 2532, also was questioned about 
the secrecy of the membership in this Communist Party cell located 
here in Los Angeles. He testified to some extent about the course 
of instruction or indoctrination which was given him. 

This witness does not identify you as being a member of that group, 
but others who there testified, Mr. David Aaron and Mr. A. Mar- 
burg Yerkes, identified you as a member of that group, a group which 
they testified was composed solely of members of the legal profession. 

Now we find from the Los Angeles Times that when that informa- 
tion was made public at the time they testified in public, that you de- 
nounced the committee and that you said you would not dignify the 
droppings of an informer with a reply. 

Now, each of these gentlemen who testified before the committee 
explained in detail how they became members of the Communist 
Party and why they left the Communist Party. They stated that they 
felt, at least Mr. Yerkes did, that he felt it was his duty as a citizen 
to cooperate with this committee and give it the information that 
it desired, that was within his knowledge. 

So I want to ask you : Do you know whether there was a cell of 
the Communist Party in Los Angeles composed solely of members of 
the legal profession? 

Mr. Richman. Are you finished? You had your mouth open, and 
I thought you were going to say something else. 

Mr. Tavenner. I am waiting with the greatest expectancy. 

Mr, Richman. I doubt that. Counsel. 

I might say, Counsel, that I decline to answer that question for a 
number of reasons. In the first place, I will decline to answer ques- 

1 Ibid. 



3932 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

tions about any group, any person, any group of persons, any organ- 
ization, any political party, any publication, as a matter of principle, 
because I don't feel that I owe an accounting of any group that I have 
been a member of or persons that I have met, to this or any other 
body. I don't feel as though a congressional committee is my judge 
or my peer. 

I also feel. Counsel, that this is a Government of delegated powers. 
You see, I am a social scientist by avocation, as well as a lawyer, and I 
have studied political science very thoroughly, and I think that I 
know something about our federal form of government. I think this 
is federal form of government in which there are delegated powers 
to the Federal Government as well as to the States under the ninth 
and tenth amendments. 

And therefore, there are certain areas which the American people 
have reserved unto themselves, as they very well have the right to 
do, in which neither the Federal Government nor the State govern- 
ments may intervene, whether it be the legislative, the judicial, or the 
executive branch of the Government. And I feel that questions of 
tliis character are an invasion of my rights under the first amendment 
to the Constitution, go far afield of the rights of this committee to 
investigate, because I do not believe, as a lawyer, that you can con- 
stitutionally predicate any legislation upon this kind of an inquiry. 

Furthermore 

 Mr. Tavenner. Let me interrupt you there a moment. 

Mr. RicHMAN. Don't hesitate. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you believe that if a conspiracy exists to over- 
throw the Government of the United States by the use of force and 
violence 

Mr. RiCHMAN. Would you give me a chance to answer one question 
at a time ? I can't 

Mr. Moulder. The question was very simple : Do you know ? 
' Mr. Wood. You decline to answer the question that was asked you, 
sir? 

Mr. RicHMAN. I would like to state all of my reasons, and I have 
not given a complete answer, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Wood. I would be glad for you to state them, but I do not want 
an argument about them. Would you just state your reasons? 

Mr. RicHMAN. Yes ; I certainly am trying to do so to the best of my 
ability. 

\ Mr. Wood. I do not get that. Maybe I am obtuse about it. But let 
us have your reasons, if any. 

Mr. RicHMAN. My first reason, to make it crystal clear to you, is 
that I believe that such questions, and questions of a kindred nature, 
are a violation of the ninth and tenth amendments of the Constitution. 
' Mr. Wood. You have already told us that. 

Mr. RiciiMAN. Well, you said you didn't understand, and therefore 
I am repeating it for your benefit. 

Mr. Wood. I do not understand yet that that is a reason, but go 

ahead. 

Mr. RiCHMAN. I am trying to state legal grounds, Mr. Congress- 
man, and I am doing so to the 

 Mr. Wood. That is not a legal ground. 

Mr. RiCHMAN. That is a matter of opinion, sir. And as a law- 
yer 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 3933 

Mr. Wood. That is a matter of the Supreme Court decisions. 

Mr. RiCHMAN. Which one? 

Mr. Wood. They have held several times you cannot decline to an- 
swer a question that is asked you unless you can do so upon the provi- 
sions of the Constitution that protect a man from giving evidence 
against himself. 

Mr. RiciiMAN. I should like an authority on that. 

My other reasons, Counsel, for declining to answer this question is 
that I also believe that it is an invasion, unconstitutional invasion of 
the rights under the first amendment to the Constitution, which, to 
my knowledge, is still in the Constitution, and that any question which 
you ask about my association with persons or organizations or periodi- 
cals, or things of that character, represent an invasion of my rights 
under the Constitution, and I would not abrogate those rights. 

Thirdly, of course, I decline to answer, since Mr. Wood has already 
indicated to me what the Supreme Court has said, upon the fifth 
amendment, and for each and all of those reasons; in addition to 
which, of course, I am strongly of the opinion, along with Justice 
Douglas of the Supreme Court, that my being subpenaed here, and the 
summoning of other attorneys here, is a concerted effort to destroy and 
interfere with the independence of the bar, to make it impossible or 
certainly extremely difficult for persons who are accused of being 
witches in obtaining counsel of their choice and persons who are com- 
petent to represent them and who are desirous of doing so. 

Mr. Walter. When did Justice Douglas say that ? 

Mr. RicHMAN. I will be very happy to read it to you, since you ask 
me that question. He said it — I don't have the date here, but I have 
a direct quote from his statement. He also had it published in the 
New York Times, I believe, of July of last year, sir. 

Mr. Walter. That is all I wanted, just the date. 

Mr. RiCHMAN (reading) : 

Fear even strikes at lawyers at the bar. Those accused of illegal Communist 
activity — all presumed innocent, of course, until found guilty — have difficulty 
getting reputable lawyers to defend them. Lawyers have talked with me about 
it. Many are worried. Some could not volunteer their services, for if they 
did, they would lose clients and their firms would suffer. 

Mr. Walter. I am acquainted with that ; and I did not ask you to 
read it, I asked you when, because I am acquainted with that and I 
have read it. 

Mr. Richman. Justice Douglas said that. 

Mr. Walter. You think it was in July of last year ? 

Mr. RicHMAN. Well, as close as I can recall, and I don't have the 
exact date. I will be very happy to get it for you, if you want it. 

But that fear is present even more so today than it was then, and 
I think that activities of this committee by subpenaing members of 
the bar, who seek to do their duty and obey the oath of their office, is 
further intimidation of the bar, and it is further that black fear of 
reprisal which Justice Douglas spoke about. 

For each and all of those reasons, Counsel, I respectfully decline to 
answer your question. 

Mr. Tavenner. You do not carry your beliefs to the extent, I hope, 
that if a conspiracy exists to overthrow the Government of the United 
States by force and violence, that the fact that a person is a member 



3934 coMMuisrisM in los angeles professional groups 

of the legal profession should in any way interfere with an investiga- 
tion of his activities with regard to such a group? 

Mr. EicHMAN. Counsel, if you are asking for my beliefs, I have 
no desire to state them here, under these circumstances. 

Mr. Tavenner. You made a statement very close to that, and I am 
exploring the very thing which you, yourself, have said. 

Mr. KicHMAN. I take it as a fellow lawyer, that you know that if I 
choose not to express an opinion on one occasion, that I don't waive 
the right to express an opinion on another occasion. 

Mr. Tavenner. So you will not express any further opinion on 
that subject? 

Mr. RicHMAN. I have no desire to at this time ; and perhaps sub- 
sequently I may. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know of any instances when high func- 
tionaries of the Communist Party, including specifically Dorothy 
Healy, appeared before a group of lawyers in Los Angeles ? 

Mr. RiCHMAN. Have you finished the question. Counsel? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes. 

Mr. RicHMAN. I can't tell, when you drop your voice that way, 
whether you are still looking for something to say. 

Mr. Tavenner. I didn't know you had difficulty in hearing me. 

Mr. RicHMAN. I heard you, but the way in which you put the 
question, I didn't know whether you were finished or not, and I didn't 
want to interrupt you. 

I believe your question, if I followed it correctly, contains a refer- 
ence to an organization which is on the list of this committee and the 
Attorney General. As I have indicated heretofore, for each and all 
of the reasons which I have advanced, and upon each and all of the 
legal grounds which I have stated, I decline to answer that question. 

Mr. Tavenner. Have you at any time been a member of the Engels 
group or club of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. RiCHMAN. Well, again, Counsel, you are asking me the same 
question in another form, I believe, and I don't want to appear to 
be repetitious or take up the time of this committee unnecessarily, but 
I decline to answer that question upon the same grounds and for the 
same legal reasons. 

Mr. TA^^NNER. Are you now a member of the Communist Party? 

Mr. RiCHMAN. Again I decline to answer that question upon the 
same grounds and for the same legal reasons which I have advanced 
heretofore. 

Mr. Tavenner. Have you ever been ? 

INIr. RiCHMAN. I hope you understand I am trying to be con- 
sistent, sir. 

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

Mr. RiCHMAN. Again I decline to answer that question upon the 
same grounds and for the same legal reasons stated heretofore. 

Mr. Tavenner. I have no further questions. 

Mr. Moulder. I have one, to clarify your attitude as a witness. 
You quoted Justice Douglas 

Mr. RiCHMAN. And I would like the opportunity to quote him in 
full. 

Mr. Moulder. No. With reference to his reference there to the 
exercise of professional capacity, that is, of the practice of law. Now, 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 3935 

do you mean to maintain that the questions that Mr. Tavenner has 
propounded to you with reference to communism have some connec- 
tion with your hiw practice? Is that the basis of your refusal to 
answer ? 

Mr. RicHMAN. I have stated the basis of my refusal to answer, 
Congressman ; but I do state, and I make it very emphatic, sir, that 
I feel that these proceedings are an attempt to intimidate courageous 
members of the bar, in these hysterical times, who are willing to do 
their duty and obey their oath of office to take the cases of the clients 
without regard to themselves personally. And Justice Douglas was 
saying, as I read, that "fear strikes even lawyers at the bar." 

Mr. Moulder. We are not endeavoring to find out about your law 
practice, or any privileged communications, or anything else, or any 
association on your part in connection with a client. We are asking 
you about your communistic activities. And do you wish to deny or 
affirm that you have been indulging in such communistic activities, 
aside from your professional practice ? 

Mr. EicHMAN. Congressman, I have already given my answers to 
the questions propounded to me, and I stand upon those answers. I 
simply wanted to make it crystal clear to you, and I think that you 
ought to accord me the courtesy of permitting me to read the balance 
of the statement. 

Mr. Moulder. It has no connection ; the opinion that you have cited. 

Mr. RiciiMAN. I think it has a very definite connection ; and in fact, 
that is the basi« for my being brought here today. 

Mr. Walter. Now, just a minute. What do you mean by that? 
The basis of your being brought here today is what? 

Mr. EiCHMAN. Would you be kind enough to accord me the courtesy 
of permitting me to finish that portion of Justice Douglas' remarks, 
which I think are a propos ? 

Mr. Walter. I have read it, but j^ou just said something about the 
basis of your having been brought here, and not because you are a 
Jaw^yer and not because you defend people who have been charged with 
subversive activities, but you have been subpenaed to come here because 
this committee was of the opinion that perhaps, being a member of the 
bar, you would be willing to make some kind of contribution to the 
work that we are doing. And you have been named as being a Com- 
munist, and we thought and we believe that is the fact. We believe 
that you are a Communist or have been, and we had an idea that 
perhaps you could help us find out how far reaching were the activities 
of the lawyers in this community. 

Mr. Richman. I can best help you by reading to you what Justice 
Douglas said. 

Mr. Walter. I know what he said, and I read it before you did. 

Mr. RiCHMAN. Why did you ask me when it was made ? 

Mr. Walter. Because I had forgotten the date ; that is all. 

Mr. Wood. Any further questions? 

Mr. Moulder. Did you ever attend any Communist meeting inde- 
pendent of your capacity as a lawyer, but as a person, at any kind of 
Communist meeting? 

Mr. RiCHMAN. Congressman, I tried to be very clear about the 
position I was taking, as a principle position. And now, I respect- 
fully decline to answer your question, sir, for the same reasons and 
upon the same legal grounds. 



3936 coMMuisriSM in los angeles professional groups 

Mr. Moulder. That is all. 

Mr. Doyle. Are you a member of the Los Angeles Bar Associa- 
tion, Mr. Richman ? 

Mr. Richman. No, sir; I am not, 

Mr. Doyle. Are you a member of the National Lawyers' Guild? 

Mr. Richman. I decline to answer that question, sir, upon the same 
grounds and for the same legal reason which I have heretofore given. 

Mr. Doyle. That is, you are afraid of self-incrimination if you state 
whether or not vou are a member of the Los Angeles National Lawyers' 
Guild? 

Mr. Richman. Congressman, I have assigned, I think, six separate 
grounds, and I could assign others, but for the purpose of brevity I 
gave six, and I am standing upon each and all of them, sir. 

Mr. Doyle. Are you a member of the American Bar Association ? 

Mr, Richman. No, sir ; I am not. 

Mr. Doyle. Are you a member of the State bar of California ? 

Mr. Richman, Yes; I am, sir. That is required by law, as you 
well know, 

Mr, Doyle, That is right. 

Are you a member of any other professional group connected with 
the practice of law, or I mean ate you a member of any honorary 
group among the lawyers of the State, or in the Nation, other than 
the Los Angeles Lawyers' Guild or the National Lawyers' Guild? 

Mr, Richman. Did you say "honorary member" ? 

Mr. Doyle. No; any honorary society, any professional group 
among the lawyers of California, or of the Nation, other than the 
National Lawyers' Guild. 

Mr. Richman. I am a member of the Beverly Hills Bar Associa- 
tion. Is that what you mean? 

Mr. Doyle. Yes. 

Mr. Richman. I am sorry. I didn't understand your question. I 
am a member of the Beverly Hills Bar Association. 

The only reason I am not — well 

Mr. Doyle. Why do you state that you are a member of the Beverly 
Hills Bar Association and joii do not claim your constitutional privi- 
leges there, but you do when I ask you if you are a member of the 
National Lawyers' Guild ? Is there any difference in their objectives? 

Mr. Richman. There is this guide,^ furnished by the courtesy of 
Mr. Jackson's office, that makes a difference, sir, and as a matter of 
principle I have said to you that I will not answer any questions 
about any persons or groups or organizations or political parties that 
have been named or mentioned before this committee or on the Attor- 
ney General's list or any other list of similar nature. 

Mr. Doyle. You and I are both members of the bar. 

Mr. Richman. Yes, sir. I am very, very happy to be a member 
of the bar. 

Mr. Doyle. So am I. 

Now, you and I took an oath of office as members of the bar. 

Mr. Richman. We certainly did, sir. 

]Mr. Doyle. And we believe in fulfilling that oath; do we not? 

]Mr. Richman. I have tried to, to the best of my ability, I assure 
you. 

1 Guide to Subversive Organizations and Publications prepared and released by the House 
Committee on Un-American Activities as H. Doc. 137, May 14, 1951. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 393-7 

Mr. Doyle. And when I became a member of the United States 
Congress I took an oath to do my duty. Under Public Law 601, tlie 
United States Congress by unanimous vote assigned each and every 
member of this committee with which you are sitting the obligation 
of investigating the extent and character and objects of subversivB 
and un-American propaganda and activities in the United States. 

If you were a member of this committee under that assignment, 
and you had taken the oath as a Member of Congress, and you had 
any information that there were subversive activities in any gi'oup 
designed to undermine the constitutional form of the United States 
Government, would you not be asking questions of every person who 
had any possibility of connection with knowing any of the facts 
about subversive activities, and would you not deem it your loyal duty 
to the United States Government to question people factually, regard- 
less of who they were, if you had any idea they could give information? 

Mr. RicHMAN. Congressman, if you are talking about sabotage or 
sedition or things of that character, absolutely yes, sir ; but tlie point 
is, in these times of hysteria, I have found that "subversive activities'' 
means one thing to you, and it means another thing to me, and it 
means a third thing to somebody else, and it is one of these catch-all 
clauses, you know, which defies due process. And if it were in a 
criminal statute it would be stricken down as being vague and indefi- 
nite and uncertain. 

I don't know w^hat you mean by "subversive activities." And I 
say to you, sir, that if you investigate my opinions, and if you ask me 
what organizations I have belonged to, and if you ask me whether I 
know certain persons, if you ask me whether I have been in their 
homes, and if you ask me what I read, I consider that to be an inva- 
sion of the constitutional rights of a free American, sir, and I feel 
that you have no right to do so. 

Mr. DoTLE. Do you consider that the Communist Party in America 
has no connection with subversive activities or propaganda designed 
to destroy the Government of the United States by force and violence? 

Mr. RicHMAN. Congressman, you know, you are a lawyer, this is 
"Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" And if you answer "Yes" 
or "No," you are damned anyhow. And I have indicated to you, sir, 
my position, and I try to be a principle person; and I didn't take this 
position lightly, I give you my word of honor. I thought about it 
quite a bit, because I wanted to discharge my duties as an American 
citizen, and I think I am doing it to the best of my ability here today. 

Mr. Doyle. Well, I just wish to say this to you, as a fellow member 
of the bar : I have read the brief submitted by worthy counsel for cer- 
tain lawyers before this committee, and I do not conceive of the mem- 
bers of the bar as being in a separate group of citizenship from any 
other group of citizens or any other individual citizens of the United 
States. 

Mr. E.ICIIMAN. Unless you misunderstand me. Congressman, I don't 
take any such position either; that there is any difference between a 
lawyer and a nonlawyer, and I think a citizen is a citizen. 

Mr. Doyle. I am very glad to get that statement from you, because 
that is the exact position of this committee, contrary to what the brief 
has. 

Mr. RicHMAN. It is my position, Congi-essman, that in calling 
lawyers who are likely to or who have in the past defended persons 



3938 coMMuisriSM in los angeles professional groups 

accused of being witches, of political heresay, if you please, that you 
are doing a disservice to the bar of this country, and that you are de- 
stroying the independence of the bar. And I love the tradition of the 
law, because it has been steeped into me in all of the years — since I was 
knee high to a grasshopper I wanted to be a lawyer — and I believe in 
civil liberties. And by calling lawyers, not because they are lawyers 
but because they have a special function in our society to defend those 
who are accused of crimes and accused of political heresy, that you do 
a disservice, as Justice Douglas has pointed out 

Mr. Doyle. Now, I have let you make a speech, and will you let me 
make one? 

Mr. RiCHMAN. I haven't finished, Congressman. [Continues:] 
And he says this is a dark tragedy, and I agree with him, to intimidate 
lawyers. 

Mr. DoTLE. Now, may I just make one statement clear, in closing? 
You do not consider that because a man is a member of the bar lie 
should not be questioned factually about subversive activities in the 
United States ; do you ? 

Mr. RiCHMAN. Again, Congressman, I say to you, I don't know 
what you mean by "subversive activities." 

Mr. Doyle. Activities that tend to destroy, according to Mr. "Web- 
ster, who wrote the dictionary — tend to destroy and tear apart, and to 
jruin and to dissolve. That is the meaning of Mr. Webster of "sub- 
versive." 

Mr. RiCHMAN. Then let me point out some accusations by Senator 
McCarthy against George Marshall, General Marshall, as being part 
of a conspiracy to do something or other against this Government; 
and also accusations against Dean Acheson, the Secretary of State, 
who was supposed to be a "front man" for the Communists, who con- 
ceivably is active in subversive activities. The President of the United 
States. 

You see, "subversive activities," that phrase today, Congressman, 
means all things to all people, and it is a catch-all clause, as I said. 
You asked me if I would do my duty as a lo3^al American citizen. 
I would say "Yes," because I consider myself to be a loyal American 
citizen, and I hope the day never comes when I am not. 

Mr. Doyle. All right, now, you have taken an opportunity, and I 
have given it to you deliberately because I am expecting your further 
cooperation in giving us this very point, your viewpoint on this : Do 
you know anything about any activities of the Communist Party in 
Los Angeles or in California which would help us understand the 
extent to which the Communist Party or its leadership, if at all, is 
engaged in advocating and propagandizing against the form of con- 
stitutional government which we have? 

Mr. RicuMAN. Mr. Doyle 

Mr. Doyle. That is just a question of fact : Do you know anything? 

Mr. RicHMAN. Now, I say to you again: This is "Have you left 
off beating your wife yet?" And I decline to answer it for each and 
all of the other reasons I stated heretofore. 

Mr. Doyle. All right; that is all. 

Mr. Wood. Mr. Frazier? 

Mr. Frazier. I have no questions. 

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



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 3939 

Mr. Wood. In order to keep the record straight, the only purpose 
this committee has had in siibpenaing members of the bar before it 
is because certain members of the bar of this city have been named 
before this committee, in sworn testimony of other witnesses who 
have not been prosecuted for perjury, as members of the Communist 
Party. It has been the uniform policy of this committee, when such 
occurs, to give each and every person so named an opportunity in 
the same forum to deny, admit, or explain such sworn accusations. 

It is regrettable to me that a man of your intelligence is unwilling 
to avail himself of that privilege, to say whether they are or whether 
they are not; and, if so, why. But it is a matter that we cannot 
control. 

As I remarked this morning, when a man testifies under his oath 
that to say w^hether he is a member of an organization or not would 
tend to incriminate him, there is only one of two facts. That is, thai 
he is either telling an untruth or his answer would do just exactly 
that. 

Mr. RicHMAN. That is not the law. Congressman. 

Mr. Wood. Any further questions, Mr. Counsel ? 

I am talking about the facts. 

Mr. RicHMAN. You are talking about law. 

Mr. Wood. I am just talking about facts, and I just say if you say 
that to answer a question whether you are a Communist or not would 
incriminate you, it would do that, or your answer is wrong. 

Mr. RiCHMAN. Let me give you a hornbook illustration. 

Mr. Wood. I am talking about facts, and 

Mr. RicfiMAN. You remember the illustration, and I think it is in' 
all of tlie lawbooks, of A wlio is a mortal enemy of B. 

Mr. Wood. I was not asking you any questions. I was making a 
statement. 

Any further questions? 

Is there any reason why this witness should not be excused? 

Mr. RiCHMAN. Mr. Congressman, for the benefit of those people 
who haven't heard the statement, may I finish that? 

Mr. Wood. You are excused from further attendance on the com- 
mittee. 

Mr. RiCHMAN. Thank you very much for the courtesy not extended. 

(The witness was excused) 

Mr. TA^'ENNER. Mr. Ben Margolis. 

Mr. Wood. Would you stand, please? 

You solemnly swear the evidence you shall give this committee shall 
be the truth, the whole trutli, and nothing but the truth, so help you 
God? 

Mr. Margolis. I do. 

Mr. Wood. Let us have order, please. 

TESTIMONY OF BEN MARGOLIS, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COTJNSEL, 
LEO BRANTON, ROBERT W. KENNY, TOM NEUSOM, AND DANIEL 
G. MARSHALL 

Mr. Tavenner. Would you state your name, please? 

Mr. Margolis. My name is Ben Margolis. 

Mr. Chairman, I liave a statement here, and I wonder if you would 
permit the reading of a voluntary statement by a witness wlio has no 
intention of becoming one of your stool pigeons? 



3940 COMRIUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. Wood. The rule of this committee, as you well know because 
you have practiced considerably before it, is that we would be glad 
to have you file with the committee any statement you desire. 

• Mr. Margolis. I also know that stool pigeons are allowed to say 
anything that they please. If you stand on your knees before this 
committee, you can talk all you want ; if you stand, on your feet, you 
are shut up. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you represented by counsel, Mr. Margolis? 

^ Mr. Margolis. Yes. I am represented by Mr. Leo Branton, who is 
sitting here to my left, and I hope the committee won't hold that 
against him; and I am represented by Mr. Robert W. Kenny, who is 
sitting not quite so much to my left ; and I am also represented by Mr. 
Tom Neusom and Mr. Daniel G. Marshall, for whom there appears to 
be no room up here. 

Mr. Tavenner. If you desire chairs to be moved closer to you, we 
will be glad to accommodate you. 

When and where were you born, Mr. Margolis? 

Mr. Margolis. I was born in New York City on April 23, 1910, and 
almost from the first day that I can remember, I have hated tyranny, 
and that is why I feel the way that I do about this committee. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you now engaged in the practice of law ? 

Mr. Margolis. Yes; I am. I am engaged in the practice of law 
land in an attempt to uphold the Constitution of the United States at 
every opportunity available to me. 

Mr. Tavenner. Where have you engaged in the practice of your 
profession ? 

Mr. Margolis. Well, I have had — I have engaged in the practice 
of my profession in many places in the United States, but I have had 
offices in only two cities. 

Mr. Tavenner. That is what I am referring to, of course. 

Ml". Margolis. I have had offices in San Francisco, Calif., and I 
presently have an office in Los Angeles, Calif. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long did you have an office in San Francisco ? 

Mr. Margolis. From the time I was admitted in 1933, 1 had various 
offices there until I left San Francisco in 1943. 

Mr. Tavenner. Since that time, have you maintained an office in 
Los Angeles ? 

Mr. Margolis. That is so. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you acquainted with Mr. Edward Dmytryk ? 

Mr. ISIargolis. Mr. Tavenner, unfortunately Mr. Dmytryk, accord- 
ing to my knowledge, has become a member of your stable, and I would 
refuse to answer any questions concerning any such person, on the 
grounds, first, that it would tend to degrade me to associate myself 
with any such person. 

Mr. Tavenner. And, of course, you know that is no defense to the 
question. 

Mr. Margolis. I think it is a very good American defense to this 
question, but I intend to rely upon a number of them, including this 
one. You will not tell me what I know, Mr. Tavenner. I will tell 
you what I know to the extent that I feel like telling you, and no 
further. 

Mr. Tavenner. Well, you are familiar with the decisions on the 
subject ? 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 3941 

Mr. Margolis. Yes; I am familiar with the decisions on the subject, 
and I think I know them very much better than you. 

Mr. Tavennek. That may be, but I am gUid to know that you are 
acquaihted with that one. 

Mr. Margolis. I will repeat, that I will not admit any association 
with any person of that character, on the ground that the admission 
of such association would tend to degrade me ; on the further ground 
that you are attempting to invade my right of association, my right 
of freedom of speech, and if I were to answer such a question I would 
help you to desecrate the Constitution of the United States, which I 
will not do. I also refuse to answer on the ground that you are 
attempting to destroy the highest sovereignty in this land, the sov- 
ereignty of the people of the United States, to think as they will and 
to tell their Congressmen what they think, and not to have their 
Congressmen tell them what they should think. 

This is in violation of the ninth and tenth amendments — do you 
want me to finish my answer ? 

INIr. Walter. No. 

Mr. Margolis. If you ask me questions 

Mr. Walter. Just at that point, I want to point something out to 
you : That we are the tools of the people of the United States, and we 
are here 

Mr. Margolis. You are the tools of something else. 

Mr. Walter. We are not here because of any choice, and there is 
not a man on this committee who selected this assignment. The 
people of the United Stntes put us on this committee. 

Mr. Margolis. I don't think the people of the United States put 
you on this committee. That may be your opinion. 

Mr. Walter. Well, but the vote in the Congress for this committee 
was unanimous. 

Mr. Margolis. You were put on this committee by the vote of the 
Congress because you have terrorized the Congress as well as the peo- 
l)le of the United States, and there are many newspapermen in Wash- 
ington who have recognized that. 

Mr. Wood. I am not going to permit the committee to be further in- 
sulted by this witness, and I am going to request that the witness and 
direct the witness to answer the questions that are asked him, and if 
possible in a civil way. 

Any further questions, Mr. Counsel? 

Mr. Margolis. Do you withdraw that last question, or do you want 
me to complete my reason for refusing to state it ? 

Mr. Tavenner. I think if the witness has any further reason for 
refusing to answer the question, he should state it. 

Mr. Margolis. Yes. 

I think that I was saying that I refuse to answer this question on 
I he additional grounds that it violates the ninth and tenth amend- 
ments of the Constitution of the United States, because of the fact that 
the purpose of this committee is to tell — — 

Mr. Wood. The committee knows what the ninth and tenth amend- 
ments are ; if you invoke it, that is far enough, and 

Mr. Margolis. Are you afraid to hear my grounds, Mr. Chairman ? 

Mr. Wood. No, sir. I am just getting a little weary of your con- 
temptuous attitude. 



3942 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. Margolis. If you get weary, I have nothing but contempt for 
this committee, and I will show it as long as I am up here. 

Mr. Wood. It is entirely mutual, but I am trying my best to keep 
from showing it to you. * 

Mr. Margolis. May I finish my reasons ? 

Mr. Wood. State your reasons, but not an argument. _ 

Mr. Margolis. I can only state them fully, and I intend to state 
them fully, and I want to protect my rights against anything this 
committee does, and I want to state 

Mr. Wood. You have named the ninth and tenth amendments, and 
is there any further legal 

Mr. Margolis. I want to state how the ninth and tenth amendments 
apply. 

Air. Wood. That will not be permitted, because the committee is 
familiar with the ninth and tenth amendments. 

Mr. Margolis. Do you wish to withdraw the question? • 

Mr. Wood. I want you to state any further legal reasons you have. 

Mr. Margolis. My further reason, legal reason, is that I refuse to 
answer this question on the ground that no committee, this committee 
nor any other committee, has the right to tell the American people 
what they can or they cannot think. On the contrary, it is the func- 
tion of the American people to tell their Congressmen they should or 
should not vote, and you are reversing the process of legislation by 
becoming a tyrannical government, by seeking to make this a tyran- 
nical government instead of the democratic government that it was 
intended to be. 

I further refuse to answer this question on the grounds of the fifth 
amendment, because I will not aid you in your attempts to persecute 
me and others. 

]Mr. Wood, Any further questions? 

Mr. Tavenner. I am not certain whether the witness, in his ex- 
planation, relied upon the fifth amendment, or not. 

Mr. Wood. That was his final answer. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Margolis, at page 2506 ^ of the records of the 
committee 

Mr. Margolis. You can save yourself some time. I have read that, 
and L am not going to answer the questions. Why waste the tax- 
payers' money ? 

Mr. Tavexner. I say, at page 250G of the record, Mr. David Aaron 
testified that he recalled the names of the persons who owned the homes 
Avhere the meetings were held, that is, Communist Party meetings. He 
said, "There was Katz, Margolis." 

Was a Communist Party meeting attended by Mr. David Aaron 
ever held in your home ? 

Mr. Margolis. Mr. Aaron falls into the same company as Mr. 
Dmytryk, and I refuse to answer any questions involving Mr. Aaron 
or involving my political associations or beliefs of the kind that you 
have asked me, on the grounds previously stated. And you can save 
yourself a lot of time and trouble and save the taxpayers some money 
by not repeating the same questions over in different form. 

^Communist Activities Among Professional Groups in the Los Angeles Area — pt. 1. 
p. 2506. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 3943 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Yerkes testified before the committee, and his 
testimony appears at page 2547 ^ of the transcript, as to how he became 
a member of a cell of the Comnnmity Party in Los Angeles made up 
solely of members of the legal profession. He told of having first met 
you at the time he delivered a report at some meeting; and that finally, 
after joining your law firm, Mr. Victor Kaplan asked him if he would 
like to know more about the Comnumist Party, and that then he was 
advised to attend a meeting of the group. 

He then testified regarding his participation m the meetings of the 
Communist Party, and he referred to you as one of the members of 
that group. 

Was that true, or was it false ? 

Mr. Margolis. A moment ago you asked somebody whether he heard 
very well. Do you hear very well, Mr. Tavenner ? 

JSIr. Tavenner. Will you answer the question? 

Mr. Margolis. You heard me state a while ago that I would refuse 
to answer any of that kind of questions. 

Mr. Wood. What are you going to answer about this one that has 
just been asked? 

Mr. Margolis. I will decline to answer, Mr. Chairman. And I don't 
want to be threatened, and I don't intend to be, and I will decline, Mr. 
Chairman, to answer that question, on all of the grounds which I have 
previously stated ; and on the additional ground that it is no accident 
that the lawyers that you have subpenaed are those who have been 
leading the fight for the defense of the civil liberties of the people of 
this country, and that is no accident. And if you will look through- 
out the land, those who you have been attacking, you have been attack- 
ing because they have been fighting for the rights of minority groups 
whose rights are invaded by actual force and violence in communities 
and States from which many of you come, including j^our chairman. 

Mr. Wood. That statement is deliberately false, and everybody who 
knows the work of this committee knows it is. 

Are there any further questions ? 

Mr. JNIargolis. I say it is the truth, and T assert it under oath, Mr. 
Chairman. 

Mr. Wood. I am not going to sit here 

Mr. Margolis. If it is a lie, you can prosecute me for perjury. 

Mr. Wood. You can't prosecute a man for lying when the lying is 
not material to the issues involved, and that is not material. 

Mr. Margolis. I wouldn't raise the question of materiality on that. 
I am perfectly willing to prove that, and if you w^ant me to prove it 
by chapter and verse, I will prove it right now. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you a member of the Communist Party in 
January of 1946 ? 

Mr. Margolis. I guess you don't care how many dollars of the tax- 
payers' money is being spent, do you ? I have told you 

Mr. Wood. Answer the questions that are asked you. 

Mr. Margolis. I have told you my position, Mr. Taveimer. 

Mr. Tavenner. What is your position with reference to that ques- 
tion ? 



1 Ibid. 



95008— 52— pt. 3- 



3944 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. Margolis. I have told you my position with respect to all ques- 
tions like that. 

Mr. Tavenner. That one hasn't been asked you. What is your 
answer ? 

Mr. Margolis. My position is the same with respect to this question 
as it is with respect to all others of that type, and it is going to be the 
same, Mr. Tavenner. 

Mr. Tavenner. Why have you changed your mind as to answering 
the questions of whether or not you were a member of the Communist 
Party in January of 1946? 

Mr. Margolis. Why have I changed my mind ? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes. 

Mr. Margolis. You are making an assumption. 

Mr. Tavenner. No, I have the record before me, and you appeared 
as a witness before the California Fact-Finding Committee in Janu- 
ary of 1946, and the hearing began on January 2, 1946, but I do not 
know just which day you appeared, and it may have been 1 or 2 days 
later. At that hearing, the record shows that you were asked this 
question : 

Mr. Margolis, have you yourself ever beeu affiliated with the Communist 
Party? 

Answer : No, I have not. 

Question : Or the Communist Political Association? 

Answer : No. 

Question : Or the Young Communist League? 

Answer : No. 

Question : Or American Youth for Democracy? 

Answer : No. 

Question: Have you ever sponsored any of those organizations? 

Answer : I have never been a sponsor fur any of the organizations. 

Do you recall that ? 

Mr. Margolis. I don't recall that specific testimony, but I want to 
say that since 1946 I have learned a lot, first of all about constitutional 
rights, and second, about the hysteria that is going on in this country. 
And my position today is different than it was in 1946, because condi- 
tions in this country are different than they were in 1946, 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes, but were you a member of the Communist 
Party in January of 1946 ? 

Mr. Margolis. I am now testifying in 1952, when conditions are 
different than they were in 1946, and I am not going to answer that 
question if you ask it 100 times in 100 different ways; and the reasons 
that I have given, I repeat now. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you tellin.g the truth under oath when you 
stated you were not a member of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Margolis. Isn't that clever of you, and another way of asking 
the same question ; that is so beautiful. You are not going to get an 
answer to that question, whether you wheedle and whether you are 
clever or think you are clever, and no matter what method you try, 
I am not going to answer that question. I am not going to serve your 
purposes in this committee. 

Mr. Tavenner. You are not going to say now whether you were 
telling tlie truth under oath then, or not, are you ? 

Mr. Margolis. I am not going to say now anything about my poli- 
tical affiliations. And an answer to the question as to whether I was 
telling the truth then would give you information as to my political 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 3945 

affiliations, and I don't intend to give you that information. Is that 
clear enough for you ? 

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

Mr. Margolis. Are you serious? 

Mr. Tavenner. Here is one statement back in 1946 in which you 
say you were not, and I think I have a right to test the credibility 
of your statement then. 

Mr. Margolis. I have told you, Mr. Tavenner, I am not going to 
testify about my political affiliations, and I am not going to help de- 
stroy the first amendment, and I just won't do it. 

Mr. Tavenner. And for the same reasons, you will not tell this 
committee anything regarding the organization of a Communist 
Party cell in Los Angeles made up entirely of members of the legal 
profession ? 

Mr. Margolis. I am not going to tell you anything about those 
organizations, whether I know anything or not, because of the rea- 
sons that I have stated, and because I believe that this country will 
only be free so long as people will determine for themselves and will 
not have any congressional committee determine what organizations 
they may or may not belong to. Once a congressional committee 
can say to the people of the United States, "You may belong to this 
organization, and not that organization; you may say this and not 
that ; and you may associate with him and not him," then that is the 
end of democracy in this country, and I will not be a party to ending 
democracy in this country. 

Mr. Tavenner. Not even in the event that organization has for its 
purpose the overthrow of the very Government which you say you 
seek to protect? 

Mr. Margolis. This assumes something, and if you have any evi- 
dence with respect to anybody that they are engaged in acts of over- 
throwing the Government of the United States, or of doing anything 
else by force and violence, why don't you prosecute, and why don't 
you go after some of the lynchers and after the people in Cicero who 
use force and violence? And I say, prosecute those who use force 
and violence, and don't try to use this committee to talk* hypocritically 
about that objective while you are actually trying to pry into people's 
beliefs, associations, and what they think. No matter what questions 
you ask, and no matter how you try to cover it up, that is what you 
are doing here; and the American people know that is what you are 
doing here, and I am not going to help you do it. 

I want to make the record clear that while I am not repeating in 
each instance all of the reasons which I have previously stated, with 
respect to each declination I repeat all of the reasons; and if you want 
m.e to repeat them now, I will be glad to do so. 

Mr. Tavenner. You mean to include the fifth amendment ? 

Mr. Margolis. I mean to include the first amendment, the fifth 
amendment, and the ninth and tenth, and everything else that I urged. 

Mr. Tavenner. I have no further questions. 

Mr. Wood. Mr. Walter, any questions? 

Mr. Walter. I have no questions. 

Mr. Moulder. You made some reference to stool pigeons. Or- 
dinarily, that term is used describing associates in the criminal world. 
How do you apply it here, as an associate of yours who formerly was 



3946 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

engaged in some subversive or criminal activity and who now has 
revealed your association, and you would call him a stool pigeon. How 
do you use that term ? 

Mr. Margolis. May I answer that question? I use the term in 
exactly the same sense that Mr. Chaffee — Mr. Chaffee of Harvard 
University, the greatest authority on free speech in the United States — 
used that term. I think he said that a stool pigeon is one who spies 
on his neighboi-s; one who tattles on everything that he hears; and 
one who, even those who you hate and distrust, one who, if he has the 
opportunity for money or for anything that will advance him, will 
tell anything about anybody ; and one who will lie at the drop of a hat. 
And Mr. Chaffee bases this upon the historical definition of stool 
pigeons, which are among the most hated creatures in the United 
States and throughout the world. A stool pigeon is a word of abomi- 
nation, and that is the way I intend it, and that is it. 

Mr. Moulder. And he is a stool pigeon even though he tells the 
truth, is that so ? 

Mr. Margolis. Persons who violate confidences with respect to 
ideas, persons who violate confidences, who tattle with respect to what 
their neighbors say, and who listen at keyholes, are stool pigeons. 
But stool pigeons historically never tell the truth, and they are in- 
capable of it, and no person who would stoop that low is capable of 
telling the truth with any degree of consistency. 

Mr. Moulder. What was the man's name that he referred to ? 

Mr. Tavenner. Dmytryk. 

Mr. Moulder. Well, then, do you now allege he was not telling the 
truth about you ? 

Mr. Margolis. Now you are asking the same kind of a question 
Mr. Tavenner asked, and I will give you exactly the same answer. 
He is a stool pigeon, and I am not going to dignify him by responding 
to liim, and I refuse to answer it on all of the grounds I previously 
stated. And I don't think I have to answer the accusations of stool 
pigeons, and I don't have to answer the accusations of this commit- 
tee, and I won't. 

Mr. Moulder. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Doyle. 1 have no questions at this time. 

Mr. Frazier. I have no questions. 

Mr. Jackson. Mr. Chaiiman, I have no questions, but I think cer- 
tainly that the testimony of this witness is one excellent reason why 
the sessions of this committee, and every other congressional com- 
mittee, should be carried before the eyes of every American citizen : 
The arrogance, and the hatred of our institutions and our way of life; 
yes, and of the Congress of the United States, should be 

Mr. Margolls. I challenge you to a public debate on who loves our 
institutions the most. 

Mr. Jackson. I have too much respect for myself and my beliefs to 
engage in any sort of a debate 

Mr. Margolis. You are afraid, and you are scared to death, and 
you know how you would come out. 

Mr. Jackson. I have yet to see the Communist or the Communist 
sympathizer 

Mr. Margolis. You are taking an opportunity to make a soap- 
box speech, and you have got to 

Mr. Jackson. Are you opposed to me ? 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 3947 

Mr. Margolis. Am I opposed to you ! And how ! 

Mr. Jackson. Well, I am glad to hear it. That is the greatest 
election speech I could ask of anyone. 

Mr. Margolis. I will be glad to repeat that on a public platform, 
and I will pay the expenses, and we will argue about who is the better 
American, you or I. 

Mr. Wood. I want to ask you a question as a lawyer. If perjury was 
committeed in 1946, as a matter of law it would be barred by the 
statute of limitations now, would it not ? 

Mr. Margolis. Yes, it would. 

Mr. Wood. That is all. 

Any further questions? 

Mr. Tavenner. No. 

Mr. Margolis. I won't send a bill for that, Mr. Wood. 

]\Ir. Wood. The witness is excused. 

(The witness was excused.) 

Mr. Tavenner. I will call Miss Esther Shandler. 

Mr. Wood. Will you raise your right hand? 

Do you solemnly swear the evidence you shall give this subcommit- 
tee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so 
help you God ? 

Miss Shandler. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF ESTHER SHANDLER, ACCOMPANIED BY HER COUN- 
SEL, ROBERT W. KENNY, THOMAS G. NEUSOM, AND DANIEL G. 
MARSHALL 

Mr. Tavenner. What is your name, please ? 

Miss Shandler. My name is Esther Shandler. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you represented by counsel ? 

Miss Shandler. I am. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will counsel please identify themselves for the 
record ? 

Mr. Kenny. Robert W. Kenny, Thomas G. Neusom, and Daniel G. 
Marshall. 

Mr. Tavenner. When and where were you born, Miss Shandler? 

Miss Shandler. I was born in Passaic, N. J. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you a resident of Los Angeles ? 

Miss Shandler. I am. 

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

Miss Shandler. Approximately 19 years ago. 

Mr. Tax'enner. Are you a member of the legal profession ? 

Miss Shandler. I am. 

Mr. Ta\t:nner. How long have you been engaged in the practice of 
your profession in Los Angeles ? 

Miss SiiANDLEi^. I was admitted to the State Bar of California on 
December 6, 1945. 

Mr. Tavenner. And you have been engaged continuously in the 
practice of law in Los Angeles since that time ? 

Miss Shandler. Since approximately April of 1946. 

Mr. Tavenner. Of what does your educational training consist, and 
preparation for the practice of your profession ? 

Miss Shandler. I graduated from the usual grammar and junior 
high school levels, and I also graduated from Los Angeles High 



3948 coMMuisnsM in los angeles professional groups 

Scliool ; and I i-eceived my bachelor of arts degree at the University 
of California at Berkeley ; and I received my bachelor of laws degree 
at the same institution, the University of California at Berkeley. 

Mr. Tavenner. Miss Shandler, Mr. Aaron, David Aaron, appeared 
as a witness before the Committee on Un-American Activities in 
Washington on January 23, in 1952. He testified that he was a mem- 
ber of the Communist Party from 1946 until 1948, and that he was a 
member of a cell or group of the party to which only members of the 
legal profession were admitted. He identified you as a member of 
that Communist Party group. 

- Was that statement or testimony of Mr. David Aaron true, or was 
it false? 

Miss Shandler, I don't care to dignify the testimony of an informer 
before this committee by identifying myself with such a person. On 
that basis, and also on my constitutional rights of being able to belong 
to any organization that I wish and of associating with any person 
that I wish, I further refuse to answer that question under the pro- 
visions of the first amendment, and, finally, by virtue of the pro- 
visions of the fifth amendment to the Constitution of the United 
States, I do not care to be a witness against myself. 

Mr. Ta^^nner. Now, you and other witnesses have reflected upon 
those who testified before this committee, and I think that I should 
point out to you one phase of Mr. Aaron's testimony. 

I asked Mr. Aaron this question : 

Did you meet with any obstruction or effort to discourage you from cooperating 
with, this committee, and describing to it the professional cell about which you 
have testified? 

And 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 asso- 
ciated in service club and veteran's organization work, and their unanimous 
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. 

Question : Did you 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 right down 
to the hilt. 

Question : Are your friends in the service organizations which you mentioned 
acquainted with 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 rfiistake, anybody can 
make a mistake." 

It has been a very encouraging thing, Mr. Tavenner. It makes me realize just 
how fine those people are. 

Now, it seems that Mr. David Aaron has been considered by people 
who know him as a fine, loyal citizen to come forward and testify 
before this committee as to what he knew. Won't you do the same? 

Miss Shandler. Mr. Tavenner, your portrayal of the individual 
that you mentioned to me is nothing but a picture of a traitor to his 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 3949 

country, a man who has sold tlie Constitution for a mess of pottage, 
for what he considers a livelihood, for his clients. I will not sell 
my rights under the Constitution, nor will I sell the rights of any of 
the people, or the rights of the Constitution that belong to all of the 
people, for the same reason. I decline to make any further statement 
upon your statement ; and in answer to your question, I further make 
the answer that I have made before: I stand on the same grounds 
that I have heretofore mentioned. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Yerkes, who also identified you as one of those 
who was a member of that group, that is, the Communist Party cell 
consisting solely of members of the legal profession, was asked this 
question : 

Why did you come to that conclusion, that you consider it a duty to come here 
and coopera'te with this committee, as you have? What impelled you to do that? 

Mr. Yebkes. 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 deter- 
mine what and why and how of any issue of the day, and this issue of com- 
munism is an important one. 

I am not s:oing 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 position 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. 

Are you willing to change your views, in the light of Mr. Yerkes' ap- 
proach to this problem ? 

Miss Shandler. Mr. Tavenner, the word picture you have just 
painted sounds to me like the picture of a man who sold his highest 
obligation to his country, that of upholding the Constitution, for the 
sole purpose of holding down a job as a laAv instructor. 

In answer to your question, I stand on the same grounds that I have 
heretofore mentioned. 

Mr. Tavenner. Let me read you what Mr. Israel had to say, Mr. 
William G. Israel. He also indentified you as a member of this same 
group with him. I asked Mr. Israel this question : 

Will you tell the committee, please, the circumstances under which you left 
the party, and the reasons? 

Mr. Israel. The reasons for leaving are connected, in a sense, with the reasons 
for going in. By the time 1947 came around it had become 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 spewing forth whatever happened to be the pronouncement from the 
Kremlin at the time. 

And I must say that during my entire experience with the Communist Party, 
I cannot recall any policy which the party had ever adopted which deviated in 
any way from the interests of the Soviet Union. 

* * !>! 4i if * * 

Based upon my experience, the Communist Party, for instance, holds itself 
out as the true lover and supporter of the trade-union movement. I am absolutely 
convinced, not based upon my personal contact 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. 



3950 COMIMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Those are among the reasons he assigned for leaving the party ; and 
if they are truthful reasons, it would seem that they would be entitled 
to the very greatest weight and serious consideration by anyone who 
may have been a member of the party in making that decision for 
themselves. I ask you to consider it. 

Miss Shandler. Mr. Tavenner, there necessarily must be a number 
of psychopathic personalities among informers. I don't care to make 
any comment other than that, and the statement I have made. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you now or have you ever been a member of the 
Communist Party? 

Miss Shandler. As I mentioned before, I believe that I have 

Mr. Tavenner. Excuse me. I would like to divide that question. 

Are you now a member of the Communist Party? 

Miss Shandler. You don't have to divide it. The answer to both 
is the same. I decline to answer that question under the grounds 
that I have heretofore mentioned, under the first and fifth amend- 
ments. 

Mr. Tavenner. I have no further questions. 

Mr. Walter. I have no questions. 

Mr. Wood. Mr. Moulder? 

Mr. Moulder. I have no questions. 

Mr. Dotle. I have no questions. 

Mr. Frazier. I have no questions. 

Mr. Jackson. I have no questions. 

Mr. Wood. Is there any reason why the witness should not be 
excused ? 

Mr. Tavenner. There is no reason for not excusing the witness. 

Mr. Wood. It is so ordered. 

(The witness was excused.) 

Mr. Wood. The committee will stand in recess for 15 minutes. 

(Whereupon, a 15-minute recess was taken.) 

Mr. Wood, Are you ready to proceed, Mr. Counsel ? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes, sir. 

I would like to call Mr. John Porter, please. 

Mr. Wood. Do you solemnly swear the evidence you shall give tliis 
subcommittee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 
truth, so help you God? 

Mr. Porter. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN WALCOTT POETER, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS 
COUNSELS, ROBERT W. KENNY, THOMAS NEUSOM, AND DANIEL 
G. MARSHALL 

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

Mr. Porter. My name is John Walcott Porter. I have a statement 
which I ask leave to read at this time. 

Mr. Wood. You may file the statement with the clerk, please. 

Mr. Porter. I ask the opportunity to read it. 

Mr. Wood. It has been the uniform practice of the committee that 
written statements are to be submitted and not read. 

Mr. Porter. It is my understanding that other witnesses in the past 
have been allowed to read statements, and I ask the same opportunity 
as other witnesses have been given. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 3951 

Mr. Wood. Your understanding is incorrect. If you desire to sub- 
mit the statement, you are at liberty to do so. 

Mr. Porter. I do desire to submit it. 

Mr. Wood. Very well, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you represented by counsel ? 

Mr. Porti<:r. I am. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will counsel please identify themselves for the 
record ? 

Mr. MARSHAiiL. Daniel G. Marshall, Robert W. Kenny, and Thomas 
Neusom. 

Mr. Tavi<:nner. When and where were you born, Mr. Porter? 

Mr. Porter. 1 cannot conceive the relevance of your inquiry, but the 
fact is that I was born in 1910 in the State of Massachusetts. 

Mr. Tavenner. What was the month and date of your birth? 

Mr. Porter. June 16 of that year. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you now a resident of Los Angeles ? 

Mr. Porter. I practiced law in Los Angeles. 

Mr. Tavenner. Where do you live ? 

]\Ir. PoRi-ER. I live in the county of Los Angeles. 

Mr. Tavenner. Where, what address ? 

Mr. Porter. Would you mind explaining to me. Counsel, the rele- 
vance of that question, and I do not follow it at all. 

Mr. Tavenner. I don't want to make any exception to you. I have 
asked practically to know where people lived, and the county of Los 
Angeles is rather indefinite. And you said the city of Los Angeles; 
if you said that, I think I would have been satisfied. Is there any par- 
ticular area that you can describe ? I am not asking for the particular 
street address. 

Mr. Porter. I live in one of the Los Angeles suburbs. 

Mr. Tavenner. What is the name of it? 

Mr. Porter. If you would care to explain to me, Counsel, the 
relevance and pertinence of this inquiry, I will be glad to listen. 

Mr. I^AVENNER. Mr. Chairman, I ask that the witness be directed to 
answer the question. 

Mr. Wood. I'he question is a pertinent question beyond any doubt, 
on the question of identification. 

Mr. Porter. Do I understand I am directed to answer? 

Mr. Wood. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Porter. I live in the city of Pasadena. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long have you lived there ? 

Mr. Porter. Well, I don't remember very clearly; a number of 
months. 

Mr. Tavenner. More than a year? 

Mr. Porter. No. 

Mr. Tavenner. Prior to coming to Pasadena, where did you live? 

Mr, Porter. Well, I lived for a time in Altadena, which is a suburb 
of Pasadena. 

Mr. Tavenner, Well, let me ask you this: You are practicing 
attorney, I believe? 

Mr. Porter. That is correct. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long have you been engaged in the practice of 
law? 

Mr. Porter. I was admitted to the bar originally in 1935, as I 
recall it. 



3952 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. Tavenner. Wliere did yoii first practice? 

Mr. Porter. I was employed by the Federal Government as an 
attorney. 

Mr. Tavenner. AVliere? 

Mr. Porter. In Washington, D. C. 

Mr. Tavenner. In what position? 

Mr. Porter. Oh, I held a number of positions. 

Mr. Tavenner. "Well, let us have them, please. 

Mr. Porter. I think the first was as an attorney in the Office of 
the Solicitor of the Department of Labor. 

Mr. Tavenner. When was that? 

Mr. Porter. From some time after my admission to the bar. 

Mr. Tavenner. What year would you place it? 

Mr. Porter. As I said before, I was admitted to the bar in 1935. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long did you 

Mr. Porter. That may be in error. As I recall, my admission to 
the bar was somewhat later than that, perhaps 1937. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you employed in the Labor Department before 
you were admitted to the bar ? 

Mr. Porter. I may have been. I just don't remember it clearly 
at the moment. 

Mr. Tavenner. When were you first employed in the Labor 
Department ? 

Mr. Porter. It seems to me that it was in the fall of 1935. 

Mr. Tavenner. And how long did you remain employed by the 
Labor Department ? 

Mr. Porter. As I remember it was about a year and a half. 

Mr. Tavenner. After completing your employment with the Labor 
Department, how were you employed ? 

Mr. Porter. By other agencies of the Federal Government. 

Mr. Ta\^nner. What was the next agency after leaving the Labor 
Department ? 

Mr. Porter. I think it was the National Labor Kelations Board. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you recall when your employment began there? 

Mr. Porter. Not precisely ; no. 

Mr. Tavenner. What year? 

Mr. Porter. Probably, as I now recall, about 1937. 

Mr. Tavenner. And how long did you remain employed by the 
National Labor Relations Board? 

Mr. Porter. Several years. 

Mr. Tavenner. Where did you reside during that period ? 

Mr. Porter. In or around Washington, D. C. 

Mr. Moulder. Could you give us an approximate date when your 
employment ceased, Mr. Porter ; that is, the year ? 

Mr. Porter. It seems to me that it was during 1938, as best I can 
now recalL 

Mr. Moulder. Then you have not been employed in any position in 
the Government since the year of 1938 ? 

Mr. Porter. Yes; I was employed by the Government after 1938. 

Mr. Moulder. What was the latest year; that is the point I am 
trying to make. 

Mr. Porter. Either 1944 or 1945, as I recall. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 3953 

Mr. Ta^tsnner. Then, as I understand it, some time during the year, 
during the summer of 1938, was it, that you ceased to be employed with 
the National Labor Relations Board? 

Mr, Porter. I find it extremely difficult to understand the perti- 
nence or relevance of these questions. Counsel, and I would like to ask 
for a statement in that regard. 

Mr. Tavennjer. No, sir ; I am not going to tell you in advance the 
reason I have for asking the questions, 

Mr. Porter. Well, then, I shall have to take exception to them on 
that ground, 

Mr. Tavenner. I shall have to ask the chairman to direct you to 
answer. 

Mr. Wood. The question asked you was when you were employed by 
the National Labor Relations Board. 

Mr. Porter. I have already answered that, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Tavenner. "VVliat was the date ? I didn't understand. 

Mr. Porter, Do I understand I am directed to answer, notwithstand- 
ing my exceptions to this line of inquiry ? 

Mr, Wood, It is to be hoped that you will cooperate with us by 
answering the questions without having to be directed, I hold the 
question is a pertinent inquiry. 

Mr. Porter. Am I directed to answer? 

Mr. Wood. Yes, sir. 

Mr, Porter. As I said before, my present recollection is that I left 
the Labor Relations Board some time in 1938. 

J\Ir. Tavenner. How were you next employed by the Federal 
(government ? 

Mr. Porter. By another agency. 

Mr, Tavener. What agency ? 

Mr. Porter. The Department of Justice. 

Mr. Tavenner. In what capacity ? 

j\Ir. Porter. As an attorney. 

Mr. Tavenner, In what division or branch of the Department of 
Justice ? 

Mr. Porter. The Antitrust Division. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long were you so employed ? 

Mr. Porter. You are asking me for dates which not only are irrele- 
vant and without pertinency here as far as I can see, but which don't 
come to mind readily, in any precise fashion. 

Mr. Tavenner. Well, I realize it is difficult. 

Mr, Porter. I was employed by the Antitrust Division for several 
years. 

Mr. Tavenner, While you were so employed, where did you live? 

Mr. Porter. Part of the time in and around Washington, D. C. 

Mr. Tavenner. And you say in and around; what do you mean? 

Mr. Porter, Just that. 

Mr. Tavenner, Can't you be more definite than placing your resi- 
dence as in and around? Many people live over in the State of 
Maryland, and some in the State of Virginia, and some in the District. 

Mr. Porter. Would you like me to go back to the date of my birth 
and tell you everywhere I lived, and every point in my life? 

Mr. Tavenner, If I did 



3954 communtism in los angeles professional groups 

Mr. Porter. How I have voted, and all of the other private details 
of my life ? 

Mr. Tavenner. If I felt it was necessary, I would have asked you. 

Mr. Porter. I don't doubt that, Counsel. 

Mr. Tavenner. Now will you answer my question ? 

Mr. Porter. What is the question ? 

Mr. Tavenner. Where did you live when you were working for 
the Department of Justice between 1938 and the several years there- 
after while you were so employed ? 

Mr. Porter. As I have stated before, I lived for a part of the time 
in and around the city of Washington, D. C. 

Mr. Tavenner. Specifically what was your address while you were 
living in and around and about Washington, D. C. 

Mr. Porter. I would have to look back into some records or some- 
thing to refresh my recollection for an accurate answer on that 
question. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was it 718 Wolf Street, Alexandria, Va. ? 

Mr. Porter. Apparently you have the answer, Counsel. 

Mr. Tavenner. Well, what is your answer. Is that true or not? 

Mr. Porter. I did live at that address. 

Mr. Tavenner. When ? 

Mr. Porter. I don't now recall. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you live there in 1939 ? 

Mr. Porter. It may have been. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you live there in 1938? Can't you fix with 
some degree of certainty when you lived in Alexandria, Va.? 

(Witness conferred with counsel.) 

Mr. Marshall. May we have the question read again? 

(Question was read by the reporter.) 

Mr. Porter. Probably I could, if I referred back to whatever 
souvenirs of the time I may have, among my records, but at the moment 
I do not recall precisely the dates. 

Mr. Tavenner. What employment did you have with the Federal 
Government after you left the position of the Assistant Attorney 
General, or assistant in the Antitrust Division of the Department 
of Justice ? 

Mr. Porter. I don't think that I said that I was assistant. 

Mr. Tavenner. Special assistant, excuse me. I believe you were a 
special assistant, were you not ? 

Mr. Porter. I don't recall the titles. You are asking me now as 
to- 



Mr. Tavenner. First let us get this straight. Wliat was your posi- 
tion in the Department of Justice ? 

Mr. Porter. As I previously stated, again reserving my objections to 
the irrelevance of this entire line of inquiry, I was employed as an 
attorney, and what the precise titles were does not come to mind 
now. 

Mr. Tavenner. Where were you next employed in the Government ? 

Mr. Porter. You mean by what agency ? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes. 

Mr. Porter. I believe by the Office of Price Administration. 

Mr. Tavenner. Where were you located while so employed ? 

Mr. Porter. Part of the time in Denver, Colo. 

Mr. Tavenner. What was your position ? 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 3955 

Mr. Porter. There it was in charge of enforcement of the price and 
other regulations which were in effect during the war, 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you recall the date of your appointment to that 
position ? 

Mr. Porter. No, not at this time. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you recall the year ? 

Mr. Porter, Well, not precisely. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long were you employed there? 

Mr. Porter. Two or 3 years, as I remember. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did your position change while you were there ? 

Mr. Porter. While I was where? 

Mr. Tavenner. At Denver. 

Mr. Porter. No, I think not. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you employed by the Office of Price Admin- 
istration at any other place than at Denver ? 

Mr. Porter. I am sorry, I didn't hear the question. May I have it 
read ? 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you employed by the Office of Price Admin- 
istration at any other place than at Denver? 

Mr. Porter. Yes, I was, 

Mr. Tavenner. AVhere ? 

Mr. Porter. In San Francisco, Calif. 

Mr. Tavenner. When did you go to San Francisco from Denver, 
approximately ? 

Mr. Porter. Well, since I stated that I do not now recall precisely 
when we were in Denver, I can't answer that question with any greater 
preciseness, some time during the war years. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long did you remain in San Francisco as an 
employee of the Office of Price Administration ? 

Mr. Porter. Perhaps a year and a half or something like that. 

Mr. Tavenner. Where did you reside while living in San Francisco ? 

Mr. Porter. In San Francisco. 

Mr. Tavenner. Where ? 

Mr. Porter. You mean the street address ? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes, if you remember it. 

Mr. Porter, I want to ask again what the pertinence and relevance 
of this inquiry is, Mr, Chairman, It seems to me that these questions 
are entirely improper, prying into personal details of no concern of 
this committee, or any other body, and I can think of no lawful purpose 
for which the inquiry can be made, 

Mr. Wood. The Chair holds that the question is a pertinent inquiry, 
and directs it be answered, sir. 

Mr. Portisr. You are directing me to answer it ? 

Mr. Wood. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Porter. May I have the question read ? 

(Question was read by the reporter.) 

Mr. Porter, It was on Twentieth Avenue, and I don't remember the 
number, 

Mr, Tavenner, Could it have been 146 Twentieth Avenue ? 

Mr. Porter. It could have been, and I think it was. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did that terminate your employment with the Gov- 
ernment or not, your service there with the Office of Price Administra- 
tion in San Francisco ? 



3956 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. Porter. Counsel, from what has happened already, I think it is 
obvious that you have before you evidence which supplies an answer 
to every question you have asked me. I therefore object again to this 
personal prying into my history and raise the objection that it has no 
relevancy or propriety on any conceivable theory. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Chairman, I request respectfully that he be 
directed to answer. 

Mr. Wood. It is a very simple question. Did your service with the 
Office of Price Administration in the city of San Francisco in the 
State of California terminate your employment with the Federal 
Government ? 

Mr. Porter. It is very simple to pry into people's lives, and I agree, 
Mr. Chairman, but that is hardly a justification for such a practice. 

Mr. Wood. You are directed to answer the question. 

Mr. Porter. What is the question ? 

( Question was read by the reporter. ) 

Mr. Tavenner, I believe I can simplify the question by asking it 
over. Wlien did your employment with the Office of Price Admin- 
istration in San Francisco terminate ? 

Mr. Porter. Sometime toward the close of the war. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you remember the year ? 

Mr. Porter. Not with any sense of certainty. 

Mr, Tavenner. Have you had employment in the United States 
Government since that time ? 

Mr. Porter. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. What is it or what was it ? 

Mr. Porter. As an attorney. 

Mr. Tavenner. Wliere? 

Mr. Porter. No, I may be in error about that. I don't recall whether 
my work in the next agency was as an attorney in whole or in part. 
I think it was, yes, 

Mr, Tavenner. In what agency ? 

Mr. PoRi'ER. The National War Labor Board. 

Mr. Tavenner. When did your employment begin with the National 
War Labor Board ? 

Mr. Porter. Well, as I have stated, I don't recall when I left the 
OPA, and I therefore don't recall when I went to the War Labor' 
Board, but one followed the other. 

Mr. Tavenner. One followed the other? 

Mr. Porter. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long were you employed by the National War 
Labor Board ? 

Mr. Porter. Approximately a year, as I remember. 

Mr. Tavenner. Where were you located then? 

Mr. Porter. In Denver, Colo. 

Mr. Tavenner. After the termination of your employment by the 
National War Labor Board, how were you employed, if at all, by the 
Federal Government ? 

Mr. Porter. I was not employed by the Federal Government. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you recall the approximate date when your 
employment with the Federal Government was terminated ? 

Mr. Porter. I don't recall the date, no. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you recall the year ? 

Mr. Porter. It seems to me that it was probably sometime in 1945. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 3957 

Mr. Tavenner. Now, will you tell the committee, please, briefly, 
what your educational preparation for the practice of law has been? 

Mr. Porter. Law school. 

Mr. Tavenner. Where? 

Mr. Porter. In Massachusetts. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you object to naming the school ? 

Mr. Porter. I object to appearing before this committee, which in 
my opinion is doing, and has in the past done, the most serious dis- 
service to the rights of the Amei'ican people, and I object to every 
question which has been asked of me, and which I anticipate will be 
asked of me. 

Mr. Tavenner. At page 2507 ^ of the committee's hearings of this 
year, Mr. David Aaron was asked a question about the collection of 
dues in a Communist Party group or unit made up exclusively of 
members of the legal profession, and he was asked if he ever collected 
dues from Mr. John Porter, and his answer was, "I don't recall. I 
believe that I did, but I couldn't say that for sure." However, earlier 
he had been asked a question, "Was Mr. John Porter a member of this 
Communist group?" on the same page, to which he answered, "Yes, 
sir, he was at one time." 

Was Mr. Aaron telling the truth about that, about his identification 
of you as a member of that group ? 

Mr. Porter. Counsel, I deny the riglit or power of this committee to 
inquire into my associations or my opinions or my beliefs or those of 
any otlier person in these United States who live under our Constitu- 
tion. I deny it on the basis of the first amendment, the terms of which 
I heard you state this morning were thoroughly familiar to you ; on the 
basis of the fifth amendment, which protects the right of privacy as 
an employment to the rights guaranteed by the first amendment, and 
I charge this committee with contributing to the build-up of a big lie 
in this country with respect to the alleged menace of communism for 
the purpose of rushing the American people into a war which they 
do not want and which can only result in the destruction of this country 
and its institutions, if not the entire world, and on the basis of those 
objections my rights under the Constitution as a citizen and as a lawyer, 
1 decline to answer the question. 

Mr. Tavenner. I understand you decline to deny the truthfulness of 
that statement by Mr. Aaron. 

Mr. Porter. I think you understand, counsel, that I decline to an- 
swer the question upon the grounds and all of the grounds which I 
have stated. 

Mr. Tavenner. And one of those grounds, you said, was the fifth 
amendment, is that correct ? 

Mr. Porter. That is correct. 

Mr. Tavenner. What provision of the fifth amendment is it? 

Mr. Porter. For your information, Counsel, there is a provision of 
the fifth amendment which secures to persons living under the Con- 
stitution the right not to be compelled to become witnesses against 
themselves, a right which derives from a long and honorable history 
dating back to the period of the Inquisition when Protestants were 
tortured and forced against their will to answer before inquisitorial 
bodies. This committee in my opinion is the lineal descendant of those 

1 Ibid. 



3958 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

bodies, and I shall have no part in contributing to its development 
or strengthening. 

Mr, Tavenner. Now, is that your reason for refusing to answer, or 
is it the provision of the fifth amendment which provides that no one 
may be forced or compelled to testify in a criminal case against 
himself? 

Mr. Porter. I refer to that provision rather explicitly in my answer, 
and I stand upon that answer. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you acquainted with Mr. William G. Israel? 

Mr. Porter. For all of the reasons which I have just stated, I am 
going to decline to answer that question, assuming that you are refer- 
ring to one of the stool pigeons or informers in the stable maintained 
by this committee. 

Mr. Tavenner. I am referring to an individual who had the courage 
to come before this committee and tell what he knew about a Commu- 
nist Party cell made up exclusively of members of the legal profession 
in this area. Did I understand that you are refusing to answer that 
on the grounds that to do so might tend to incriminate you ? 

Mr. Porter. My observation is that this committee's conception of 
courage is of a person who comes on his knees before this committee 
begging for mercy and absolution. I have a different conception of 
courage, and I decline to answer your question on all of the grounds 
previously stated, 

Mr. Tavenner. Well, what are those grounds? 

Mr. Porter. Do you desire that I repeat my previous answer ? 

Mr. Tavenner. I want to know whether there is included among 
those grounds the fifth amendment, that provision of the fifth amend- 
ment which provides that you may not be required to answer as to any 
matter which might be deemed to incriminate you. 

Mr. Porter. As tlie record will show, I included a reference to 
that clause of the fifth amendment among the grounds upon which 
I relied. 

Mr. Tavenner, I show you a photostatic copy of a standard Form 
57, which is an application for Federal employment, and will you 
examine the exhibit and state whether the signature on the last page 
of the application is a photostatic copy of your signature ? 

Mr. Porter. Is there a question pending? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Porter. May I have it read ? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes, sir. 

(Question was read by the reporter.) 

Mr. Porter. I think it was as to my signature there, is that correct ? 

Mr. Tavenner. That is correct. 

Mr. Porter. And you asked whether that is my signature? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes, sir, 

Mr, Porter. My answer is that it appears to be. 

Mr. Tavenner. Is there any doubt in your mind ? 

Mr. Porter. No serious doubt; no. 

Mr. Tavenner. What address did you give on the application? 

Mr. Porter. The document speaks for itself. 

Mr. Tavenner. What address does it state? 

Mr, Porter. It contains a lot of addresses. 



COMIMTJNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 3959 

Mr. Tavennek. On tlie face of it, on the front of it, what does it 
give as your address, as of that time, as of the date of the execution of 
the application? , 

Mr. PoKTEK. Suppose you point out the portion of this document 
that you are asking me about. 

Mr. Wood. He is asking you about the address that is given on the 
document. 

Mr. Tavenner. I think it appears 

Mr. Porter. Tliere are a number of addresses on the document. 

Mr. Tavenner. I think it appears as question No. 5, right under 
your name. 

Mr. Porter. Line 5 on this document which is entitled "Application 
for Federal employment" reads : 146 Twentieth Avenue, and the next 
line : "San Francisco 21, California." 

Mr. Tavenner. And that is where you lived at that time ? 

Mr. Porter. I am sure it is. 

Mr. Tavenner. What is the date of the application which you find 
answered as question No. 8? 

Mr. Porter. I am sure that you could read this quite as readily as 
I could. Counsel. You are referring to item 8? 

Mr. Tavenner. Item 8 is date of this application. 

Mr. Porter. Is that what your question relates to ? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes. 

Mr. Porter. The entry here reads "1-18-44." 

Mr. Tavtsnner. As a result of the making of this application, what 
position did you receive? 

Mr. Porter. I take it we are going back on this bypath again into 
the irrelevant area of my personal history; is that correct? 

Mr. Tavenner. No, I am just asking you for the answer. 

Mr. Porter. What is the question ? Read the question. 

(Question was read by the reporter.) 

Mr. Porter. At that time I was working for the Government dur- 
ing the anti-Fascist war and was seeking to contribute as best I could 
to the winning of that war. I am not now positive in my memory, and 
I notice that the document shown me does not seem to indicate it, as 
to what agency the application was made for, and I therefore feel 
unable to answer the question. 

Mr. Tavenner. Let me see if I can refresh your recollection. You 
had been employed prior to that time and possibly at that very time 
by the Office of Price Administration, as principal attorney, had vou 
not? 

Mr. Porter. I don't recall the title, but I was employed by the OPA 
as I have already stated. 

Mr. Tavenner. And as a result of that application, weren't you 
transferred to the position of enforcement attorney, the Regional War 
Labor Board at Denver ? 

Mr. Porter. I can't answer that. It doesn't a]:)]:)ear from the face of 
the application whether any transfer was requested or resulted from 
what I have seen of it. I die] work for the War Labor Board as I have 
previously stated. 

95008— 52— pt. 3 5 



3960 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. Tavenner. Wasn't that your next employment after leaving 
the Office of Price Administration? 

Mr. Porter. As I answered before, the War Labor Board job fol- 
lowed the OP A job. 

Mr. Ta\^enner. Will you read question 17 on the application? I 
would like for you to read it into the record. It is on the front paga 

Mr, Porter. Let me hand this back to you and ask you to read it. 
Counsel. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you refuse to read it ?' 

Mr. Porter. I pi-efer that you read it. 

Mr. Ta\t3nner. Why? 

Mr. Porter. You are conducting the examination, as I under- 
stand it. 

Mr. Tavenner. Then I will ask you to read the question on your 
own form of application. Form 57. 

Mr. Porter. You seem to suggest that I have some responsibility for 
the question, which is not the case. 

JNIr. Tax-enner. No. 

Mr. Porter. And I take none. 

Mr. Tavenner. But you have a responsibility for the answer, and 
I am going to ask you to read that, too. Would you read the question 
and the answer? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Porter. Mr. Chairman, may I ask that counsel read the ques- 
tion that he desires read into the record ? 

Mr. Wood. He has asked you to read the question No. 17 and your 
answer to it. 

Mr. Porter. My understanding is that I am here under subpena in 
order to answer certain questions or listen to certain questions. 

Isfr. Wood. That is one of them. 

Mr. Porter. And I don't understand that this is a question. I 
would like to have Mr. Tavenner read this, if you please, Mr. Chair- 
man. 

Mr. Wood. Mr. Tavenner has asked you to read it, and that is a 
question, and will you read it or not ? 

Mr. Porter. If I am directed to, of course. 

Mr. Wood. I direct you to read the question and the answer. 

Mr. Porter. Item 17, Counsel ? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Porter. The print is a little difficult, but as I read it, it ap- 
pears to be as follows : • 

17. Do you advocate or have yon ever advocated or are yon now or have you 
ever been"^ a lueuiber of any organizition that advocates the overthrow of the 
Government of the United States hy force or violence? 

Mr. Tavenner. Will vou read your answer? 

Mr. Porter. "X." 

Mr. Tavenner. And "X" appears under the column "No.''^ I be- 
lieve there is a place for the answer, a column marked "Yes'' and a 
column marked "No," and which column clid you check ? 

Mr. Porter. An "X" appears in the col'iunn marked "No." 

Mr. Tavenner. Was that a truthful statement at that time? Was 
that a ti-uthful reply to the question? 

INIr. Porter. To what question? 

Mr. Tavenner. To question 17. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 3961 

Mr. PoRTEK. Well, as I read it, question No. IT includes at least 
three or perhaps four or more questions. 

Mr. Tavenner. Regardless of the number, was it a truthful answer? 

Mr. Porter. With respect to each of the several parts of this ques- 
tion are you asking? 

Mr. Tavenner. Each and every part. 

Mr. Porter. It was, so far as I knew or understood at that time 
and now know or understand. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you a member of the Communist Party on 
January 18, 1944, the date on which that answer was made to ques- 
tion 17? 

Mr, Porter. This is the big lie question again, which this committee 
has made such a feature of throughout its existence, and I have pre- 
viously stated that I do not recognize the authority of this committee 
to pry into my associations or beliefs or those of any other person. 
This is the type of question with which this committee is seeking to 
terrorize and intimidate the American people into a silence under 
which they are in danger of being driven into war, even as was the 
case under Hitler in Germany. I am not going to answer any ques- 
tions with respect to my affiliations and I take that position in reliance 
upon my rights under the first amendment to the Constitution, and 
under the fifth amendment to the Constitution, which implements the 
first in the manner which I have previously described. 

Mr. Wood. Is that your answer to the last question that was asked 
you ? 

Mv. Porter. That is my answer to the last question. 

Mr. Tavenner. You stated that on the basis of the information that 
you had at that time that you considered that your answer was correct, 
and I believe you also added on the basis of the information that you 
now have. 

Mr. Porter. That is correct. 

Mr. Ta\t5nner. Will you explain your answer as to what you meant 
when you replied "No" to the question, "Do you advocate or have you 
ever advocated or are you now or have you ever been a member of any 
organization that advocates the overthrow of the Government of the 
United States by force and violence"? 

Mr. Porter. When this committee or counsel asks a question about 
force and violence or the advocacy thereof, I can only think of the thief 
who calls out pointing at a passer-by "Stop, thief," because this com- 
mittee by steadfastly and studiously refusing throughout its life to 
deal with the force and violence which does occur in these United 
States against brother and sister citizens of the Negro people and 
other minority peoples, is directly contributing to that kind of out- 
rage. I can refer you. Counsel, as a specific example, as I did in the 
statement which you would not allow me to read, to the bombing of a 
respected Negro family in Los Angeles on Dunsmuir Avenue some 
months ago, about which this committee so far as I am aware has done 
absolutely nothing, and has had absolutely nothing to say, although 
two of its members are from the Los Angeles area. 

Mr. Moulder. Do we have any authority to prosecute someone for 
violation of the State laws of California? 

Mr. Porter. You claim, as I understand it, the authority to investi- 
gate subversive activities, although your resolution is limited to the 
investigation of speech and thought and expression, all of which are 



3962 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

protected by tlie first amendment. If you were honest in your claim 
you would investigate the really subversive activities of those who 
throw bombs and practice discrimination against the Negro people 
and the citizens of the United States. 

Mr. Moulder. Did the State officials fail to perform their duty in 
that respect ? 

Mr. Porter. They and Federal officials likewise, including this com- 
mittee, and particularly the local members of this committee, Doyle 
and Jackson. 

Mr. DoYLE. How do you know that? How do you know what we 
have done, whether or not we have done anything. You have used 
my name. 

Mr. Porter. I know that you have not uncovered the perpetrators 
of these outrages, and I know that had you issued a statement or taken 
action with respect to investigating these matters, you would have 
seen to it that it was spread all over every headline in the country. 

Mr. DoYLE. That is your appraisement of me as a member of the 
bar and a member of the committee, is it? I have never met you, sir, 
have I, and you have never met me before, and I have never talked 
with you in my life, and is it your opinion that it is the jurisdiction 
and the prerogative of this committee to come into a local munici- 
pality and enforce the law against violations of State and municipal 
ordinances ? Is that what you think this committee is to do ? Is that 
what you want a Federal committee of Congi-ess to do, to come in and 
run the municipal government or the State government ? Or is that 
just a sham on your part, making an excuse? 

Mr. Porter. You have asked me a dozen or so questions in one. 

Mr. Doyle. I know you are very technical. I have observed that 
all through your testimony. But when you use my name, sir, I want 
you to understand that I am going to challenge any statement by you 
that I know is false, as far as I am concerned. You cannot get by 
with it. 

Mr, Porter. Now I would like a chance to answer your question. 
You asked for a matter of my opinion, and I want the record to be 
clear that I do not concede the right of this committee to compel from 
me an expression of any opinion whatsoever on any subject. How- 
ever, I chose to express my opinion on this subject, and I state to you 
that if this committee were sincere or honest in claiming the power 
and duty to investigate subversive activities, it would be investigating 
the people who have thrown bombs on Dunsnmir Avenue, and the 
people who are still attempting to restrict minority citizens to a 
ghetto area in spite of the fact that the Supreme Court has held re- 
strictive racial covenants unconstitutional, and it would be investi- 
gating the KKK, and the lynchers, legal and otherwise, in the South- 
ern States of the United States, and it would be attempting to secure 
the rights of a democratic society to all of our citizens. 

Mr, DoYLE. Would it be investigating the Communist Party of 
which you are claimed to be a member by some people, or would it 
not? 

Mr, Porter. What it has done, as I have already said, is to use the 
big lie of the menace of communism as a smoke screen behind which 
and by means of which to terrorize good xVmericans into closing 
their mouths and failing to speak up on the crucial issues of the day, 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 3963 

which are to secure democracy for our Negro brothers and sisters, 
and to tind the path to peace in this world. 

Mr. Doyle. What about the Caucasians who are members of the 
Communist Party: Would it be investigating them? You have been 
alleged to be a member of the Communist Party, or are you, or were 
you ? 

Mr. Porter. You are doing precisely what I have pointed out is 
the pattern of this committee, and instead of answering my point with 
respect to the really subversive activities abroad in these United 
States, you are throwing back again to the Communist Party ques- 
tions as the big lie. 

Mr. D0Y1.E. As one of the subversive groups in which there are many 
subversive people, the Comnnmist Party of America is one in my judg- 
ment, and we are investigating them, and we are asking your coopera- 
tion as a member of the bar to tell the truth and tell all of the facts, and 
not hide behind a smoke screen. 

Mr. Porter. The only thing this committee has ever investigated 
or purported to investigate is opinion, that is an area which the Con- 
gress has no business to go into and no power to legislate in. 

Mr. Doyle. Unless it advocates the use of force and violence to 
overthrow the Constitution of the United States. 

Mr. Porter. There is no such exception in the first amendment, 
Congressman Doyle, and if you will get out the language of it, I will 
prove that to you. 

Mr. Wood. Any further questions by counsel? 

Mr. Tavenner. I happen to have an answer to the question I asked, 
and I would like to have the witness answer it now since his speech. 

Mr. Porter. I think Congressman Doyle did interrupt. What was 
the question ? 

Mr. Tavenner. You testified that the answer that you gave to ques- 
tion IT, on the basis of the information that you had at that time, and 
which you have acquired later, was correct. Now I am asking you 
what you meant when you said that it is correct on the basis of the 
information that you had ? 

Mr. Porter. I meant that it was true, and that neither at that time 
nor at any other time have I advocated anything other than the fullest 
extension of the democratic process to all Americans, nor have I be- 
longed to any organization which I understood to advocate anything 
but the fullest extension of the democratic process to all Americans. 

Mr. Tavenner. Then do I understand the basis of your answer is 
what you understood about the organizations that you were a 
member of ? 

Mr. Porter. Of course. 

Mr. Tavenner. Well, was one of those organizations the Communist 
Party? 

Mr. Porter. I have already answered that question several times 
before, and stated the reasons for my answer. Do you want me to do it 
again? 

Mr. Tavenner. If you had been a member of the Communist PfU'ty, 
would you have said so on that application ? 

Mr. Porter. That hypothetical question doesn't change the situation 
at all, Counsel. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you a member of the Communist Party when 
you were in the Department of Justice ? 



3964 coMMuisriSM in los angeles professional groups 

Mr. Porter. I liave answered that question in one form or another 
previously, and I will make the same answer a<jain : I am not answering- 
with respect to my beliefs, opinions, and associations, for all of the 
reasons which I have previously stated. 

Mr. Wood. He is not asking you about your beliefs and associations. 
He is asking about your membership in an organization, and what is 
your answer to that, specifically, the Communist Party, at the time 
you were employed by the Department of Justice? 

Mr. Porter. I stand upon the answer already made, and I am not 
going to answer any questions with respect to my associations with 
respect to the Communist Party, upon all of the grounds which I have 
previously stated a number of times. 

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

Mr. Porter. I make the same answer 

Mr. Tavenner. I have no further questions. 

Mr. Porter. For the same reason. 

Mr. Wood. Do you have any questions ? 

Mr. Walter. I have no questions. 

Mr. Moulder. I have one question that I w^anted to ask. 

You made some comment about the conflict over in Korea. Do you 
approve or disapprove of the action of our Government participating 
in the fight against the spread of communism in Korea ? 

Mr. Porter. Here again, this is an area of opinion, which I think 
the committee has no right to enter into. However, for the very 
reason that the committee has succeeded in intimidating so many 
people to the point where they don't dare to speak up on this, the 
prime issue of the day, perhaps, I choose to exercise my right, in my 
judgment and discretion, to answer your question. My answer to it 
is that I heartily disajiprove of the action of the United States in 
entering Korea as it did, and I live and work to the best of my ability 
to bring about a termination of the war in Korea at the earliest pos- 
sible time in order to put an end to the stupid and futile and insane 
loss of life among American soldiers and among the soldiers of other 
countries, and also among the civilian population of Korea, which is 
being burned alFve by gasoline bombs dropped, I am ashamed to say, 
by American planes. 

Mr. Moulder. In other words, you are opposed to this Government 
taking any action against communistic aggression? 

Mr. Porter. I don't accept the words which you seek to put in my 
mouth. Congressman. I am opposed to this Government going into 
Korea for the purjjose of establishing domination over the natural 
resources of North Korea ; for the purpose of intervening in the inter- 
nal affairs of a sister people who are entitled to equal sovereignty with 
that of the American people, or any other on the face of the globe. 

Mr. Moulder. If the North Koreans were Fascists, would you still 
have the same opinion you now have ? 

Mr. Porter. You are asking me hypothetical questions with respect 
to a set of facts contrary to the facts which are before us. I have 
expressed my opinion with respect to the real issues which are based 
upon the existing circumstances of the day. 

Mr. Moulder. I just have one more question, and I will be very brief. 
You mentioned the bombing a while ago, somewhere in Los Angeles. 
Did you report your knowledge and information that you had con- 
cerning that to the local officials? 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 3965 



Mr. Porter. My kiiowled<>;e of it came to me throii<i;li the Los 
Anoeles press, which reported it widely, which at tliat time assured 
us that the agencies of the State, city, county, and other government 
bodies woukl spare no effort to uncover the perpetrators of the out- 
rage and to bring them to justice. 

Since that time there liasn't been a word about it in the newspapers, 
nor any eti'ective action by any agency, inchiding this committee. 

Mr. Moulder. According to the investigations and the facts re- 
vealed before this committee, the Comnninists have instigated such 
bombings themselves in order to spread about the hatred that you 
have mentioned. 

Mr. Porter. Are you aware. Congressman, of the fact that in the 
several prosecutions of members and leaders of the Communist Party 
under the Smith Act, which have taken place in New York and Los 
Angeles and Baltimore, and so on, there has not, as I am informed, 
been a single syllable of testimony to support a claim that any such 
acts have ever been committed by any of the defendants in those cases 
or by any other member or leader of the Communist Party; and had 
there been such evidence, I would feel sure, as I am sure you do, if 
the evidence was worth anything that it would have come out in 
one or another of those prosecutions. 

Mr. M0U1.DER. Our hearings reveal that it has been a policy or pro- 
gram on the part of the Conmiunists to stir up and to instigate such 
incidents as that, to create racial prejudice and racial troubles. 

Mr. Porter. With the kind of witnesses that you have had before 
3^ou 

Mr. Moulder. They do it themselves, and then try to make it look 
like someone else. 

Mr. Porter. And with the kind of hysteria and intimidation which 
this committee has generated in the United States, I wouldn't be sur- 
prised at anything a witness might have said before this body. 

Mr. Moulder. You have made one statement that you were sure 
and confident the Communist leaders that you mentioned a while 
ago had never committed such an act. Upon what do you base your 
information, and how do you have knowledge of that ? 

Mr. Porter. I stated that as I understand the testimony given in 
the prosecutions under the Smith Act, in Los Angeles and elsewhere, 
I am relying upon the record made by the Department of Justice in 
those inexcusable prosecutions under the Smith Act. 

Mr. Wood. Did you say "inexcusable'' ? 

Mr. Porter. I tripped* over the word. I mean to say, if I may ex- 
jdain it, that I think the Smith Act— and I regret that the Supreme 
Court made this mistake — I think that the Smith Act is the most 
clearly unconstitutional piece of legislation that I can conceive of, 
flying directly in the face of the guaranties of the first amendment and 
of freedom of speech and expression. 

Mr. Wood. I did not mean to elicit an opinion from you. I was not 
sure that I understood whether you said "excusable" or "inexcusable,'' 
and I wanted to be clear about it. 

Mr. Porti:r. I think the prosecutions are indefensible, and a blot 
upon the good name of the United States. 

Mr. Wood. Any further questions? 

Mr. Tavenner. I have none. 



3966 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. Frazier. Mr. Porter, did 3^ou ever serve in the armed services 
of the United States? 

Mr. Porter. No. I regret very much that for physical reasons I 
was not accepted. 

Mr. Frazier. That is all. 

Mr. Jackson. Mr. Porter, I do not know whether you are under a 
misapprehension, or whether it is a deliberate attempt to paint a 
picture which is not true. I might say in the incidents of the bombing 
on Dunsmuir Avenue, that I was contacted by both the Civil Rights 
Coi^gress, by two newspapers in my district, and by several other 
organizations, for a statement. I wrote a long statement deploring, 
as every good, honest, sincere American deplores any act of violence, 
whether it be directed against a member of a minority group or against 
a member of the majority, so-called majority. 

I simply want to put that fact straight, because my files will bear 
out the fact that such communications were sent, in which I expressed 
the hope that every law-enforcement agency would devote all of its 
available personnel to disclosing the perpetrators of the bombing. 

Mr. Porter. I would like to ask you, if I may, what you did about 
the outrage, aside from issuing a statement? 

Mr. Jackson. I was 3,000 miles away in Washington, Mr. Porter, 
and it is not customary for me to run home and it is not possible for 
me to run home on every traffic accident and every rape case or every 
murder. 

Mr. Porter. Somehow, Congressman, I don't equate this outrage 
with a traffic accident, and it seems to me to be of considerably greater 
significance and horror, and I would like to state that it is my under- 
standing that this committee employs a stable of investigators for no 
better purpose than to snoop around into people's opinions, and I 
would like to ask if the committee ever assigned an investigator to 
look into this outrage, or similar incidents, such as in Cicero, 111., or 
the assassination of Mr. and Mrs. Harrimore, in Miami, Fla.? 

Mr. Jackson. Crimes of violence are within the province of the 
local and the State law-enforcement agencies, and not of this agency. 

Let me ask you this: When Gerald L. K. Smith was called before 
this committee, did you protest any limitation upon his freedom of 
speech, or upon his right of conscience ? 

Mr. Porter. I have no recollection about the appearance of Smith 
before this committee. But I will say to you. Congressman, that I 
have protested and opposed and fought to the limits of my ability, 
the evil work of this committee, from the day of its inception under the 
unlamented Martin Dies, through the period. 

Mr. Jackson. I would like to have an answer to my question : Did 
you protest the appearance of Gerald L. K. Smith? 

Mr. Porter. I have answered your question 

Mr. Jackson. Did you protest the appearance ? 

Mr. Porter. To the extent you have interrupted me. 

Mr. Jackson. Did you protest the appearance before this committee 
of witnesses who were subpenaed on the Ku Klux Klan investigation? 

Mr. Porter. I have no recollection of reading any report in any 
publication at any time of any investigation by this committee of the 
Ku Klux Klan. 

Mr. Jackson. For your information, it was investigated. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 3967 

And (lid yon ])rotest the calling l)ef()re this committee of witnesses 
of the German-American Bund i 

Mr. Porter. I make the same ansAver with respect to that. 

Mr. Jackson. I would suaaest, Mr. Porter, that you read some of 
the hearinos in more detail before you make rather wild-eyed state- 
ments. All three of those organizations, whose work I deplore as 
much as you do, and I deplore it almost as much, if not more, than I 
do the Communist activity in this country — but all of those organiza- 
tions were before the House Committee on Un-American Activities, 
and witnesses were required to give testimony ; and I think that that 
is pertinent, and it should be in the record. 

Mr. Porter. I would like to point out that the Ku Klux Klan is 
still flourishing in many sections of the country. 

Mr. Jackson. So is the Communist Party. 

Mr. Porter. And I would venture to say that, povmd for pound, the 
transcripts of this committee's hearings with respect to such groups 
is outweighed by the transcripts with respect to the Communist Party 
and other organizations loosely described as "left wing," about 20,000 
to 10. 

INfr. Jackson. Pound for pound, the members are also outweighed, 
I dare say, by the membei's of the Communist Party. 

It is largely due to the efforts of the chairman of this committee, 
who was the first judge in all of Georgia or in the South to prosecute 
the Ku Klux Klan. 

]VIr. Porter. I am happy to hear it, and I am sorry he stopped. 

Mr. Wood. We will have to have order. 

I haven't stopped it. 

Proceed, Mr. Counsel. Are there any further questions? 

Mr. Tavenner. No, sir, but I would like to file as an exhibit or offer 
as an exhibit, the photostatic copy of the application for Federal 
employment which was the basis of testimony here, and ask that it be 
marked "Porter Exhibit No. 1." 

Mv. Wood. It is so ordered. 

(The document above referred to, marked "Porter Exhibit No. 1," 
is filed herewith.) 

Mr. Wood. Is there any reason why this witness should not be ex- 
cused from further attendance on the committee? 

Mr. Tavenner. No, sir. 

Mr. Wood. It is so ordered. 

(The witness was excused.) 

JNIr. Tavenner. I am sure there are witnesses present who have not 
been reached today, who could be advised to be here at 9 : 30 in the 
morning, but the subpenas do call for 10 o'clock. 

Mr. Wood. Maybe we had better not interfere with that program, 
then. 

We will adjourn until 10 o'clock. The committee will stand in 
recess until 10 o'clock in the morning. 

(Whereupon, at 4: 50 p. m., Tuesday, September 30, 1952, a recess 
was taken until 10 a. m., Wednesday, October 1, 1952.) 



COMMUNIST ACTIVITIES AMONG PKOFESSIONAL GEOUPS 
IN THE LOS ANGELES AEEA 



WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 1, 1952 

United States House of Representatives, 

Subcommittee of the Committee 

ON Un-American Activities, 

Los Angeles^ Calif. 

public hearing 

A subcommittee of the Committee on Un-American Activities met, 
pursuant to recess, at 10 a. m., in room 518 Federal Building, Hon. 
John S. Wood (chairman) presiding. 

Committee members present : Representatives John S. Wood (chair- 
man), Francis E. Walter, Morgan H. Moulder (appearance as noted 
in transcript), Clyde Doyle, James B. Frazier, Jr., Harold H. Velde, 
and Donald L. Jackson. 

Staff membei's present : Frank S. Tavenner, Jr., counsel ; Thomas 
W. Beale, Sr., assistant counsel; Louis J. Russell, senior investigator; 
William A. Wheeler and Charles E. McKillips, investigators; and 
John W. Carrington, clerk. 

Mr. Wood. Let us have order, please. 

I will ask the audience to please refrain from smoking in the hearing 
room; and I also repeat the admonition which I have given the last 
2 days that demonstrations of any sort, favorable or unfavorable to 
the testimony introduced in this room, will not be tolerated on the part 
of the audience. 

Are you ready to proceed, Mr. Tavenner? 

Mr. Ta^T!:nner. Yes, sir. I will call Mr. Grover Johnson. 

Mr. Wood. Do you solemnly swear the evidence you shall give this 
subcommittee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 
truth, so help you, God i 

Mr. Johnson. I do. 

Mr. Wood. Have a seat, please. 

TESTIMONY OF GROVER JOHNSON, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 

WILLIAM B. MURRISH 

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

Mr. Johnson. My name is Grover Johnson. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you represented by counsel? 

Mr. Johnson. I am represented by Mr. William Murrish. 

Mr. Tam^nner. Will you please identify yourself for the record'^ 

Mr. Murrish. WilHam B. Murrish, Los Angeles. 



Mr. Wood. Of the Los Angeles bar? 



3969 



3970 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. MuRRiSH. I am. 

Mr. Tav-enner. Mr. Johnson, will you please state when and where 
yon were born ? 

Mr. Johnson. I was born in Canton, S. Dak., on the 18th day of 
November 1893. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you now a resident of Los Angeles ? 

Mr. Johnson. No, of San Pedro, San Pedro Harbor. 

Mr. TA^^:NNER. How long have you been a resident of San Pedro ? 

Mr. Johnson. I hesitated because I moved down there and I was 
back here. It was in 1942. 

Mr. Ta\^nner. Are you a practitioner at the bar at that place ? 

Mr. Johnson. I didn't understand that question. 

Mr. Ta\'enner. Are you a practitioner at the bar? 

Mr. Johnson. I am a lawyer. I don't know about the other. 

Mr. Tavenner. Where did you practice your profession before 
going to San Pedro ? 

Mr. Johnson. I put in 6 years as district attorney in the State of 
Montana, and 4 years in general practice in San Bernardino, Calif., 
and a number of years in Los Angeles, and now in San Pedro. 

Mr. Tavenner. Approximately when did you begin the practice of 
law in Los Angeles ? 

Mr. Johnson. In 1931. Wait; I believe it was 1932. I was up at 
Stanford in 1931. 

Mr. Tavenner. Well, did you leave Los Angeles for San Pedro? 

Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Johnson, Mr. Max Silver appeared as a witness 
before the Committee on Un-American Activities on January 22, 1952, 
I was asking him about the identity of certain individuals in south- 
eastern California, and I asked him if he knew you. Mr. Silver's 
reply was: "Grover Johnson was a member of the party," meaning 
the Communist Party. 

Questioner. Can you give us further identification relating to Grover 
Johnson? 

Mr. SiLVTSR. Grover Johnson came from the State of Montana. For a number 
of years he was the coworker of Leo Gallagher as an attorney, and for the Inter- 
national Labor Defense cases, and he ran for office in the Thirteenth Congres- 
sional District against formerly the late Congressman Cramer and for some other 
office that I cannot recall. Later there was some arrangement whereby there 
was a necessity for a firm in the harbor proper. 

Mr. Johnson. Is this all one question ? 

Mr. Tavenner. This is all one answer by Mr. Silver. I will read 
that over. [Reading:] 

Later there was some arrangement whereby there was a necessity for a firm 
in the harbor proper, because of the Longshoremen's Union, and Grover Johnson 
moved to San Pedro and he was practicing there. His relationship with the 
party was not too good, as far as I knew lately, and I do not believe that he is 
a member now, but he was at one time. 

At another point in his testimony Mr. Silver described a meeting in 
1939. The question was asked : 

Do you remember where that meeting was? 
And the answer was : 

Mr. Silver. It was in Mr. Grover Johnson's house. Grover Johnson is an 
attorney in San Pedro. 

Mr. Doyle. And was the meeting at San Pedro? 



COMxMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 3971 

]\rr. Silver. No ; at that time Grover Johnson was still in Los Angeles. That 
was prior to the organization of tlie law firm and the division wliere Grover 
Johnson went to San Pedro and Gallagher remained in Los Angeles. 

In questioning- Mr. Silver further regarding that meeting, he 
answered as follows : 

The meeting left an impression on me becanse I took a definite position on the 
role of Leo Gallagher as a person who really showed what he can do for the 
labor movement and the fact that we have to keep Gallagher in front. But 
I can't recall the other people there, and none of these people who were testi- 
fying here were there becanse that was an earlier period and it was more or less 
of a confidential type of meeting. 

Questioner. Grover Johnson, I assume, was there? 

Mr. Silver. Yes. 

At an earlier part of the testimony 

Mr. Johnson. Is this all one question? 

Mr. Ta\t.nner. I am giving you the information. 

Mr. Johnson. May I have your name ? 

INIr. TA^T.NNER. ]\Iy name is Tavenner, counsel for the committee, 
I am trying to give you exactly the record as made in Washington 
during the course of the testimony of this witness as a basis for giving 
you an opportunity to make any explanation you desire regarding it, 
and as a basis for questioning you. 

This meeting to which Mv. Silver referred 

Mr. Johnson. I won't answer any of your questions. Those men 
are both stool ]:)igeons ; and let me say to you, Sir. Tavenner 

Mr. Wood. You haven't been asked a question yet. 

Mr. Johnson (continuing). Ever since I quit the firm 

Mr. Wood. You haven't been asked a question yet. 

Mr. Johnson (continuing). They have been around offering me 
money to become a stool pigeon, and now I am not here to take your 
30 pennies. 

]\Ir. Wood. You haven't been asked any question yet. 

Mr. Walter. Who offered you money ? 

Mv. JoTiNSON. The Immigration Department [service]. 

Mr. Walter. Who? 

Mr. Johnson. The FBI. 

Mr. Walter. Who? 

Mr. Johnson. They don't give their names, my dear sir. 

Mr. Walter. I just don't believe you. 

Mr. Johnson. I have been offered jobs up to $15,000 a year to be a 
stool pigeon for private organizations and mtniicipalities. 

Mr. Walter. Who offered you that kind of money? 

Mr. Johnson. They don't give you their names. 

Mr. Walter. You mean some stranger came to you and offered you 
a Sl5,000-a-year job? 

Mr. Johnson. Yes ; they come to your [my] office time and time 
again, and I kicked them out, but I can't kick you fellows out. You 
have subpenaed me here this morning, but I am not taking your 30 
pieces of silver. I have got to live with me, you see, and I like to live 
with me. 

Mr. Walter. You are alone in that. 

Mr. Johnson. No; you are mistaken, I have seven children who 
love to live with me and a good wife. 

Mr. Wood. You haven't been asked a question. 



3972 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. Johnson. And g^ood neighbors. 
Mr, Wood. Proceed, Mr. Tavenner. 
Mr. Johnson. You are from South Carolina ? 
Mr. Wood. No, sir. 
Mr. Johnson. North Carolina? 
Mr. Wood. No, sir. 

Mr. Johnson. I just wanted to make the record clear that I refuse 
to "Caudle" to them, you know ; "Theron Lamar Caudle'' to them. 
Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Johnson, let me continue, if you will, please. 
Mr. Johnson. Go ahead; read your book. 
Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Silver was then asked this question [reading] : 

Were you successful in quieting tlie revolt among the lawyers? 
Mr. Silver. I think I was ; I was very arbitrary. 

Mr. Silver, at that time, according to his testimony, was organiza- 
tional secretary of the Communist Party for Los Angeles County. 
Do you recall the meeting to which he referred as having been held 
in your house ? 

Mr. Johnson. I refuse to answer that question. I refuse to answer 
any question with reference to Max Silver, who has appeared before 
your conmiittee, on the ground that, to do so, I claim the privilege 
under the fifth amendment, and I claim the privilege under the first 
amendment, and, if you please, the ninth and the tenth amendments. 
I challenge the authority of this committee to ask me about anything 
in my own home in America. 

Mr. Tavenner. You stated that you claimed the benefit of the fifth 
amendment. What provision of it ? 

Mr. Johnson. Let me state it for you. Under the law as it stands 
today, you must say — a lot of movie stars found that out ; some lawyers 
slipped in Washington — "On the ground that it would tend to incrim- 
inate me." And there I said it for you. and now you don't have to 
go out and give it to the press ; I gave it to them. That is what the 
law requires, to protect yourself in America today. 

My criminal record consists of two times drunk, Mr. Tavenner. 

Mr. Tavenner. I haven't asked you about any of your personal 
affairs. 

Mr. Johnson. I thought, since I might incriminate myself, you 
thought I had a long criminal record, you see. 

Mr. Tavenner. Oh, no. Now, Mr. Johnson, let me ask you, what 
was the purpose of this meeting at which Max Silver, the head of the 
Communist Party in Los Angeles, was called, and which met in your 
home ? 

Mr. Johnson. Brother, I have never said that there was a meeting, 
and I have refused to testify under the privilege afforded me by the 
Constitution of the United States, the fifth amendment. Let the 
record be clear: On the ground that it might tend to incriminate me, 
and now that is clear ; the Supreme Court even can read that. 

Mr. Tavenner. Now, when Max Silver testified that you were a 
member of the Communist Party at that time, was he telling the 
truth or not ? 

Mr. Johnson. I refuse to answer. I think Max Silver "Candied," 
if you please. 

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

Mr. Johnson. I refuse to answer on the same grounds and — let me 
have the record clear — under the first and fifth amendments, on the 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 3973 

ground that to answer may incriminate me, and you don't have to hand 
that to the press or make any remarks about it unless you want to. 

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

Mr. Wood. Mr. Walter, do you have any questions ? 

Mr. Walter. No. 

Mr. Wood. Mr. Doyle, have you any questions ? 

Mr. Doyle. Mr. Johnson, before you were asked any questions, I 
think you volunteered the statement "I don't want your 30 pieces of 
silver." 

Mr. Johnson. That is right. 

Mr. Doyle. Did anyone for this committee offer you money to 
testify? 

Mr. Johnson. No, but they sure cost me a lot of money. They 
subpenaed me in February, and they have kept me on tenterhooks 
ever since, and I couldn't take a vacation or anything, and I don't 
know what the purpose was. 

Mr. Doyle. Then, when you volunteered the statement "I don't 
want your 30 pieces of silver,"' you did not mean to state that anyone=- 
now, just a moment, please — you did not mean to state that anyone 
representing this committee had offered you money to testify ; did you ? 

Mr. Johnson. No one on this committee offered me money. There 
was a very broad invitation to '"come and see us," and "we want you 
to be a friendly witness, a cooperative witness in every way"; and, 
why, "you may become a candidate for the Vice Presidency.'" 

Mr. Doyle. Who told you that for this committee ? Who told you 
that you might "become a candidate for the Vice Presidency"? 

Mr. Johnson. I said that that was the inference. 

Mr. Doyle. Who inferred that to you, sir? You volunteered that 
statement, and now who told you that, claiming they were represent- 
ing this committee ? 

Mr. Johnson. Well, now, I didn't bring along the pink sheet this 
morning, just a telegram, and I am going to have that framed. My 
wnfe put it away. It is up in the dish cabinet. But he lives — what is 
the town between Whittier and Anaheim ? It is Fullerton. He lives 
at Fullerton, and he gave me a telephone message and he told me to 
get in touch with him, and I wrote his name on the back of the pink 
slip, and I believe he is the secretary for Doyle, although I wouldn't 
know Doyle, I wouldn't know Doyle — you know these campaign pic- 
tures are so bad, when they put up my picture, all of the people 
thought I was drunk, and they wouldn't vote for me. 

Mr. Walter. Are you sure that was the only reason ? 

Mr. Johnson. Well, I was a good, honest man. I didn't take any 
$18,000. Are you a Democrat? 

Mr. Wood. I am not going to countenance this disturbance, and if 
it occurs again we are going to clear this room. This is not a vaude- 
ville; this is serious business of your (lovernment. I want it dis- 
tinctly understood that that sort of action in this room will not be 
tolerated again. 

Mr. floHNSON. Mr. Chairman, I want to state that in 30 years of 
practicing law I have never addressed the court without standing up. 
I have reverence for our courts. This is a three-ring circus. 

Mr. Walter. You are making it that. 

Mr. Johnson. Yes; you are attemi)ting through your metliocre 
politics to "Hiss'' yourself into high office. 



3974 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. Wood. Your comments are improper, and beneath the dignity 
of the position that you hold as a member of the bar of this State, and 
beneath the dignity of the committee. 

Mr. Johnson. That is attempting to act in the judicial branch of 
the Government. 

Mr. Wood. And it is beneath the dignity due to a segment of your 
Congress. I am not concerned about what you think about me as a 
member of this committee, and it is of absolutely no concern to me; 
but, as far as my responsibility is concerned as a Member of your Con- 
gress and the head of this committee, I demand and I am entitled 
to a decent, respectful attention. 

Mr. Doyle. I think that I will not ask the gentleman any more 
questions. 

Mr. Wood. Mr. Frazier ? 

Mr. Frazier. I have no questions. 

Mr. Velde. I have no questions. 

Mr. Jackson. I have no questions. 

Mr, Wood. Is there any reason why the witness should not be ex- 
cused from further attendance on the committee ? 

Mr. Tavenner. No, sir. 

Mr. Wood. It is so ordered. 

(The witness was excused.) 

Mr. Tavenner. I will call Mr. George Altman. 

Mr. Wood. Do you solemnly swear the evidence you shall give this 
committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but^the 
truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Altman. I do. 

]\ir. Wood. I am going to ask again that the photographers refrain 
from taking pictures while the oath is being administered. 

TESTIMONY OF GSOEGE T. ALTMAN, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS 

COUNSEL, MORRIS E. COHN 

Mr. Wood. Mr. Altman, are you represented by counsel ? 

Mr. Altman. Yes; I am. 

Mr. Wood. Will counsel please identify himself for the record ? 
• Mr. CoiiN. My name is Morris E. Cohn, C-o-h-n. 

Mr. Wood. Of the Los Angeles bar ? 

Mr. Cohn. Yes, sir. 

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

Mr. Altman. George Altman, A-1-t-m-a-n, and I also have a middle 
initial "T." I have not used it consistently. 

Mr. Tavenner. When and where were you born, Mr. Altman ? 

Mr. Altman. In Minnesota, in 1897. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you now a resident of Los Angeles? 

Mr. Altman. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long have you lived here? 

Mr. Altaian. Since approximately 15):'>5. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you a member of the legal profession? 

Mr. Altman. I am. 

Mr. TA^^■]NNER. How long have you engaged in the practice of law 
in Los Angeles ? 

Mr. Altman. Since 1935. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 3975 

Mr. Tavennek. Brielly, wliat has been your educational preparation 
for the practice of your profession? 

Mr. Altman. Well, I went to high school and also went to college. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you attend a law school ? 

Mr. Altman. Only for approximately one semester. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Altman, according to testimony before this 
connnittee, under oath, Mr. David Aaron, wdio said he was a member 
of the C'ommunity Party from 1946 to 1948 

Mr. Altman. Mr. Tavenner, I have already read all of that tes- 
timony, and I am quite familiar with it. 

Mr. Ta\t5nner. Then, to be very brief, Mr. David Aaron, Mr. A. 
Marburg Yerkes, and Mr. William G. Israel all testified to the effect 
that you were a member of a club or unit of the Communist Party con- 
sisting solely of members of the legal profession in and about Los 
Angeles. Was that testimony true or false ? 

Mr. Altman. I decline to answer on the basis of the first amend- 
ment, the fourth amendment, the fifth amendment, including the 
privilege not to bear witness against myself, the sixth amendment, 
the ninth amendment, and the tenth amendment to the Constitution 
of the United States. 

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

JNIr. Altman. I decline to answer that on the same grounds. 

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

Mr. Altman. I decline to answer on the same grounds. 

Mr. Tavenner. I have no further questions. 

Mr. Wood. Are there any questions? Is there any reason why the 
witness should not be excused from further testimony? 

Mr. Tavenner. No, sir. 

Mr. Wood. It is so ordered. The witness is excused. 

(The witness was excused.) 

Mr. Tavenner. I will call Mr. Spencer Austrian. 

Mr, Wood. Will Mr. Austrian come forward ? 

Do you solenniiy swear the evidence you shall give this committee 
shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so 
help you God? 

Mr. Austrian. I do. 

Mr. Wood. Have a seat, please. 

TESTIMONY OF SPENCEE AUSTRIAN, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS 

COUNSEL, FEED HOROWITZ 

Mr. Wood. Are you represented by counsel ? 

Mr. Austrian. I am. 

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

Mr. Horowitz. Fred Horowitz, of Los Angeles. 

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

Mr. Austrian. Spencer Austrian. 

Mr. Tavenner. When and where were you born, Mr. Austrian? 

Mr. Austrian. I was born in Chicago in 1908, if I am not mistaken. 

Mr. Wood. How do you s]5ell youi- name ? 

Mr. Austrian. A-u-s-t-r-i-a-n. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you now a resident of Los Angeles ? 

95008— 52— i)t. 3 6 



3976 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. Austrian. Yes; I am. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long have you lived here? 

Mr. Austrian. I came to Los Angeles first in 1908, 1 believe. I am 
almost a native. 

Mr. Tavenner. Have you lived here the entire time since that ? 

Mr. Austrian. No; I departed and came back, I believe, in 1918. 
I have lived here continuously since then. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you a member of the legal profession ? 

Mr. Austrian. I am. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long have you engaged in the practice of law 
in Los Angeles ? 

Mr. Austrian. Well, it is about 25 years ago that I first started 
practicing here. 

Mr. Tavenner. What was your preparation for the practice of your 
profession ? 

Mr. Austrian. Grammar school, high school, and college. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you attend a law school? 

Mr. Austrian. Yes; I did. 

Mr. Tavenner. What school ? 

Mr. Austrian. Loyola University. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Austrian, a witness by the name of Harold J, 
Ashe, and his wife Mildred Ashe, testified before this committee on 
September 17, 1951, in this room, and told the committee of the plan 
of the Communist Party to organize professional cells, or cells within 
the Connnunist Party which were made up entirely of members of the 
various professions. They identified you as a member of the first 
group that they organized. I suppose that you are familiar with that 
testimony. If you are not, I will try to refresh your recollection. 

Are you familiar with the testimony? 

Mr. Austrian. No ; I am not. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mrs. Mildred Ashe, in testifying, said this: "Well, 
one of the activities of that unit was the forming of the new music 
group, and it was a group to raise money." 

Mr. Austrian. What unit is under discussion ? 

Mr. Tavenner. The ])rofessional unit within the Communist Party. 
Let me go back a little further to the testimony of Mr. Ashe. 

While we are examining the record for that, were you acquainted 
with Mr. Harold Ashe? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Austrian. Well, my lawyer advises me to decline to make any 
response to that question, and he tells me that 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you speak a little louder, please? 

Mr. Austrian. My lawyer advises me to decline to make any re- 
sponse to that question, and he has advised me that I must say certain 
words in order to not get into trouble with you gentlemen; and, so, I 
guess I will have to say the words. 

Mr. Wood. You do not have to say anything that is not true. You 
do not have to say anything except to answer the questions, and your 
oath is the only thing tliat compels you in that. 

Mr. Austrian. My counsel tells me I still should state for the rec- 
ord so that there will be something in the record to indicate the rea- 
son vrhy I refuse, so I will not appear to be contunuicious, that the rea- 
son I refuse is on the grounds of the privilege contained in the fifth 
amendment of the Constitution, prohibiting the requirement that a 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 3977 

})erson be made to bear witness a^^ainst himself. It is awfully tech- 
nical, but that is what he says I shall say. 

Mr. Tavenner. Is that the real ground and the real reason for your 
refusal to testify? 

Mr. Austrian. Yes; I would say that it is unsafe for any decent 
citizen to answer either way before this committee. 

Mr. Tavenner. Your answer was so framed in doubt that I was un- 
certain from the language you used that you were actually relying 
upon the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Austrian. Oh, yes; I want you to be very clear that I am rely- 
ing upon it, Counsel. I wouldn't want you to be mistaken. 

Mr. Tavenner.' Mr. Ashe, after having testified as to the setting up 
of a Communist Party cell by the number Z-10(), and then the infor- 
mation of a second group under the number Z-150, in testifying as to 
the members, stated, in reply to the question "Proceed with the nam- 
ing of any others,'' "S])encer Austrian, a Los Angeles attorney." So 
that is the language in which he identified you as a member of that 
group. 

I then asked him, "You spoke of Spencer Austrian. Will you spell 
the last name, please?" And he did, and the spelling was A-u-s- 
t-r-i-a-n, and then this question was asked : 

"Do you know anything'about his present whereabouts?" And Mr. 
Ashe : "I understand he is still in Los Angeles." 

Then when his wife took the stand and testified that she also had 
been a member of the Communist Party, and had attended some of 
these meetings, she testified, "I only attended one or two of those," 
meaning those meetings, "and that is about as much on that as I know, 
but that was one of the things that the unit was able to do." 

There she was referring to the method of raising money. 

Then she made this statement: "Spencer Austrian was also a mem- 
ber of that group." 

Were Mr. and Mrs. Ashe telling the truth when they identified you 
as a member of that group, or were their statements false? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

(Representative Morgan M. Moulder entered the hearing room.) 

Mr. Austrian. My attorney advises me to decline to respond to the 
question on the grounds of the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Wood. I did not get the last part. It has part of your answer. 
You said your attorney advised you. Do you decline to answer ? 

Mr. Austrian. I do decline. 

Mr. Wood. And for the reason that you previously stated? 

Mr. Austrian. That is right. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Martin Berkeley testified before this commit- 
tee on September 10, 1951, and he likewise identified yon as a member 
of the Communist Partv faction of the Hollvwood Theater Alliance. 
Was that identification correct or false ? 

(The witness conferred with his' counsel.) 

Mr. Austrian. Counsel advises me to refuse to answer on the same 
grounds, and I do. 

Mr. Tavenner. Well, are you refusing to answer on the grounds 
that your counsel advised you ? 

Mr. Austrian. I am. 



3978 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. Walter. Will yon keep your voice \\]), please, because Mr.. 
Tavenner can't hear you. He did not hear that "and I do." 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Austrian, are you now a member of the Com- 
munist Party ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Austrian. My counsel advises me to refuse to answer on the 
same grounds, and I do. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you willin<j to give this committee any in- 
formation at all regarding the alleged Communist Party cell in Los 
Angeles which was composed solely of members of the legal profes- 
sion ? 

Mr. Austrian. My attorney advises me to make no response to that 
question on the same grounds, and I therefore make no I'esponse. 

Mr. Tavenner. Have you at any time been a member of the Na- 
tional Lawyers' Guild ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Austrian. My attorney advises me to make no response to 
that question on the same grounds, and I therefore make no response. 

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

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Austrian. My attorney advises me* not to make any response 
to that question, on the same grounds, and I therefore make no re- 
sponse. 

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

Mr. Wood. Mr. Walter, do you have any questions ? » 

Mr. Walter. I have none. 

Mr. Doyle. Are you a member of the Los Angeles Bar Association ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Austrian. Am I assured that is not a subversive organization ? 

Mr. Doyle. I am asking you a question. 

Mr. Austrian. I don't think I am ; I really wouldn't remember. 

Mr. Doyle. I am a member of it, and I think in good standing, and 
I did not know it was a subversive organization; I hope it is not. 

Mr. Austrian, You can't be too careful these days, Mr. Congress- 
man. 

Mr. Walter. That is vevy apparent since we have been sitting 
here. 

Mr. Doyle. Are you in the active practice of law now ? 

Mr. Austrian. Xo, I am not. 

Mr. Doyle. Have you been in the last 5' years in active practice? 

Mr. Austrian. No, I have not. 

]\Ir. Doyle. You are in some merchandising line, are you not, or 
some manufacturing line? 

Mr. ^Austrian. Well, I have a number of investments, yes, sir. 

Mr. Doyle. I noticed you volunteered the statement, "It is unsafe 
to state befoie this committee." What is unsafe? 

<The witness conferred with his-counsel.) 

]Mr. Doyle. Why is it unsafe to state what the fact may be before 
this committee? I do not want to insinuate that you are not telling 
the truth, that is why I asked that it be withdrawn. 

Mv. ^^ustrian. Would you read tlie question again, please? 

(The question was read by the reporter.) 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 3979 

Mr. Austrian. Well, in my view, or.entleman, only a Communist or 
ex-Commiinist is safe in testifying before this connnittee. 

Mr. Doyle. Your answer is that your view is tluit only a Commu- 
nist or an ex-Communist is safe in testifying before this committee? 

Mr. Aus'raiAN. That is correct. 

Mr. Doyle. Well, you ought to be perfectly safe, then, should you 
not? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Austrian. Well, my counsel advises me that I should make no 
response to that question, and I therefore make no response to it on 
the grounds previously stated. 

Mr. Doyle. Now, may I assure you, Mr. Austrian, I am not trying 
to trap you. I have the utmost professional and personal regard for 
your worthy counsel by your side. I think it is splendid when you 
men bring high-class, worthy counsel in the room before us, and the 
committee always wants men in good faith to come into this room 
and be with us regardless of what their legal advice or counsel may 
be. But I did notice that you said it was unsafe and you volunteered 
that statement, and now can you help us ? 

May I base my statement this way : I am a lawyer, too, as you 
know, and we, as INIembers of Congress, are sworn under oath to do 
a duty under Public Law 601, and we are obligated to inquire of 
citizens over the country. Section 2 states that this committee as a 
whole, or subcommittee, is authorized to make investigations of the 
extent and character and objects of un-American propaganda activity 
in the United States, diffusion within the United States from foreign 
sources of subversive or un-American activities. 

Now presently at this hearing we are looking into the activities of 
the Communist Party as to whether or not any of its members or the 
party is subversive in this area. Now, as Members of the United 
States Congress, we come before you fulfilling our oath, too, and 
asking you to tell us frankly, if you can, without our asking you to 
waive any constitutional protection that you conscientiously feel you 
have or that your counsel feels you have, but is there any area in 
which you can help us to get whatever the facts may be now as to 
why you feel it is unsafe for you personally to testify before this 
committee ? 

You said the only people for whom it is safe is Communists or 
former Communists, and now that certainly does not include you, 
does it? 

Mr. HoROw^iTz. Would you excuse me for just a moment? 

Mr. Doyle. Yes, indeed. Counsel. 

(Tlie witness conferred with his counsel.) 

(Representative Donald L. Jackson left the hearing room.) 

(Representative Francis E. Walter left the hearing room.) 

Mr. Austrian. Well, Congressman, I have just discussed this 
matter with my attorney. 

j\Ir. Doyle. A little louder, Mr. Austrian, so our counsel can 
hear you. 

Mr. Tavenner. Would you mind leaning forward a little? 

Mr. Austrian. I have just discussed the matter with my attorney, 
Mr. Congressman, and here is the position that I find myself in : I 
am sure that there has been some truth 



3980 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. Tavenner. We still can't hear you. If you will come forward 
a little, I think with the microphone system it will pick it up. 

Mr. Austrian. The situation that I find myself in is this : I am 
sure that there has been some truth and some falsity testified to before 
this committee, and I don't know which is which, and on the other 
hand I don't know of any reason why I should put myself in the 
position of matching my veracity against any witness that can be 
dug uj) to come before this committee and give any version that they 
care to give which would put me in the position of defending myself, 
and I know of no reason' why I should be subjected to that. I have 
done nothing wrong. I don't want to match my veracity against 
some stumble-bums, and I don't want to put the matter to the issue, 
simply because if I say one thing which 1 regard as the truth, and 
it is possible to find in the whole United States any drunken bum who 
will testify to the contrary, I will then be subject to a test of veracity 
between that person and myself. And knowing the temper of the 
times and the opinions of you gentlemen, I am sure that I would be 
required to defend myself, and that would take a great deal of energy 
and a great deal of money, and while I probably would be vindicated 
in the long run, because I have a great deal of faith in our courts, 
still why should I be put in that position? 

Mr. Doyle. Well, 1 want to thank you for taking the time to answer 
this question after conferring with your distinguished counsel. I 
somehow felt, and let me be frank with you, that as you answered the 
previous question that I somehow had a hunch that you wanted to go 
as far as you could conscientiously in cooperating with us as Con- 
gressmen under our official job. And when you volunteered the state- 
ment that it was only Communists and former Communists who could 
testify before this committee safely, I was quite shocked, to be frank 
with you. Now let me just make this statement so that perhaps it will 
help you in your thinking in the immediate future : 

This committee is not interested in interfering with the freedom of 
thought. We are interested in helping to uncover people who decep- 
tively and subversively advocate subversive activities as far as our 
Government is concerned. We do know that now and then people 
who are not interested in such subversive activities do identify with 
some of those unknowingly at the time, who advocate subversive ac- 
tivities in the United States, and we think perhaps we have discovered 
a few in Los Angeles in that category. I don't know whether you are 
in that category, but if you are, or if any other person in the room 
is. I want to say that this committee invites them to participate in 
uncovering the folks who are really subversive in their activities and 
intentions. 

Now, this is not a court, as you know, and your worthy counsel 
knows we are not interested in prosecuting any person — that is not 
our function — but again I have a hunch that you, sir, with your dis- 
tinguished counsel, are desirous of cooperating and protecting the 
integrity of our country against subversive and military aggression of 
Soviet communism. That is my impression of you, and I have never 
met you in my life. And I will be less than frank if I didn't state this 
straight across this heai'ing table. If you get to the point where you 
feel that you can help us do our official job as your Congressmen, why, 
I want to urge you to do it. 

Mr. Wood.' Mr. Frazier. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 3981 

Mr. Frazier. I have no questions. 

Mr. Moulder. I have no questions. 

Mr. Velde. You referred to matohing your veracity with someone. 
Who was it that you were referring to ? 

Mr. Austrian. Well, your counsel has stated that someone has testi- 
fied about me before this committee and whoever it was has already 
testified about me and certainly those are the ones I have in mind, and 
it is possible, as I said, that in the future there might be someone who 
would so testify for psychological reasons, for money, for what I don't 
know. I am not implying anything, and all I say is. Why should I 
be put in the position of defending myself? I have no reason for 
doing that. 

Mr. Velde. Are you willing to admit now or deny that you know 
Mr. and Mrs. Ashe ? 

(The wntness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Austrian. My counsel suggests that I respond that I have 
already answered that question by refusing to respond, that I again 
refuse to respond on the grounds previously stated. 

Mr. Velde. That is all I have. 

Mr. Wood. As I understand you, sir, Mr. Austrian, your declination 
to answer the questions propounded to you wnth respect to your con- 
nection with any branch or unit of the Communist Party is predicated 
upon your fear that hereafter there may be some legal action taken 
with respect to the truthfulness of your statement; is that right? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Austrian. Again, my counsel, who is a very learned man, and 
whose advice I certainly am going to take if I am going to pay him, 
advises me that this business of stating the objection is extremely 
tricky, and you must state it in technical language, or you are deemed 
to have waived it. Now, I do not want to waive it and I want to take 
all of the necessary legal abracadabra that are necessary to preserve 
it and my counsel tells me that what I must say is that I refuse to 
respond on the grounds of the privilege contained in the fifth amend- 
ment and I therefore do respond on that ground. 

Mr. Wood. Of course you recognize, sir, that you are under oath, 
do you not ? 

Mr. Austrian. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Wood. Then are you willing to under your oath state that what- 
ever your counsel advises you to say, you will say, whether it is true 
or not ? 

Mr. Austrian. No; quite the contrary. When my counsel advises 
me not to say anything, I will follow his advice, and I certainly would 
not commit falsehood if my counsel advised me to, and I don't think 
that you mean to imply that my counsel would so advise. 

Mr. Wood. No, sir, I did not. But several times you have said that 
your counsel advised you to say this, and you are going to say it, and 
I just wondered if you are saying it because of his advice or because 
it is true. 

Mr. Austrian. I have discussed it in great detail with my counsel, 
and my counsel has advised me just as I have told you. 

Mr. Wood. We grant of course to counsel the ])rivilege, and not 
only the privilege but it is their duty to advise their clients what their 
legal rights are, but not to advise the clients what the truth is. 

Mr. Austrian. Beg pardon ? 



3982 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. Wood, But Jiot to advise the clients what the truth is, and I am 
sure your counsel has not told you what the truth is with respect to 
your answer, being sought by these questions. He has simply advised 
you what the legal effect of your answer might be, because that is I am 
sure as far as counsel could go. 

Mr. Horowitz. Your statement, Mr. Congressman, seems to imply — 
and I don't think you intended to — seems to imply that I may have 
advised him to answer not truthfully. 

Mr. Wood. I certainly did not intend that, and I tried to make it 
plain, and I am making it plain if I can now, your counsel advises 
you that to answer a question that is asked you might open the doors 
for other questions to be asked, and might ultimately be construed as 
a waiving of the privilege under the fifth amendment and other amend- 
ments that you have mentioned, but in no instance, I dare say, has your 
counsel told you what you should testify, because, after all, that is a 
matter between you and your conscience. 

Mr. Austrian. I haven't testified to anything. 

Mr. Wood. Oh, yes, you have. And now let us see if you haven't. 
You have testified that to answer certain questions would incriminate 
you, and now that is a positive statement. 

Mr. Austrian. No, I did not so testify. 

Mr. Wood. If you have not, you have got no privilege under the 
Constitution, and if you have not testified to that. You say now that 
you have not said that ? 

Mr, Austrian. I testified and my counsel has advised me that I 
should refuse to make any response whatsoever on the ground of 
the privilege contained in the fifth amendment, to wit, that a person 
cannot be required to bear witness against himself. I have not made 
any response, 

Mr. Wood. You have not made any response at all. Well, then, I 
am going to require you to make a response, if I can. You may confer 
with your counsel. 

Mr. Horowitz. I think again that there is an error, and I don't 
want to make a point, but he did pursuant to my advice claim the 
privilege, 

Mr, Wood. I do not know whether he has or not. Counsel; he said 
he did not answer it at all. 

Mr. Austrian. I intend to, and now if you tell me what specific 
words T should use in order to accomplish my intention, I will do it. 

Mr. Wood, You are under oath and I am not going to tell you what 
to testify about, and I am going to ask you some questions. 

Mr, Austrian. I do claim the privilege. 

Mr, Wood, Wlien you were asked a while ago if you were a member 
of a unit or a club of the Communist Party composed exclusively of 
lawyers here in the Los Angeles area at any time in the past, what 
was your answer to that, and what is it now ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel,) 

Mr. Austrian. My answer then and now is that I refuse to make 
any response to the question whatsoever, either in the affirmative or in 
the negative, upon the ground that according to the fifth amendment 
a person cannot be required to bear witness against oneself, and I do 
claim the privilege, and I claim all of the rights, duties, and obliga- 
tions therein contained, and I do not wish to respond to the question. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 3983 

and I do not respond to the question and I claim the protection of the 
Constitution. 

Mr. Wood. There must be, of course, some difference in construc- 
tion of hinguage between you and me. I hold that that is a response 
to the question. ; it is simply a refusal to answer the question. 

Mr. Austrian Gentlemen, are we splitting hairs here? You must 
be a lawyer too, sir, 

Mr. Wood. There are a lot of people in my State that would deny 
that. 

Is there any reason why this witness should not be excused from 
further testifying? 

Mr. Tavenner. No, sir. 

Mr. Wood. It is so ordered. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr, Robert Katz is the next witness. 

Mr. Wood. Hold up your right hand, please. 

Do you solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give this com- 
mittee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, 
so help you God ? 

Mr. Katz. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF ROBERT D. KATZ, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 
DANIEL G. MARSHALL AND THOMAS G. NEUSOM 

Mr. Wood. Have a seat. 

Mr. Tavenner. What is your name, please? 

Mr. Katz. Robert Katz. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you represented by counsel ? 

Mr. Katz. I am. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will counsel please identify themselves for the 
record ? 

Mr. Marshall. Daniel G. Marshall and Thomas G. Neusom. 

Mr. Tavenner. When and where were you born, Mr. Katz? 

Mr. Katz. I was born in Illinois in 1913. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you now live in Log Angeles ? 

Mr. Katz. I do. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long have you lived there ? 

Mr. Katz. Since 1935. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you a member of the legal profession? 

Mr. Katz. I am. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long have you practiced law in Los Angeles? 

Mr. Katz. Since 1937. 

Mr. Tavenner. What has been your educational training, briefly ? 

Mr. Katz. Grammar school, high school, college and law school, and 
self-study. 

Mr. Tavenner. Excuse me, I didn't hear the last. 

Mr. Katz. Self-study. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Katz, during the course of the hearings relat- 
ing to the existence of a Communist Party cell in Los Angeles made 
up exclusively of members of the legal profession, a member of that 
profession, Mr. A. Marburg Yerkes, testified that in the course of 
Communist Party meetings of that group, as follows, on page 2555 : ^ 

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. 

^ Ibid. 



3984 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Question : Wms Mr. Robert Katz a inemlxT of this group, the Couniuinist 
group V 

Answer : Yes, sir. 

Ml'. Katz, was Mr. Yerkes tellino- the truth in identifyin<r you as a 
])erH()ii who was a member of this Commimist Party ^i2;roiip, and who 
brouoht literature to the meetin<2;s? 

Mr. Katz. Mr. Tavenner, when I was a youngster, the first tiling 
I think that I can remember ever being taught 

Mr, Tavknner. Will you answer my question? 

Mr. Katz. I am answering your question ; yes, sir. 

Mr. W( oi). Just answer tlie question. He was not asking you about 
being a youngster. lie is asking you about tlie testimony. 

Mr. Katz. 1 am answering the (question. The point I w^ant to make 
is that I have been taught from the beginning that people who tell 
tales, and people who as kids we were tauglit were snitchers, in later 
life we were taught were, and called, stool pigeons or informers. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you think that is an answer to my question ? 

Mr. Katz. I am getting to the answer. 

Mr. Wood. Please answer it without giving your life history. 

Mr. Katz. 1 am stating the reasons for my answer at the same time. 

Mr. Tavenner. You are a lawyer and you should know that an ex"- 
l)lanation of an answer can be given only after the answer is made. 
Now, answer the question; and, tlien, if you have an explanation of it, 
you are at liberty, if it is pertinent. 

Mr. Katz. I feel it is pertinent. 

Mr. Tavenner. Let us have the answer. Is that a true or a false 
statement ? 

Ml-. Katz. For the reasons tliat you are inquiring into my opinions 
and beliefs, whether directly or indirectly through that question, T 
feel that that is prohibited under the first amendment to the Consti- 
tution of the TTnited States, and for the reason that I wish to avail 
myself of the privilege granted by the fifth amendment of the Con- 
stitution of the United States not to bear witness against myself, and 
for the reason that I previously stated that such people as you have 
mentioned here are inclined, for selhsh gain or motives personal to 
themselves, are more inclined to look to their own advantage than to 
the responsibility and accuracy of what they say, I don't care to answer 
the (luestion. 

Mr. Wood. It isn't a question of what you care to do; what do 
you do ^ 

Mr. Katz. I did answer it, in this sense: We are having the same 
trouble the last witness had. I am declining to answer the question 
which is my right to do so. 

Mr. Wood. You have not uj) to that moment. 

Mr. Katz. Under the grounds of the fifth amendment, so that there 
is no misunderstanding about it. 

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

Mr. Katz. I am going to decline to answer that question for the 
same reasons, the first amendment and the fifth amendment, and the 
same grounds as I previously gave to the last question. 

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

Mr. Katz. The same answer as I gave you to the last one. 

Mr. Tavenner. I have no further questions. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 3985 

Mr: Wood. Are there any questions? 

Mr. Moulder. I merely want to make one observation of several 
witnesses like yourself who have ap])eared before the committee, mak- 
inf^ derogatory statements about other witnesses, but you never deny 
what counsel states here as being their testimony that it is the truth. 
That is, you call them a snitch and a stool pigeon, but you don't say 
that they are lying. That seems rather in conllict with the derogatory 
statements you make about those people. 

Mr. Katz. Well, you are asking for a matter of opinion as to what 
I think of those peo]de, and I am free to give that opinion any way 
that I wish. I feel also that this is not the forum, the proper "forum 
to get that issue as to who may be lying, or what. 

Mr. Moulder. In fact, when you say a ])erson is a snitch it raises 
some sort of a presumption that maybe what they said about you is 
true. 

Mr. Katz. On the contrary, I think that you will find that the dic- 
tionary by its very definition shows that such people are not too care- 
ful with "the truth and if they are motivated by personal gain and 
personal reasons. 

Mr. Moulder. But you haven't denied what they say as being true. 

Mr. Katz. You are ]iutting words in my mouth that I don't think I 
said. I told you that I declined to answer the question. That is the 
answer I gave you. 

Mr. Moitlder. If you decline to answer, you should just keep the re- 
sponse on that level and not say the person is a snitch, then, and a 
stool pigeon. 

Mr. Katz. I think as the chairman said, I have the right to explain 
my answers. 

Mr. Velde. Where did you go to law school ? 

Mr. Katz. Chicago and Los Angeles. 

Mr. Velde. What schools? 

Mr. Katz. Kent College of Law. 

Mr. Velde. That is all I have. 

Mv. Wood. Any reason why the witness should not be excused from 
further attendance on the committee ? 

Mr. Tavenner. No, sir. 

Mr. Wood. It is so ordered. 

The committee will stand in recess for 15 minutes. 

(A brief recess was taken, after which the hearing was resumed with 
Congressmen Wood, Walter, Moulder, Frazier, Velde, and Jackson 
present.) 

Mr. Wof)D. Counsel, are you ready to proceed? 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. William Esterman, please. 

Mr. Esterman. I would like a little more room to work, Mr. Con- 
gressman. This isn't even adequate. 1 note that those peoi)le over 
there have lots of table room and why can't we have a table like that? 
I don't want my attorneys hiding behind me. 

Mr. Wood. ^^orry. I didn't arrange the roouL 

Mr. Esterman. I will sit over there and you sit over here and 
maybe I could ask you some questions. 

Mr. Wood. We will make provision for your comisel. 

Mr. EsncRMAN. I find this very cramped and inadequate, and I want 
a place to work. 



3986 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. Wood. Do you solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give 
this subcommittee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but 
the truth, so help you God? 

TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM B. ESTERMAN, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS 
COUNSEL, ROBERT W. KENNY, THOMAS G. NEUSOM, AND DANIEL 
G. MARSHALL 

Mr. EsTERMAN. Yes, I do. 

Are we going to have room for our counsel ? I would like my counsel 
sitting next to me, and not behind me. If I am going to be compelled 
to use these facilities, I am going to do them under objection. I don t 
like this. You say I have a right to counsel, but you make them sit m 
the balcony. 

Mr. Tavenner. AVliat is your name, please? 

Mr. EsTERMAN. Can we have a larger table so we can work? 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you determined to make a disturbance? 

Mr. EsTORMAN. I am not determined to make a disturbance. I 
know the right to counsel, and it does not mean that my attorney can 
sit half-way back in the room. 

Mr. Tavenner. If there is any time when you wish to consult coun- 
sel and they are not close enough to you, we will certainly make the 
space available for you. 

Mr. Wood. Let the record show that there are three attorneys. 

Was that all of the attorneys ? 

The Marshal. Yes. 

Mr. Wood. They are within easy reach of the witness. 

Mr. EsTERMAN. You ask me my name. 

Mr. Wood. Yes. 

Mr. EsTERMAN. William B. Esterman. 

Mr. Wood. Are you represented by counsel? 

Mr. Esterman. Yes, I am. 

Mr. Wood. Will counsel please identify themselves for the record ? 

Mr. Neusom. Thomas G. Neusom. 

Mr. Kenny. Robert Kenny. 

Mr. Marshall. Daniel G. Marshall. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do any members of the counsel staff feel that they 
do not have sufficient opportunity to consult their client? If they 
do, we will try to make any special arrangements. 

Mr. Esterman. I was talking about the right to consult my attor- 
neys. That is the right I am talking about, and not their right to 
consult me. I am the one that has to be satisfied, and I am not. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you please state the time and place of your 
birth? 

Mr. Esterman. Before I answer any questions, Mr. Tavenner, I 
would like to have you straighten nie'out on something, because I 
am very much confused. 

I understood a member of this committee to announce the other 
day over a public address system that the reason this committee is 
here in Los Angeles is because you have discovered a conspiracy and 
that you are here to obtain evidence of this conspiracy, scmiething 
about overthrowing the Government. I would like to ask you if you 
are seeking to obtain evidence of this conspiracy and my alleged par- 
ticipation in it by calling me to the stand. Is that what you are doing ? 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 3987 

Mr. Tavenxer. We are askinfj you to give the committee any 
knowledge you have regarding the existence of a Comnninist Party 
cell, which is under investigation and has been during a part of 
this year. 

Mr. EsTERMAX. I take it you decline to tell me whether or not 
that is true. 

Mr. Tavenner. Not at all. We claim 

Mr. Esterman. This statement was made by a member of your 
committee; that there was evidence of a crime, a conspiracy; that 
the people who were called were going to be called to the stand to 
give evidence; and if you are calling me to give evidence against 
myself, I w^ould like to know about it, and I w^oulcl like to know it 
now, and if you are calling me for some other reason, then please 
state it, and I know my rights, and I am a lawyer. 

Mr. Tavenner. Well, as the questions are asked, you will be able 
to judge for yourself wdiat the purpose of them is. 

Mr. Esterman. I am sure. 

]\Ir. Taat.nner. And if you have any further question when they 
are asked, I will be glad to try to answer it — as to the purposes of 
asking it. 

Mr. Esterman. You haven't told me yet whether that is the purpose, 
because one of your committeemen announced publicly that this was 
the purpose. 

Mr. Tavenner. The chairman made a very full statement as to 
what the purpose of this meeting was, and it was read into the record. 

Mr. Esterman. Then it isn't a fact, is it, that I am called to give 
evidence against myself ; is that right, Mr. Tavenner ? 

Mr. Wood. We are not the witnesses here, sir; we are a committee 
of Congress seeking information, and the only way we can get infor- 
mation is to ask questions. 

Mr. Esterman. What kind of information? 

Mr. Wood. The questions will indicate the type of information. 

Mr. Tavenner. And when and where were you born, Mr. Esterman ? 

Mr. Esterman. I want to make it very clear on this record that 
apart from the fact that you have kept me waiting 9 months before 
you called me to the stand, and caused the cancellation of a number of 
trials in which I was engaged, matters of considerable consequence to 
me, and which demonstrate conclusively that what was said here 
yesterday by other attorneys to the effect that you are trying to intimi- 
date the bar, is true regardless of any statement you may make to the 
contrary, and I have evidence of this, too, if you will give me the time 
to produce it. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you favor us with an answer? 

Mr. Wood. You are directed to answer the question. When and 
where were you born ? 

Mr. Esterman. I answered it. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you live in Los Angeles ? 

Mr. Esterman. I live in Altadena. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long have you lived there? 

Mr. Esterman. Does this question have a legislative purpose? 

Mr. Tavenner. It may. 

Mr. Esterman. Does the length of my residence in Altadena indi- 
cate to you that I have engaged in subversive activities? 

Mr. Wood. You are directed to answer the question. 



3988 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. Tavenner. I ask that he be directed to answer the question. 

Mr. EsTERMAN, I still object to it, but I will answer it, because it is 
no secret. I have lived in Altadena for 5I/2 years, give or take a month. 

Mr. Tavenner. You stated that you are engaged in the practice of 
law. Have you practiced law in this general vicinity during that pe- 
riod of time, 53/2 years? 

Mr. EsTERMAN. Yes, and I have practiced in many other vicinities, 
including Washington, D. C, where I took the last case on the fifth 
amendment, and concerning which I will be happy to supply you with 
briefs which will inform you, and you apparently appear to be 
informed better than you 

Mr. Wood. We are not seeking information from you about our 
knowledge of the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Esterman, are you familiar with the testimony 
of Mr. David Aaron, Mr. William G. Israel, and Mr. A. Marburg 
Yerkes, given before the committee in January of this j^ear? 

Mr. Esterman. Is that a question whether I am familiar with it?- 

Mr. Tavenner. I asked you whether you were familiar with it. 

Mr. Esterman. That calls for a very broad conclusion. I have 
read a lot of your pornographic literature, but I can't say whether I 
am or not ; and, if you want to refer to it, go ahead and read it. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. David Aaron 

Mr. Esterman. Is he here now ? I would like to cross-examine him. 

Mr. Taatnner. Well, you Avill have every opportunity to answer 
his statement that you were a member of the Communist Party cell of 
which he was a member. 

Mr. Esterman. This confirms what I have said publicly, and you 
are 

Mr. Wood. We are getting just a little tired of being interrupted. 

Mr. Esterman. I am getting awfully tired of this committee. 

Mr. Wood. We can get through a lot quicker. 

Mr. Esterman. I don't want to get through with it quicker. I 
know my rights, and I am going to assert them, and I want to ask you 
this 



Mr. Wood. We are not going to permit 

Mr. Esterman (continuing). Whether you have convicted me of a 
crime out of my presence and are now asking me to prove my inno- 
cence; is that the purpose of your interrogation? — because, if it is, 
I am not going to have any part of it. 

Mr. Tavenner. My purpose is to ask you to give an honest account 
of what has transpired, if anything, that you know of, in the Com- 
munist Party cell alleged to exist in Los Angeles comprised solely of 
members of the legal profession. 

Mr. Esterman. I deny that is your purpose ; I know your purpose. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you answer the question? 

Mr. EsTERMVN. What is the question? I didn't hear any question. 

Mr. Wood. It will be expunged from this record. 

Proceed, Mr. Tavenner. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you a member of the 

Mr. Esterman. There is a question on the record. He asked me to 
answer a question, and I don't know whether there is — is there a 
question ? 

Mr. Tavenner. I withdraw the question, if there is any uncertainty 
as to it, and put it this way : 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 3989 

Have you at any time been a member of a Communist Party cell in 
Los Angeles nuide up exclusively of members of the legal profession? 

Mr. EsTERMAN. Have you finished? 

Mr. Tavenner. That is the question. 

Mr. EsTERMAN. I want to make very clear why I am going to decline 
to answer this question, because I am going to decline. I will state 
my reasons concisely and precisely, ancl I will be glad to explain the 
legal reasons in case the legal principles are matters that have not 
come within your cognizance. 

Mr. Tavenner. Thank you. 

Mr. EsTERMAN. My first reason is that under the first amendment 
to the Constitution of the United States, which is older than all of us 
here, no American may be compelled to disclose what is in his mind. 
Freedom of speech is guaranteed, and freedom of press is guaranteed, 
and freedom of conscience is guaranteed, and I invoke the first amend- 
ment. 

No. 2: I invoke my constitutional rights under the fifth amendment 
to the United States Constitution, which includes, in addition to the 
"due process" clause, which is not recognized here, the proposition, 
that no American can be compelled to bear witness against himself, 
and in this conhection I supply you freely with a co})y of my brief 
addressed to the Supreme Court in the matter of Eugene M. Bninner v. 
The United States of America^ which contains on the third unnum- 
bered page a list of cases, Mr. Tavenner, dealing extensively and com- 
prehensively and very carefully with this right of which I speak, and 
for which I have a very passionate devotion and which I will never 
surrender to j^ou or anyone else. 

Thirdly, I refuse to answer this question because it has no legisla- 
tive purpose. It is inconceivable to me as a lawyer that the resolution 
to which our friend here referred yesterday and which he did not read 
too well — it is inconceivable to me that that resolution could possibly 
result in legislation which would not be inimical to the first amend- 
ment of the Constitution of the United States. Conclusive demonstra- 
tion of this fact is that you have never passed anything that is consti- 
tutional. 

No. 4: 1 decline to answer on the ground that the resolution creating 
this committee within the meaning of the sixth amendment to the 
Federal Constitution is vague and ambiguous, and nobody can tell 
what it means. 

No. 5 : 1 decline to answer on the ground set forth in the ninth and 
tenth amendments. As someone here said very aptly yesterday, you 
are seeking to destroy the real sovereignty in this country, which is 
the people. You are the servants of the people, and they are not 
your servants. 

No. 6: I decline to answer this question on the ground that the 
committee is illegally constituted; that there is at least one member 
who comes to Congress without the real expression of the voters in 
his State, because a great many of them have been disenfranchised, 
mostly because they have committed the crime of having a skin which 
is darker than the Congressman wlio presumes to represent them. 

No. 7: Whether or not this connnittee is illegally constituted, it 
is using its })owers, in my judgment as a lawyer, illegally and in ah 
improper manner under the purported resolution that creates it. 



3990 COMMUKISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

No. 8 : I am a member of the bar. I am sworn to support and 
defend the Constitution. I have taken tliis oath before the Supreme 
Court of the United States, to which I am admitted ; before a number 
of circuit courts of appeal ; before many district courts in many parts 
of the country ; and, of course, before the Supreme Court of Illinois 
and before the Supreme Court of the State of California. My oath 
is to support and defend the Constitution unqualified, and I refuse to 
repudiate my oath, my oath of office, by joinino; with this committee 
in watering: down the Constitution or any part of it. 

I refuse further on the ground that this committee is acting improp- 
erly in that it is usurping the functions of both the administrative 
and legislative branches of the Government of the Ignited States, the 
one heritage which, when I was in school, was supposed to have been 
the one thing that saved us from the kind of tyranny which this 
committee exemplifies. 

And, finally, apart from the fact I am a lawyer, I am also an 
American, and I refuse to extend to this committee any aid or comfort, 
because they are an enemy of my country. 

And those are my reasons for declining. 

Mr. Moulder. Which country are you referring to, this country 
or Russia? 

Mr. EsTERMAN. That is an insulting question, and I will not dignify 
it by discussing it. You know^ where 1 was born, and I told you under 
oath I was born in Wisconsin. It may have seceded from the Union 
recently, but when 1 was born there it was part of the United States, 
and I didn't come up here to be insulted by you or anyone else. 

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

Mr. Easterman. I have just — isn't that the same question you 
asked me a few minutes ago ? 

Mr. Tavenner. No. 

Mr. EsTERMAN. Well, then, I will give you the same answer. Do 
you want me to re]:)eat it ? 

Mr. Tavenner. Not unless you desire to. 

Mr. EsTERMAN. May it be understood that the answer which I just 
gave you, with 10 points, I now incorporate by reference, as we law- 
yers say 

Mr. Tavenner. Well, that has been the practice. 

Mr, EsTERMAN (continuing). In answer to the last question, and I 
decline on the same grounds. 

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

Mr. EsTERMAN. I give you the same answer, and I resent this tactic. 

Mr. Tavenner. I have no further questions. 

Mr. EsTERMAN. I question whether you are a member of the bar, and 
I doubt it. 

Mr. Wood. Mr. Walter? 

Mr. Walter. I have no questions. 

Mr. Esterman. May I file this brief as an exhibit, and the commit- 
tee may have it for nothing. 

Mr. Wood. Mr. Doyle ? 

Mr. DoYLE. Were you referring to prepared notes when you made 
your little speech? 

Mr. Esterman. I just had some little head notes. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 3991 

Mr. Doyle. You did not remember the points that you had in mind 
to refer to? 

Mr. EsTERMAN. I think that I did. I just wanted to be absokitely 
sure that you, and the American people if it ever gets to them, know 
exactly why I refused to answer that question. 

Mr. Doyle. I just noticed your remark with reference to my little 
uncertainty on yesterday. 

Mr. EsTERMAN. I was here, and I saw that; and the only reason I 
was here is because you subpenaed me, as this is one place I wouldn't 
come voluntarily. 

INIr. Doyle. I did not have any notes when I made my little talk 
yesterday. 

Mr. EsTERMAN. You are a lawyer. You should. 

Mr. Doyle. I did not need them, sir. 

Mr. EsTERMAN. All right. 

Mr. Wood. Are there any further questions? 

Mr. DoYLE. I have no further questions. 

Mr. Frazier. I have no questions. 

Mr. Velde. I have no questions. 

Mr. Jackson. I have no questions. 

Mr. Wood. Just a moment, please. 

Any reason why this witness should not be excused from further at- 
tendance on the committee? 

Mr. Tavenner. No, sir. 

Mr. Wood. It is so ordered. 

(The witness was excused.) 

]\fr. Wood. Whom do you have next? 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Charles J. Katz. 

Mr. Wood. Do you solemnly SAvear the evidence you shall give this 
committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 
truth, so help you God? 

Mr. Katz. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF CHARLES J. KATZ, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 
ROBERT W. KENNY, THOMAS G. NEUSOM, AND DANIEL G. 
MARSHALL 

Mr. Wood. Mr. Katz, are you represented by the same counsel as the 
witness just preceding? 

Mr. Katz. I am represented by Tom Neusom, Bob Kenny, and Dan 
Marshall. 

Mr. Taat3nner. Wliat is your name, please, sir? 

Mr. Katc. Charles J. Katz. 

Mr. Taa^nner. When and where were you born, Mr. Katz? 

Mr. Katz. Paterson, N. J., on July 19, 1905. 

Mr, Tavenner. Do you now reside in Los Angeles ? 

Mr. Katz. I do, sir. 

Mr. Ta\t.nner. How long have you lived in Los Angeles? 

Mr. Katz. I think about 30 years. 

Mr. Tavenner. You are a member of the legal profession ? 

Mr. Katz. I am. 

95008— 52— pt. 3 7 



3992 COMJMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. Tavenner. How long did you practice your profession in Los 
Angeles ? 

Mr. Katz. a quarter of a century today. 

Mr. Tai-enner. What educational preparation did you have for 
your practice of your profession ? . -r-, • • /; 

Mr. Katz. After high school, I attended both the University ot 
California, and got my LL. B. degree in 1927 at the University of 
Southern California. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. David Aaron has testified before the com- 
mittee- 



Mr. Katz. I will probably help you 

Mr. Tavenner. If vou will let me state my question. 

Mr. Katz. Certainly, but I have read portions of the testimony, and 
I apprehend that in the interest of time, you might want to know. 

Mr. Ta\t3Nner. I will make it as short as I can. 

Mr. David Aaron testified that when he became a member of the 
Communist Party cell in Los Angeles, made up exclusively of members 
of the legal profession, the first meeting which he attended was m your 
home. Do you recall the meeting? 

Mr. Katz. I shall not participate with Mr. David Aaron or anyone 
else in further watering down the rights which the people of this 
country have against inquisitorial proceedings. I decline to answer 
that question upon the following grounds: 

First, the question itself lies outside the lawful bounds of the powers 
of this committee. 

Second, this committee has no legislative purpose in this hearing, 
but is using the instrumentality of a legislative proceeding for the 
purpose of imposing a sanction upon me for the purpose of imposing 
a punishment upon me without due process of law, and that effort I 
shall resist. 

I decline to answer the question because I learned about the first 
amendment by reading men like Zechariah Chafee, Grant, Justice 
Brandeis, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, to whose phrases I com- 
mend the attention of my interrogator and the members of this com- 
mittee. I believe that within the meaning of the first amendment, 
that question is highly improper, because it infringes upon the right 
of freedom of speech," press, and association, guaranteed thereby. 

I decline to answer the question by reason of the privilege accorded 
to a person not to bear witness against himself and not to give testi- 
mony against himself, as set forth in the fifth amendment to the Fed- 
eral Constitution. I ask the committee to be good enough, in connec- 
tion with that, to tell the American people what the law is; and it is 
the law that when one invokes the privilege of the fifth amendment, 
he admits no guilt, that the privilege exists for the innocent; and that 
if this committee is sincere in its statement that it upholds the laws and 
the Constitution, it will desist from the practice of clrawing unfair 
inferences as against men who have lived all of their lives in this 
community, simply because at a time such as this, in circumstances such 
as these, they invoke their rights. And they hide behind nothing. 
They assert these rights to prevent their destruction. 

Those are my reasons, sir, for declining to answer that question. 
Mr. Tavenner. Do you have any knowledge of the existence of a 
Communist Party cell in Los Angeles confined in membership to 
members of the legal profession ? 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 3993 

Mr. Katz. I think that question is one of the same character, and 
it falls within the same, as I see it, obnoxious classification as the earlier 
question ; and to it I shall reply by asking you to he good enough to 
consider the prior answer as my answer to this question. Is that agree- 
able to you ? 

Mr. Tavenner. That is. 

Are you now a member of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Katz. The same answer, by adopting, gentlemen, the answer 
I gave earlier. 

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

Mr. Katz. The same answer. 

Mr. Tavenner. I have no further questions. 

Mr. Katz. Are you satisfied that the same answer incorporates all 
of my answers ? 

Mr. Wood. It will be so considered. 

Mr. Walter. You stated the conunittee was attempting to impose 
punishment on you; and punishment for what? 

Mr. Katz. That is what I would like to know. Punishment becatise 
of my ideas and my beliefs, and you punish a person by categorizing 
him as an unfriendly witness, by bringing him before you and by de- 
nying him the opportunity to cross-examine his accusers, and by de- 
nying him the right to call witnesses upon his own behalf. And it is, 
in my opinion, precisely the form of punishment, Mr. Congi'essman, 
which history indicates the good people of Massachusetts cried out 
against during the witch-hunting hysteria; and it is the same form 
of punishment that the people of Greece cried out against when there 
was an un-Grecian committee that tried Socrates ; and it is the same 
kind of punishment that was meted out during the Inquisition, and 
when the victims of the Inquisition became powerful, it was the same 
kind of punishment meted out against members of another faith. 

It is the old process, tragically enforced and enforced and en- 
forced — and only the struggle of people can put us back on the right 
track again — by which you give people a dirty name and then ask 
them to come forward and explain it away. 

There is no such right under our accusatorial system, and Congress- 
men sworn to uphold the Constitution, as you are, ought to revert to 
the process established, it seems to me, by our system of government, 
and to avoid the inquisitorial method. 

Mr. Walter. In all of the historical events that you have discussed, 
there was absent the one element that exists today ; namely, the dan- 
ger to the sovereignty by the activities of some of its people. 

Mr. Katz. Let me tell you something about 

Mr. Walter. Don't bother to tell me about it. I know as nnich 
about it as you do. 

Mr. Katz. Perhaps you do. You may have forgotten just a few 

things. 

Mr. Walter. No. There is one thing that I cannot forget, and that 
is that today, now, the membership in the Communist Party consti- 
tutes a conspiracy to overthrow this Government. 

Mr. Katz. That is exactly what Marcus Aurelius said about the 
Christians, and that is exactly what the followers of King Henry VIII 
said about the Catholics, and that is exactly, word for word, what cer- 
tain people said about Anne Hutchinson. Every time you find an in- 



3994 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

quisition, you find someone trying to justify it by saying, "We are im- 
periled." 

Please read what Justice Oliver "Wendell Holmes and Louis D. 
Brandeis, what Zechariah Chafee and others have said ; and if I can 
help this committee, it will only be in- calling your attention to that 
point of our heritage where you may inform yourself about these 
procedures. 

Mr. Wood. Any further questions? 

Mr. Walter. No. 

Mr. Moulder. I have no questions. 

Mr. Wood. Is there any reason why this witness should not be 
excused from further attendance on this committee ? 

Mr. Ta\^nner. No, sir. 

(The witness was excused.) 

Mr. Wood. Your next witness ? 

Mr. Ta\t5nner. Mr. Sam Houston Allen. 

Mr. Wood. Will you be sworn ? 

Do you solenmly swear the evidence you shall give this subcommit- 
tee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so 
help you God ? 

Mr. Allen. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF SAM HOUSTON ALLEN, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS 
COUNSEL, EOBEET W. KENNY, THOMAS G. NEUSOM, AND DANIEL 
G. MARSHALL 

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

Mr. Allen. My name is Sam Houston Allen. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you represented by counsel ? 

Mr. Allen. Yes, sir ; I am. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will counsel please identify themselves for the 
record ? 

Mr. Marshall, Daniel G. Marshall. 

Mr. Kenny. Robert Kenny. ^ 

Mr. Neusom. Thomas G. Neusom. 

Mr. Allen. I would like for the record to show indirectly I am 
represented by some score of other very reputable members of the bar 
who signed this motion to quash this iniquitous subpena. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are they present ? 

Mr. Allen. No, they are not present. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Allen, would you please state when and where 
you were born ? 

Mr. Allen. I was born on the 22d day of January 1898, 4 miles from 
Aubrey. 

Mr. Tavenner. What State ? _ _ * 

Mr. Allen. Texas. It never produced a traitor yet, including me. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you now live in Los Angeles? 

Mr. Allen. No. I live in Van Nuys. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long have you lived at Van Nuys? 

Mr. Allen. About 10 years. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 3995 

Mr. Tavenner. You are a member of the legal profession ? 

Mr. Allen. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Have you been engaged in the practice of law at Van 
Nuys since you moved there ? 

Mr. Allen. No. I practiced in Hollywood and Los Angeles and 
various other portions of the State. 

Mr. Taatsnner. Of what does your preparation for the practice of 
law consist — that is, your scholastic preparation? 

Mr. Allen. Well, when I was about 12 years, old Judge Iselan, 
who was a blacksmith in Aubrey, sold me Chitty's edition of Black- 
stone's Commentaries on the English Law. I stuffed myself with 
that, up until the time I went into the Navy. I went through Harvard 
in 17 weeks, the United States Navy radio school, and that didn't 
qualify me particularly to practice law, but it gave me some maturity, 
I think. I picked cotton and peas and I swung a longshoreman's hook 
on the dock in San Pedro, and then I went to night school, on the 
eighth floor of the Jewelers Building, the Los Angeles College of Law 
of the University of the West. Our campus was the men's room, I 
didn't get my subversive ideas huddling around with some duped 
students of a university in the shadow of Boalt Hall, or some place. 

Mr. TA^^NNER. Did you become a member of the Communist Party 
group in Los Angeles that was made up of intellectuals from the legal 
profession ? 

Mr. Allen. Intellectuals in the legal profession ? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes. 

Mr. Allen. As you expected me to do, Mr. Tavenner, and you gen- 
tlemen of the committee, by reference I would like to incorporate all 
of the reasons so ably stated by one of my good friends and fellow 
members of the bar, Mr. William B. Esterman, and which is a matter 
of record. May it be deemed that I have stated all of those reasons 
in the interest of saving time ? 

Mr. Tavenner. No sir : I think if you have any reason you should 
state it yourself. 

Mr. Allen. I will state it now. I don't agree with you that you 
don't intend to invade the lawyer-client relationship. You have al- 
ready invaded it. 

(Further remarks made by the witness were ordered stricken from 
the record.) 

Mr. Allen. I decline to answer the question because as some of the 
Congressmen have refreshed their memory now on Public Law 601, 
this is an inquiry into propaganda activities and T don't know any way 
in the world except by the propagandation of ideas and I don't think 
it is competent for you to inquire into the realm of ideas of sovereign 
citizens, and I am sure you can't legislate constitutionally to regulate 
those ideas. 

(Further remarks made by the witness were ordered stricken from 
the record. ) 

Mr. Allen. I will leave it to the judgment of the American people 
what you have accomplished. 

Mr. Jackson. We are quite willing to stand on that same gromid. 



3996 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

INIr. Allen. Because of the first amendment, and because of the fifth 
amendment, that provision of tlie fifth amendment wliich gives me the 
right not to incriminate myself, and in tliat connection I would like 
to say that if you think it is only for the guilty, why don't you advocate 
its repeal? I claim the privilege of the fifth amendment, and that 
answer might subject me to further persecution, to further loss of 
practice, and possibly in these hysterical times the loss of my liberty. 
That is why 1 decline to answer the question, and I advise you now. in 
the interest of time, I shall decline to answer all other similar 
questions. 

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

Mr. Allen. That is original in the light of what I just said; isn't 
it? I give the same answer, and for the same reason. 

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

Mr. Allen. I give the same answer and for the same reasons. Why 
don't you ask me about force and violence? 

Mr. Jackson. What do you know about the advocation of force and 
violence by the Communist Party? 

Mr. Allen. I hate and despise force and violence, whether it is 
done by a goon on a picket's head or by some Merry Christmas party 
in a Los Angeles police station, or even by Congressman Wood's 
threatened assault on a witness here yesterday. 

Mr. Jackson. I am Congressman Jackson. 

Mr. Ta-s^nner. Will you answer the question ? 

Mr. Allen. Will you ask me again to answer the question? 

Mr. Tavenner. Kepeat it to him, please. 

(Question was read by the reporter.) 

Mr. Allen. I don't know anything about it. 

Mr. Tavenner. I have no further questions. 
.Mr. Wood. Mr. Walter? 

Mr. Walj'er. I have no questions. 

Mr. Wood. Mr. Moulder? 

Mr. Moulder. 1 have no questions. 

Mr. Wood. Mr. Doyle? 

Mr. Doyle. I have no questions. 

Mr. Frazier. I have no questions. 

Mr. Velde. I have no questions. 

Mr. Jackson. I have no questions. 

Mr. Wood. Is there any reason why the witness should not be ex- 
cused from further attendance? 

(Statement made by the witness was ordered stricken from the 

record. ) 

Mr. Wood. The Chair makes this announcement : That it has become 
obvious that during the length of time that some of the members of 
the committee are permitted to stay in Los Angeles this week that we 
are not going to be able to finish with all of the witnesses that are 
under subpena here during this week. The hearings were set up only 
through Friday, on account of a matter that was mentioned in an an- 
nouncement made by me on Monday. Several witnesses were neces- 
sarily excused from* api-)earing on Monday and we had but a short 
session on Monday. The remaining witnesses under subpena here 
who are members "of the legal profession are excused from further 
attendance on the committee until Monday of next week, at which time 



COMiMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 3997 

a subcommittee consisting of tliose members who are able to remain 
here will conclude the investigation, and those hearings will be in 
executive session.^ 

We now take a recess until 2 o'clock. Those hearings will be in 
executive session at 10 o'clock Monday morning. 

(Thereupon, at 12 noon, a I'ecess was taken until 2 p. m. the same 
day.) 

AFTERNOON SESSION 

(The subcommittee reconvened at 2 p. m., pursuant to recess, with 
the following members present: Representatives Francis E. Walter 
(presiding), Morgan M. Moulder (appearance noted in record), Don- 
ald L. Jackson, Clyde Doyle, and James B. Frazier, Jr.) 

Mr. Walitsr. The committee will come to order. 

Mr. Marshall. May I address the committee? By reason of the 
announcement made by the committee just 

Mr. Walter. Will you identify yourself? 

Mr. Marshall, My name is Daniel G. Marshall. 

Just before the session ended, the committee made an announce- 
ment with respect to which certain of the witnesses now wish to 
present a motion to the committee as follows : 

All and each of the attorneys who have heretofore been subpenaed 
by this committee who are represented by Robert W. Kenny, Thomas 
G. Neusom, Leo Branton, and myself, and who have been ordered to 
appear before a subcommittee of the committee in executive session 
on Monday, October 6, 1952, hereby move to quash said subpenas, or 
in the alternative for an immediate hearing in open session. The 
grounds for this motion are as follows : 

First, each of the moving attorneys has been under subpena of this 
committee for many months and has been personally present in the 
hearing room during these hearings in compliance with their sub- 
penas. By virtue of these facts, the offices and court calendars of these 
attorneys have been disrupted both in respect to their function as 
officers of the court and their obligations to their clients. The fur- 
ther continuance of their attendance will seriously and unjustifiably 
aggravate this interference with the functions and responsibilities 
mentioned. 

The second ground of the motion is as follows: That the uncon- 
stitutionality and illegality of these proceedings directed against the 
lawyers as set forth in the motion to quash heretofore filed and sum- 
marily denied by the committee are in the statement of lawyers who 
have already testified in public sessions had been fully confirmed by 
the proceedings up to the present time. The committee has stated no 
lucid reason for the continuance or for secret sessions. The real reason 
is that the committee no longer dares to carry out its lawless purposes 
in the open and now seeks to retreat behind closed doors. 

Mr. Walti<:r. We will answer that right now. You will get an 
open hearing. 

Mr. Marshall. Third 

Mr. Walter. Would you like to have it televised ? 

Mr. Marshall. Now may I finish my motion? 

The third ground is that this treatment amounts to punishment 
without any warrant or law or any semblance of due process of law. 

1 a decision M'as made later to hold these hearings in public. See p. 4169. 



3998 COMMTJN'ISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

The fourth ground is that to this point these hearings have been a 
public inquisition, and the committee now proposes to convert tliem 
into a completely secret star-chamber proceeding. 

The fifth ground is that every concept of American justice requires 
that an accused person be entitled to defend himself publicly and 
abhors secret trials, and I hand up to the committee the motion a;nd 
several copies thereof. 

Mr. Walitiir. Before the motion is considered, I would like to 
know on whose behalf you are making the motion. 

Mr. Marshall. Sir? 

Mr. Walter. Oli whose behalf are you making this motion ? 

Mr. Marshall. On behalf of all those lawyers who have been here- 
tofore subpenaed and who have been ordered to appear before a sub- 
committee of the committee on next Monday. 

Mr. Walter. Will you state the names of the people that you rep- 
resent ? 

Mr. Marshall. Does counsel have the list of witnesses included 
in the list referred to by the chairman this morning? 

Mr. Walter. Are these the names ? 

Mr. Marshall. No ; some of these have already been called. 

Mr. Walter. I think we can give this to Mr. Tavenner. 

(The motion was handed to Mr. Tavenner.) 
" Mr. Tavenner. The ones I have placed an "X" mark by have 
already been called. 

Mr. Walter. Mr. Marshall, will you give attention to Mr. Taven- 
ner's enumeration of the names, or I can give these to you. 

Aubrey Finn, J. Allan Frankel, Victor E. Kaplan, Sevmour Man- 
del, Frank S. Pestana, Rose S. Rosenberg, Richard L. Rykoff, Wil- 
liam M. Samuels, Esther Shandler. 

Mr. Tavenner. Esther Shandler has been called. 

Mr. Walter. Yes. F. Michael Snider, Laurence R. Sperber, Jack 
Tenner, and Leon Turret. 

Mr. Marshall. That is correct. 

Mr. Walter. The committee will go into executive session in order 
to consider the matter now before it. 

(The committee proceeded to executive session, after which the fol- 
lowing proceedings were had :) 

Mr. Walter. The subcommittee, Mr. Marshall, has considered this 
motion to quash the subpena and the other matters contained in it, 
and we have unanimously decided to give you the opportunity to 
present your clients immediately. 

Mr. Tavenner, call the first witness. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Richard Rykoff is the next witness. 

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. Rykoff. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF RICHARD L. RYKOFP, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS 
COUNSEL, ROBERT W. KENNY, THOMAS G. NEUSOM, AND DANIEL 
G. MARSHALL 

Mr. Walter. Are you represented by counsel ? 
Mr, Rykoff. Yes, I am. 



COMiVrUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 3999 

Mr. Walter. I think we can expedite matters by letting the record 
show that, in these matters, Mr. Marshall and his associates represent 
these people without going to the trouble of identifying them. 

Mr. Marshall. There is a variance with some witnesses. On this 
particular group that you refer to, that is correct. 

Mr. Rykoff. Mr. Chairman, I would like to indicate, as long, as we 
are on the subject of counsel, that I was sitting in the back row and 
did not hear too clearly, but I thought I heard some reference to an 
attorney other than counsel that I have retained. That particular 
counsel was a high-class counsel or dignified counsel; and, just to keep 
the record clear, I would like to indicate my firm belief that the coun- 
sel which I have are as courageous and fine as any counsel in this 
country, so that there should be no discrimination against them. 

Mr. Walter. There is not going to be any discrimination, and we 
agree with you entirely. Proceed. 

Mr. Tavenner. What is your name ? 

Mr. Rykoff. Richard L. Rykoff. 

Mr. Tavenner. When and where were you born, Mr. Rykoff? 

Mr. Rykoff. I was born in Los Angeles on December 24, 1918. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you now a resident of Los Angeles ? 

Mr. Rykoff. Yes ; I am. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you a member of the legal profession? 

Mr. Rykoff. Yes ; I am. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long have you been engaged in the practice 
of law ? 

Mr. Rykoff. Nearly 6 years. 

Mr. Tavenner. Have you been engaged in the practice of law dur- 
ing that entire period in Los Angeles ? 

Mr. Rykoff. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. What has been your educational training or your 
scholastic training for your profession ? 

Mr. Rykoff. I went through high school and college here in Los 
Angeles, and graduated from law school. 

Mr. Tavenner. What law school ? 

Mr. Rykoff. Harvard. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Rykoff, there has been testimony on the part 
of Mr. David Aaron and other persons of the existence of a Com- 
munist Party cell in Los Angeles consisting solely of members of the 
legal profession. Mr. David Aaron has testified that you were a 
member of that group. Was his testimony in identifying you as a 
member correct or was it false ? 

Mr. Rykoff. Mr. Tavenner, I am going to decline to answer that 
question on several different grounds. In the first place, it is a ques- 
tion the answer to which would admit that this committee has a right 
to inquire into fields of beliefs and associations, and in my opinion 
this is far beyond the scope of this or any other legislative investigat- 
ing committee. 

The second reason is that, as I understand the statute which set up 
this committee, it empowers it only to investigate into the fields of 
associations and ideas and beliefs, and this I believe is beyond the 
constitutional powers of any investigating connnittee. 

My third reason for refusing to testify is that under the fifth 
amendment I am accorded the privilege of refusing to give testimony 
which may be used against me at some future time. 



4000 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

My next reason is that, although the announced purpose of this 
committee is to investigate activities of some gigantic conspiracy, I 
cannot conceive this is the true reason for this, because I believe, if 
this committee really believed that, there would not have been a hiatus 
of some 10 or 11 months between the initial issuing of the subpenas 
and this hearing ; and my subpena bears a date of some time in De- 
cember 1951, and it is now October 1 of 1952. I doubt, therefore, 
that there was any pressing reason for this particular investigation, 
other perhaps than some continuation of this committee's function 
of attempting to intimidate and frighten and continue the hysteria 
which has been created. 

For all of these reasons I am declining to answer that question. 

Mr. Tavenner. You state that you were served with a process in 
December ? 

Mr. Rykoff. I said my siibpena bore the date of December, and I 
was served — I am not sure; it was sometime the following month, 
or maybe February. 

Mr. Tavenner. In fact, you were served on January 11, 1952 ; were 
you not ? 

Mr. Rykoff. If that is what that bears ; I am not sure. 

Mr. Tavenner. You are familiar with the fact — are you not — that 
within a very short period of time after that a trial was begun here 
in Los Angeles of certain people who were charged with Communist 
Party activities ? 

Mr. Rykoff. No ; as I recall, that trial involved an action under 
the Smith Act, which charged them with conspiracy to advocate the 
forceful overthrow of the Government. 

Mr. Tavenner. Would you not have felt that, if this committee 
had conducted the investigation and hearing which it is now conduct- 
ing during the period of that trial, it might have prejudiced some 
of the persons who were involved in that case? 

Mr. Rykoff. In that case ? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Rykoff. Do you have the starting date of that trial, counsel? 

Mr. Tavenner. No. I do not ; not at my fingertips. 

(Representative Morgan M. Moulder entered hearing room.) 

Mr. Rykoff. Counsel, I inquired of my counsel because I did not 
recall just when those dates were, and I am informed that the trial 
probably commenced shortly after the time that I received my sub- 
pena; and it was over, as near as we can recall, sometime in July of 
this year. 

Mr. Tavenner. Wliat time did the trial start; do you recall? 

Mr. Rykoff. The recollection is the latter part of January, or 
sometime around in there. 

Mr. Tavenner. And the subpena for your appearance was for 
February 18? 

Mr. Rykoff. Yes. 

Mr. Ta\t:nner. And you know as a matter of fact that these hear- 
ings have been continued a number of times on account of that trial. 

Mr. Rykoff. I don't know the reason for the continuance. 

Mr. Tavenner. Then let me tell you now that that is a fact. 

Mr. Rykoff. Well, counsel, you see, the fact of having been sub- 
penaed before this body I regard as not only prejudicial to myself in 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 4001 

my practice but also an attack upon my own rights as a citizen, and you 
can hardly get me to agree that the committee has done a good thing 
in continuing it. If the committee felt that it would be prejudicial to 
the trial in some way to have this hearing, they could just as well have 
quashed the subpena and started them up at some future time when 
the trial was over with, and it is none of my business to tell the com- 
mittee how to operate. 

Mr. Tavenner. Well, the continuance of your subpena for all prac- 
tical purposes was the same as quashing it and starting it again. 

Mr. Rykoff. I can't agree with that, counsel. There is a big dif- 
ference between continuing a subpena and quashing a subpena. 

Mr. Tavenner. And reissuing it. 

Mr. Rykoff. A great big difference. 

Mr. Walter. Proceed, Mr. Tavenner. 

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

Mr. Rykoff. I am going to decline to answer that question for the 
same reasons which I had previously given, and I think to the same 
question. 

Mr. Tavenner. No ; that is the first time I have asked you that. 

Mr. Rykoff. I see. Well, in answer to the extended grounds which 
I gave to a very similar question I am 

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

Mr. Rykoff. Counsel, if I haven't made it clear, I will make it clear 
at this point, that I am going to refuse to answer on the grounds which 
I have previously set out at some length, any question which refers to 
my political affiliations, for the reasons which I have set out, so that 
you can expect the same answer no matter how many times it is asked. 

Mr. Tavenner. You specified political affiliations, and I was con- 
fining my question to the Communist Party, which this committee 
has never agreed was a political party, so I want to make certain that 
you understand my question. My question is whether or not you have 
been a member of the Communist Party at any time. 

Mr. Rykoff. I decline to answer that for the same reasons which I 
have set forth at some length. 

Mr. TA^"ENNER. I have no further questions." 

Mr. Walter. Any questions ? 

Is there any reason Avhy the witness should not be discharged ? 

Mr. Ta-v^nner. No, sir. 

]Mr. Walter. The witness is discharged from further attendance. 

Mr. Ta\tenner. I will call Mr. Fred M. Snider. 

Mr. Walter. Mr. Snider, raise your right hand, please. You swear 
the testimony you are about to give this committee will be the truth, 
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? 

Mr. Snider. I do. 

Mr. Walter. Be seated, Mr. Snider. 

TESTIMONY OF PRED M. SNIDER, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 
DANIEL G. MARSHALL, THOMAS G. NEUSOM, AND ROBERT W. 
KENNY 

Mr. Tavennt:r. What is your name, please, sir ? 

Mr. Snider. Fred Michael Snider. 

Mr. Tavenner. You are represented by counsel ? 



4002 coMMtnsriSM in los angeles professional groups 

Mr. Snider. I am. 

Mr. Ta\t:nner. Will counsel identify themselves for the record? 

Mr. Marshall. Daniel G. Marshall, Thomas G. Neusom, and 
Kobert Kenny. 

Mr. Tavenner. When and where were you born ? 

Mr. Snider. Holton, Calif., December 25, 1911. 

INIr. Ta\^nner. Are you now a resident of Los Angeles ? 

Mr. Snider. I am. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long have you lived here ? 

Mr. Snider. Well, currently about 6 or 7 years. 

Mr. Tavenner. You are a member of the legal profession? 

Mr. Snider. I am. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long have you practiced law in this vicinity ? 

Mr. Snider. Six or seven years, since the beginning of 1946, right 
after I got out of the Army. 

Mr. Tav-enner. What has been your scholastic training for the 
practice of your profession ? 

Mr. Snider. Well, after high school I received an A. B. degree 
from the University of Colorado, and then an LL. B. degree from 
the University of California, Boalt Hall. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Snider, a witness by the name of David Aaron 
appeared before this committee and testified that you were known 
to him to be a member of the Communist Party in that you had 
attended certain Communist Party meetings with" him. He 'was tes- 
tifying regarding a cell of the Communist Party, the membership of 
which was kept secret and jvhich consisted solely of members of the 
legal profession. Mr. A. Marburg Yerkes also "appeared before the 
committee and identified you as a member of that same group. Were 
they correct in identifying you as a member of that group? 

Mr. Snider. May I ask, counsel, if I am going to have an oppor- 
tunity to cross-examine these two characters that you have mentioned? 

Mr. Tavenner. No. 

Mr. Snider. I am to understand then that I am to be denied the 
right to cross-examine these persons ? 

Mr. Tavenner. You are being asked a question as to whether or 
not 

Mr. Snider. I merely asked for clarification on your last answer, 
that I will have no right to cross-examine these two people that you 
have mentioned. 

Mr. Tavenner. There is no procedure prescribed for your calling 
Mr. David Aaron before this committee and cross-examining him. 

Mr. Snider. I see. Well, this will influence then the answer that I 
am about to give. 

In the first place, I will state that I am going to decline to answer 
that question, and I would like to state the grounds. 

No. 1, by answering that question one way or another I would by 
inference, perhaps, admit that I knew those two people you men- 
tioned. In so admitting, if that were the case, I feel that any such 
admission would certainly degrade me, and I feel that that is one 
reason why I will not answer that question. 

In the second place, I feel that under the ninth and tenth amend- 
ments of the Constitution of this country, that this committee is un- 
constitutionally and illegally constituted. I feel that the rights that 
this committee is attempting to take upon itself belong to the people 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 4003 

of the United States. I am further going to refuse to answer that 
question because I believe that under Public Law 601 this committee 
is completely without authority to proceed ; 601, as I understand it, is 
concerned with investigation of propaganda. I can see, or I cannot 
see how any committee will have the right to investigate propaganda, 
as I consider propaganda a part of the freedom of speech, and when 
I say freedom of speech, I believe that that has a corollary right of 
freedom of silence. In other words, I feel that every citizen, not 
every citizen, but every person has the right to talk and to keep still 
whenever he pleases. 

I am further refusing to answer that question upon the fifth amend- 
ment of the Constitution, firstly that this is an attempt to make me 
testify against myself, but also under the fifth amendment I believe 
that I am being denied due process of law, and I believe that you and 
the committee are attempting not only to deprive me of clue process 
of law, but I think that you are trying to deprive the whole country 
of due process of law and everybody in it. 

I am further going to refuse to answer on the grounds that I 
believe that this committee is trying to take over the powers of the 
judiciary and not confining itself to the legislative. 

And lastly, I believe that this committee and this hearing is an 
attempt to deprive all persons of the right to counsel ; that by calling 
a number of lawyers you are attempting to intimidate the legal pro- 
fession from representing whoever needs and wants counsel. It is 
not just any counsel, but counsel of their own choosing. That is all. 

Mr. Jackson. Did you experience any difliculty in obtaining counsel 
for this hearing, may I ask? 

Mr. Snider. What was that question ? 

Mr. Jackson. Did you experience any difficulty in obtaining ade- 
quate and able counsel for your appearance before this committee? 

Mr. Snider. I think fortunately that I have very able counsel. 

Mr. Jackson. 'I used the word advisedly. 

Mr. Snider. But I think if this sort of thing keeps up, it will be 
very difficult for people to obtain counsel. 

Mr. Jackson. Would you, for instance, and believe me, I am not 
attempting to probe into your relationships with your clients, but 
would you be influenced against representing an unpopular cause ? 

Mr. Snider. I hope that I will never be. 

Mr. Jackson. I hope so, too. 

Mr. Snider. But I know many lawyers who are. 

Mr. Jackson. I hope you will never be also. 

Mr. Snider. I know many lawyers who are afraid to represent 
people who have unpopular ideas, and I think if you will read the 
article of Justice Douglas, you will find the same circumstances pre- 
vailed which made him write an article in the New York Times to 
that very effect. 

Mr. Walter. The fact that you appear here today with three of 
the best qualified men that it has been my privilege to come in contact 
with in this field certainly refutes your argument, and now you 
said 

Mr. Snider. Why does it refute my argument? 

Mr, Walter. I am not going to enter into a discussion with you. 
You said that you v/ould not answer this question because you didn't 
have tlie right to cross-examine this person whose name has been 



4004 COMMUNISM m LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

mentioned by our counsel. You would want to cross-examine him 
in order to test the validity of what he was testifying to; is that 
not correct? 

Mr. Snider. Are yoit a lawyer? 

Mr. Walter. Yes; I am a lawyer, and not merely a member of 
the bar. I am a lawyer. 

Mr. Snider. What is the usual reason for wanting to cross-examine ? 

Mr. Walter. Then why do you not just attack the truthfulness of 
the testimony these witnesses have given, the testimony adduced at 
another hearing ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Snider. That I think is exactly the advice of this proceeding, 
and that is that you are at some other hearing, you are attacked, and 
the particular person happens to be attacked by certain characters, 
and then 9 or 10 months later you expect me to come in and crawl on 
my knees and say, "Please forgive me" or try to cross-examine people 
that aren't here. 

Mr. Walter. Please forgive you for what? 

Mr, Snider. For having been in the minds of these stool pigeons. 
I don't know how I got in their minds. 

]\Ir. Jackson. Probably because you get into their meetings. That 
is at least the gist of the testimony. 

Mr. Snider. Probably? How do you mean, probably? 

Mr. Jackson. They so testified. 

Mr. Snider. And therefore you are attempting to convict me on 
their testimony, without cross-examination. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you have any knowledge of the existence of a 
Communist Party cell in Los Angeles, the membership of which was 
confined to members of the legal profession ? 

Mr. Snider. The same answer for the same reasons. I would like 
to make it clear that I am using each one of the constitutional grounds 
heretofore raised, and if you would like for me to r6peat them all, I 
would be very glad to. 

Mr. Tavenner. Just let me ask you this. Does that include the 
provision of the fifth amendment wherein it provides that no one can 
be compelled to testify in a matter which might tend to incriminate 
them ? 

Mr. Snider. Apparently you don't recall my testimony, and I will 
be glad to give it over again. 

Mr. Tavenner. I asked you if it included that provision. 

Mr. Snider. I will be very glad to state all of my grounds again. 

Mr. Walter. You are asked just about the one, specifically. 

Mr. Snider. I have relied upon the first amendment, the fifth amend- 
ment 

Mr. Walter. Now, that is all. You have answered it. 

Mr. Snider. I would like to state any grounds, if you don't mind, 
for refusing to answer. Have you any objection to my stating them ? 

Mr. Walter. You have already stated them. 

Mr. Snider. Very well. 

Mr. Walter. Now, Mr. Tavenner, proceed. 

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

Mr. Snider. The same answer and the same reasons. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you a member of the National Lawyers' Guild ? 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 4005 

Mr. Snider. I am, and I am very proud that that bar association 
is the only bar association that I know of that has fought tliis com- 
mittee, and I am proud to be a member of it. 

Mr. Tavennek. AVhen did you become a member of it? 

Mr. Snider. I am not very sure really. I guess it has been 4: or 
5 years. 

ISIr. Tavenner. Was A. Marburg Yerkes a member of the guild 
whi le you were a member ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Snider. I refuse to answer that on the same grounds previously 
stated, and I want to be sure that the grounds are understood also that 
I feel any answer to that question would tend to degrade me. 

Mr. Walter. AVliat constitutional provision are you citing now ? 

Mr. Snider. I am citing the first amendment, the fifth amendment, 
the nintli amendment, and the tenth amendment, besides the other 
grounds which I stated. 

Mr. Walter. Which one of those amendments gives to a citizen the 
privilege of declining to answer a question because the answer to it 
might degrade him? 

Mr. Snider. Did I say it did ? 

Mr. Walter. Well, if you did not, I am very hard of hearing. Go 
ahead, Mr. Tavenner. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you aware of any plan that existed by which 
members of the Communist Party were directed to become members 
of the National Lawyers' Guild in Los Angeles ? 

Mr. Snider. I am not going to answer any question involving the 
Communist Party. I want to make that very clear, and I decline to 
ansAver that particular question on the same grounds previously stated. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were there any members of the National Lawyers' 
Guild who were known to you to be members of the Communist Party i 

Mr. Snider. The same answer, the same reasons. 

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

Mr. Snider. The same answer and the same reasons. 

Mr. Tavenner. I have no further questions. 

Mr. Walter. Are there any questions? If not, the witness is 
discharged from further attendance under the subpena. 

(The witness was excused.) 

Mr. Walter. Mr. Tavenner, call your next witness. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Laurence Sperber. 

Mr. Walter. Will you raise your right hand, please. 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. Sperber. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF LAURENCE R. SPERBER, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS 
COUNSEL, ROBERT W. KENNY, THOMAS G. NEUSOM, DANIEL G. 
MARSHALL, AND LEO BRANTON, Jr. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you ready to proceed, Mr. Sperber? 
Mr. Sperber. I shall be in just a second. 
Mr. Tavenner. Are you ready to proceed, Mr. Sperber ? 
Mr. Walter. Take your time. 



4006 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. Sperber. I had been prepared to testify yesterday morning, and 
I find my notes and material are now not in the same order they were 
yesterday, after sitting here for 2 days. 

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

Mr. Sperber. My name is Laurence Sperber. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you now or have you ever been a member of the 
Communist Party ? 

Mr. Branton. Just a moment. Before you proceed, could we com- 
plete the record. Mr. Sperber, in addition to the other three distin- 
guished counsel who have appeared before, is also represented by 
myself, Leo Branton, Jr. 

Mr. Tavenner. I would like to have all of counsel to be noted in 
the record. Are the others noted in the record ? 

Mr. Branton. The other counsel are Mr. Robert W. Kenny, Thomas 
G. Neusom, and Mr. Daniel G. Marshall. 

Mr. Tavenner. Now will you answer the question, please ? 

Mr. Sperber. May we have the question read ? 

(Question was read by the reporter.) 

Mr. Sperber. Mr. Chairman, I decline to ansAver the pending ques- 
tion as I decline to answer each and every inquiry into my political 
beliefs and associations, whether in the field of Marxism or Leninism. 

Mr. Walter. You have been asked the question and you have de- 
clined to answer, and for what reason, and we do not want a speech. 

Mr. Sperber. Persons identified by this committee and others as 
allegedly subversive, a blanket question as to persons or organiza- 
tions otherwise unidentified. 

Mr. Walter. Now you have answered the question, and we do not 
propose to permit you to make a speech. 

Mr. Sperber. May I set forth my legal grounds ? 

Mr. Walter. Yes, you may set forth your grounds. 

Mr. Sperber. I am merely stating in my introduction and I shall 
follow by stating the legal grounds. 

Mr. Walter. It is your opinion that under the Constitution of the 
United States you are not required to answer that question; is that 
not it? 

Mr. Sperber. I would like to be permitted ' 

Mr. Walter. Is that it or is it not ? 

Mr. Branton. I request you give my client the courtesy of answer- 
ing in his own way, and if you do not want to hear it, at least we 
would like to make it clear for the record. 

Mr. Walter. All right, go ahead. 

Mr. Sperber. And the adoption of the Bill of Rights our fore- 
fathers warned of the dangers of government coercion upon the minds 
and wills of the electorate, and I rely upon the first amendment as the 
first ground of my refusal to answer it, because the first amendment 
was written that all might be free to ]:»articipate in the choice of many 
measures and those selected might never dictate the subsequent selec- 
tion, and allegiance to no ]M)litical creed can be required, nor can 
citizens be comijelled to declare tlieir convictions, no matter how 
sharp their dissents. The ])rotection afforded by the first amendment 
to my mind and in the books is very closely connected to the citizen's 
right of privacy, protected under the fourth and fifth amendments 
upon which I also rely in declining to answer this question for the 
following reason. The history of the privilege against self-incrim- 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 4007 

ination is one of affording protection to political dissenters, and 
its protection must be invoked in defense of those rights and 
freedoms of political thongjit and association protected under the first 
amendment. 

Freedom of mind under the first amendment is given the same se- 
curity as freedom of conscience, and I cite here Thoma.s v. Collins. 
And the constitutional bar to the elimination of tlie dissenters was 
also expressed in the Barnet case, in the opinion of Mr. Justice Jack- 
son, with which this committee seems to have lost its rampart. 

There is a very close alliance in principle which this committee 
constantly seeks to obscure between the three great protective rights 
of the individual, and these protective rights are equal and they are 
all there for the same reason. That is against compulsory self-accu- 
sation and that against unlawful search and seizure, and that against 
unlawful inquisitorial investigation. 

This was emphasized by the Supreme Court of the United States 
in Jones v. Securities and Exchange Co7n77iission (298 U. S. 1) where 
it was said that these abuses were among the intolerable abuses of 
the star chamber in England that brought that institution to its end 
at the hands of Parliament. I see that not all of the lawyers are in- 
terested in the law. 

Mr. Walter. Well, of course we are all very familiar with this, 
and probably knew it before you, somehow or other, were admitted 
to the bar. 

Mr. Sperber. Lest it serve as precedent for future advances in the 
same direction or for wrongful invasions of the others, and Mr. Jus- 
tice Black tells us in liis powerful dissent in Adamson v. California that 
it was popular sentiment that demanded and led to the adoption of 
a constitutional Bill of Rights, and an example of the sort of experi- 
ence which led to this sentiment was the banishment of Miss Ann 
Hutchinson from Massachusetts after her trial in 1627. 

I quote from the language of the opinion. 

Miss Hutchinson was tried, if trial it can be called, for holding unorthodox 
religious views. People with a consuming belief that their religious convictions 
must be forced on others rarely ever believe that the unorthodox have any rights 
which should, or can be, rightfully respected. As a result of her trial and com- 
pelled admissions, 

and that is my emphasis, compelled admissions — 

Miss Hutchinson was found guilty of unorthodoxy, and banished from Massa- 
chusetts. The lamentable experience of Miss Hutchinson and others con- 
tributed to the overwhelming sentiment that demanded adoption of a constitu- 
tional Bill of Rights. The founders of this Government wanted no more such 
so-called trials and punishments as Miss Hutchinson had to undergo. They 
wanted to erect barriers that would bar legislators from passing laws that 
encroached on the domain of belief and that would among other things strip 
courts and all public offices of a power to compel people to testily against them- 
selves. 

And I end the quotation there. 

The very origin of the privilege against self-incrimination is a his- 
tory of a struggle against orthodoxy. It was part of the struggle 
against the star chamber which from' the year 1487 was invested with 
the authority to compel defendants to testify under oath. The maxim 
that no one is bound to accuse himself, "Accuseare nemo se debet, nisi 
coram Deo," which is the source of the privilege, was used at the close 

95008— 52— pt. 3 8 



4008 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

of the sixteenth century, in the fight against the court of liigh 
clergymen 

Mr. Tavenner. Pardon me a moment. Are you reading a prepared 
statement ? 

Mr. Sperber. I am reading from notes. 

refused either to take the oath or to answer under it — 

These are my notes as an attorney, and I always appeared in court 
with notes. 

To refuse either to take the oath or answer under it was taken to 
have confessed the offense charged. It was nonconforming clergy- 
men who enlisted the support of the famous maxim I have just quoted, 
and after the conviction of Sir John Lilburne, in the case before the 
star chamber known to lawyers as one of the greatest cases of defense 
against self-accusation, and which I advise everyone to read. 

In fact, 3 years later, the House of Commons voted to sentence il- 
legally, and the privilege against self-incrimination became estab- 
lished as a matter of law. The privilege developed in English law for 
the very purpose of protecting political and religious nonconformers 
against charges of heresy and unorthodoxy. 

So, too, in this country it was precisely the current type of hysteria 
against unorthodoxy that the various provisions of the Bill of Rights 
were intended to prevent. 

Now, it is true that the claim of privilege has many times been in- 
voked to assure fair trial to persons accused of common-law crimes. 
It is also true that persons who raise the claim before this committee 
feared that answers they may give may subject them to prosecution. 
But the very prosecution with which they are threatened is part of the 
current drive against political unorthodoxy, and part of the attempt 
to suppress those who speak for peace. 

The basic problems of freedom of speech and association, and politi- 
cal thought, which are all involved, make essential the broad appli- 
cation of the privilege for the very historic reasons set forth in Justice 
Black's dissenting opinion in the Adams case. 

The American tradition of the protection of unorthodox views from 
those in power high lights the interconnection between all of the 
provisions of the Bill of Rights, especially that between the first, 
fourth, and the fifth amendments, upon which my refusal to answer 
this and similar questions rests. 

Mr. Walter. Any further questions ? 

Mr. Tavenner. I have no further questions. 

Mr. Walter. Any further questions ? 

The witness is excused. 

(The witness was excused.) 

Mr. Walter. Who is your next witness ? 

Mr. Tavenner. Mrs. Rose Rosenberg. 

Mr. Walter. Mrs. Rosenberg, will you raise your right hand, please. 
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? 

Mrs. Rosenberg. I do. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 4009 

TESTIMONY OF ROSE S. ROSENBERG, ACCOMPANIED BY HER 
COUNSEL, THOMAS G. NEUSOM, WILLIAM B. MURRISH, DANIEL 
G. MARSHALL, AND ROBERT W. KENNY 

Mr, Tavenner. What is your name, please ? 

Mrs. Rosenberg. I would like to designate counsel who represents 
me. 

Mr. Tavenner. I will give you that opportunity in just a moment. 

JMrs. Rosenberg. What is your question ? 

Mr. Tavenner. What is your name, please? 

Mrs. Rosenber'g. Rose S. Rosenberg. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you represented by counsel ? 

Mrs. Rosenberg. I am proud to say I am represented by very able 
counsel. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will counsel please identify themselves for the 
record ? 

Mr. Marshall. Thomas G. Neusora, William B. Murrish, Daniel 
G. Marshall and Robert Kenny. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mrs. Rosenberg, are you a member of the legal 
profession of Los Angeles ? 

Mrs. Rosenberg. I am proud to be a member of a profession which 
has been in the forefront of the struggle for civil rights. 

Mr. Ta\t5nner. Are 3'ou a member of the Communist Party? 

Mrs. Rosenberg. I would like to answer that question in this way: 
I don't think that you are at all interested in the Communist Party. 
I agree with what was said, and I quote 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you answer the question ? 

Mrs. Rosenberg. I will answer it, and I will answer it in my way. 

Mr. Walter. Are you a member of the Communist Party ? 

Mrs. Rosenberg. I don't even concede your right to ask the question, 
and I will certainly not relinquish my right to answer the question 
in my way. I ask leave to answer the question in my way. 

Mr. Walter. Now, you have been asked a very simple question. 

Mrs. Rosenberg. That question is not simple. That is the question 
that you ask in order to frighten people, and ,you think if you throw 
that word around that people would genuflect before you and hide. 
There are some, unfortunately, it has had that effect. I am not 
frightened. 

Mr. Walter. Will you answer the question ? 

Mrs. Rosenberg. I will answer it, and I am answering it, and, I 
want to tell you that you are not after Communists at all. You are 
after conformity. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you answer the question ? 

Mrs. Rosenberg. You want everyone to think as you will so that 
you can lead them. 

Mr. Walter. Now, I direct the witness to answer the question. 
Mr. Tavenner has asked you whether or not you are a member of the 
•Communist Party, and are you or are you not ? 



4010 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mrs. Rosenberg. I would decline to answer that question and I 
would decline to do so on the following grounds: In the first place,, 
I agree with Bernard DeVoto, who says it is not anyone's damn 
business what I think, with whom I associate, and with whom I havo 
cocktails. I concur in that view. 

Mr. Walter. Any other questions ? 

Mrs. Rosenberg. I have not finished, and I wish to state all of the 
grounds. I think that that very question makes an inroad on my 
right to think, and not only on my right to think and to speak but 
on the rights of others to tliink and speak, because as Walter Lipp- 
mann said, it is necessary to have an opposition, and he calls it an 
indispensable opposition. That is what he says. 

Mr. Tavenner. Does he call the Communist Party an indispensable 
opposition ? 

Mrs. Rosenberg. I think for what he says, you may gather anycon- 
clusion that you like, and I want to read it, what he has had to say. 

Mr. Jackson. Is this a portion of the constitutional grounds upon 
which you are refusing to answer the question ? 

Mrs. Rosenberg. It is indeed. It is the first amendment, and I am 
pleading the first amendment in two fashions. One is my right and 
the right of everyone to speak and my right and the right of every- 
one else here, and we take, says Walter Lippmann, "a naively self- 
righteous view when we argue as if the right of our opponents to speak 
were something we protect because we are magnanimous, noble and 
unselfish." The compelling reason why, he says, and I agree, if lib- 
erty of opinion did not exist, we shoulct have to invent it, and it must 
be restored wherever it is suppressed, as here, and it is that we must 
hear what the opposition has to say because freedom of discussion im- 
proves our opinions. So the liberties of other men are our own vital 
necessity. There is a point where the freedom of others is no longer 
a question of their right but of our need, and this is the creative prin- 
ciple, the creative principle of freedom of speech, not that it is a sys- 
tem of tolerating error, but it is a system for finding the truth, and I 
think that this democracy is an experiment in truth, and so you must 
have the opinion of all. There must be this interchange and inter- 
action of opinion before the truth can emerge. Otherwise, you have 
deadly conformity, so that men go around with eyes shut, with ears 
shut, with lips silenced, and what is that ? That means yielding to 
this committee and its kind. 

The determination of our destiny, the destiny of the people, I will 
not be part of that, and I will not relinquish my rights. I stand on 
that ground. 

Mr. Jackson. Allow me to say that your freedom to speak has 
certainly not been limited today by this committee. 

Mrs. Rosenberg. I have been twice interrupted. I have had to 
struggle for it. 

Mr. Jackson. If it goes on at this great length, you will be prob- 
ably thrice interrupted. 

Mrs. Rosenberg. Are you stating I cannot state the grounds? 

Mr. Jackson, I am stating that you certainly should be able to 
phrase your reasons in something less than this. 

Mrs. Rosenberg. Don't tell me how to answer. I don't even like- 
your questions, and I certainly would not adopt your answers, and. 
these answers will be mine. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 4011 

Mr. Jackson. I might say that I do not like your statements any 
better than you like my questions. That is the freedom to disagree of 
which you speak. 

Mrs. KosENBERG. Remember that and see that you execute it 
throughout, and not just here where we struggle for it. 

The second ground for my refusal to answer that question is be- 
■cause I believe despite the pious declarations of some members of this 
•committee, and of counsel, it is an invasion in the area of the lawyer- 
>client relationship. 

(Representative Morgan M. Moulder returned to hearing room.) 

Mrs. Rosenberg. I will tell you why this is so. Of course, I think 
no one should be subjected to the coercion of this committee, and I 
think it is particularly vicious when lawyers are, when lawyers are 
attacked, it is an attack on the ])eople, because it is in the tradition of 
this country that law3^ers have been the spokesmen of the people, and 
us Justice Douglas said, they are to be more than just an echo of 
peoples' views. They are to be in the advance guard, and when you 
strike at the advance guard, particularly the dissident, and the non- 
conformist advance guard, you strike at the right of the people to 
speak out, for if you subpena me, let us not be naive, those w^ho look 
to lawyers will be silenced, and that is precisely your point. It does 
not matter whether I or my brave colleagues here are not silenced, 
the people unfortunately too frequently are intimiated by the sub- 
pena and the blacklist. 

I say it is naive to think that my clients will not be affected by my 
subpena. 

Mr. Walter. Have you ever appeared on behalf of anybody sub- 
penaed before this committee ? 

Mrs. Rosenberg. I have not, but I would like to finish my rationale 
of my approach on why I think that lawyers particularly should not 
be summoned. 

Mr. Walter. It seems strange to me that those lawyers who are 
advancing this argument have never been retained as far as I am 
concerned in matters of this sort. 

Mrs. Rosenberg. You must take my point, if you will allow me to 
finish. It is not alone representation here that controls. It is rep- 
resentation everywhere where counsel is needed, whether in the courts 
or in administrative bodies. How can a client feel secure in going to 
an attorney who has been subpenaed. Doesn't he feel that somehow 
his confidential conununications may be encroached upon? It doesn't 
even matter whether you will or not, although if I have merited it, 
I have no doubt you would. I am now speaking of the client's views, 
when his attorney is summoned. He may well feel that the con- 
fidential relationship even if only to the extent of naming him will 
be an encroachment and an invasion of that relationship. 

Mr. Walter. Do you not think the easy way to eliminate that pos- 
sibility would be to frankly and openly and honestly answer these 
questions ? 

Mrs. Rosenberg. I am going to answer these questions frankly and 
openly. 

Mr. Walter. You have just declined to answer. 

Mrs. Rosenberg. As I understand it — — 

Mr. Walter. You declined to answer the question. 

Mrs. Rosenberg. I will say something to you. 



4012 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. Walter. But you just declined to answer the question. 

Mrs. Rosenberg. There will come a time in this country when there 
is no climate of fear and coercion and hysteria, and people will of their 
own free will declare with pride and with honor as the Puritans said 
they would be glad to declare their faith, but not under compulsion, 
and not because there will be a subpena over my head or a blacklist, 
and not if the result will be loyalty oaths. This is precisely what hap- 
pened in civilizations — since you asked the question, the Puritans 
were proud of their faith, and the Jews were proud, too, and yet when 
they were faced with Tory men and with Hitler, what would you have 
expected, sir, that they should rise up and say they are Jews if that 
cost of that would be their head. Today the cost of declaring one's 
faith which I say you have no right to ask me about is a blacklist and 
a subpena and a loyalty oath and book burnings. This has been the 
result of the force and violence of this committee. 

Mr. Walter. Where have any books been burned ? 

Mrs. Rosenberg. Let me give you a precise illustration, and I will 
come back to my 

Mr. Walter. I will withdraw the question, please. I do not want 
any answer. 

Mrs. Rosenberg. In Oklahoma books were burned, and do you know 
what the American Library Association said? 

Mr. Jackson. Is this in answer to the question asked by counsel? 
If there were not so many witches who left their brooms and tall hats 
around, we would not have so much work to do. 

Mrs. Rosenberg. If you did not interrupt me, I would give my an- 
swer, and so if you will be kind enough to sit back there, I will give 
you my answer. 

Mr. Jackson. I wish you would get on to giving the answer, if you 
please, Mrs. Rosenberg. 

Mrs. Rosenberg. My name is Mrs. Rosenberg, and I am the mother 
of four children. 

Mr. Jackson. I congratulate you. Will you please answer the 
question that has been directed to you by counsel ? 

Mrs. Rosenberg. Then you should cease interrupting. There have 
been book burnings. 

Mr. Walter. I did not ask you about that. 

Mrs. Rosenberg. You did. 

Mr. Walter. I withdrew my question very quickly. 

Mrs. Rosenberg. Counsel, am I to understand all questions except 
the question by counsel are withdrawn ? 

Mr. Walter. That is right. 

Mr. Marshall. You may proceed to answer. 

Mr. Tavenner. I will be glad to withdraw my question. 

Mr. Walter. If there are no further questions, the witness is 
excused. 

(The witness was excused.) 

Mr, Walter. Who is your next witness, Mr. Tavenner? 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Jack Tenner. 

Mr. Walter. Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole 
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? 

Mr. Tenner. I do. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 4013 

TESTIMONY OF JACK TENNER, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 
ROBERT W. KENNY, THOMAS G. NEUSOM, DANIEL G. MARSHALL, 
AND LEO BRANTON, JR. 

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

Mr. Tenner. My name is Jack Tenner ; and I would like the record 
to show that I am appearing with all of the attorneys who have here- 
tofore appeared and are to be represented at the hearing stand by 
Mr. Branton and Mr. Marshall. 

Mr. Tavenner. When and where were you born, Mr. Tenner? 

Mr. Tenner. If you will excuse the expression of the "circum- 
stances under which I had no control," I was born in Kiev, in Russia, 

Mr. Tavenner. How long have you been in this country ? 

Mr. Tenner. I came to this country at the approximate age, I was 
told, of 1, a month or so either way. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you receive your naturalization through 
derivative citizenship ? 

Mr. Tenner. That is correct. 

Mr. Tavenner. Where do you now live ? 

JNIr. Tenner, In Los Angeles. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long have you lived in Los Angeles? 

Mr. Tenner. For approximately 6 years. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you a member of the legal profession ? 

Mr. Tenner. I am that. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long have you practiced your profession in 
Los Angeles ? 

Mr. Tenner. I have practiced in Los Angeles for approximately 
4 years. Prior to that I was admitted to the State bar in Illinois, 
but I did not have a chance to practice there, having entered the 
service upon the conclusion of my law school. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long were you in the service ? 

Mr. Tenner. Approximately 4 years. By the way, may I ask if a 
file of mine was turned in to tliis committee ? It seems to be misplaced. 

Mr. Tam^.nner. A file of yours ? 

Mr. Tenner. A file of mine. It is a manila folder. 

Mr. Tavenner. None of us know anything about it. 

Mr. Tenner. I thought perhaps it had been left here during the 
noon recess, but that is perfectly all right. I thought it was possibly 
where I had been sitting. 

Mr. Tavenner. You might ask the guards. They may know 
something about it. 

Mr. Tenner. If they find it later, it won't do me any good. 

Mr. Tavenner. If you would like to inquire now, it is perfectl}^ 
permissible. Certainiy there is no purpose on our part to deprive 
you of anything that you need. 

Mr. Tenner. I don't want to create a big issue about the file. I had 
a feeling you were going into my service record, and there were some 
battle citations which I had. 

Mr. Tavenner. I want to give you the opportunity of telling us 
what they are, and that is the reason I asked you the question as to 
how long you had been in the service. 



4014 coMivruNisM in los angeles professional groups 

Mr. Tenner. Well, I would rather that the documents spoke for 
themselves. 

Mr. Tavenner. That isn't necessary. We certainly will take your 
word for that. 

Mr. Tenner. Well, I feel this : Having listened to this committee 
constantly ask members of this and other professions whether or not 
we would be willing to fight in a war, I am somewhat at a loss to under- 
stand why we are never asked, "What will you do for peace?" Be- 
cause when one is asked, "Will you defend your country," there is 
obviously the implication of a suspicion that one would not. And 
consequently, I felt that this committee, by subpenaing me, was put- 
ting into issue my devotion to this country and to its principles, and 
therefore I felt that I would tell you at the outset that if I was pre- 
pared to die for this country, if necessary, and its democratic heritage, 
I will not surrender it to you for what you call $64. 

Mr. Tavenner. I have given you the opportunity to tell us what 
your war record has been, and I am sure that you are proud of it. 

Mr. Tenner. And now you are supposed to ask me : In case of a war 
with Russia, will I fight? And do you want me to answer that? 

Mr. Tavenner. I have never asked you. 

Mr. Tenner. Will you gentlemen want to ask me that? 

Mr. Walter. Just answer the question. 

Mr. Tenner. Is there a question pending? 

Mr. Tavenner. My question was: What were the battle citations 
that you received ? 

Mr. Tenner. There were eight battle stars, including a personal 
citation from the Admiral of the Navy for saving a ship that struck 
an enemy mine. 

Mr. Tavenner. I want to congratulate you. 

Mr. Tenner. Is there anything else you want to say ? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes. 

Mr. Tenner. Are we through, or what ? 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you or are you a member of the National 
Lawyers' Guild? 

Mr. Tenner. I most assuredly am. 

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

Mr. Tenner. I think since just subsequent to my being admitted 
to the bar. However, if you are really interested in membership in 
the National Lawyers' Guild, let there be no secret about it, gentle- 
men of the connnittee. This is no slip that has uncovered my mem- 
bership. Membership in the State bar, and membership in the Na- 
tional Lawyers' Guild, is a matter of public record with the State 
bar of California, and my membership is therein noted, as is every 
other member of the National Lawyers' Guild, of every bar associa- 
tion of the State of California ; and, yes, I am a member. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you have any knowledge of a plan on the part 
of the Communist Party to have its members who are members of the 
legal profession, become members of the National Lawyers' Guild? 

Mr. Tenner. Are you through with your question ? 

Mr. Tavenner. That is my question. 

Mr. Tenner. Let me state this, with regard to that question, Mr. 
Tavenner: That the question with regard to the Communist Party, 
in one form or another, is literally the battlefield where the battle of 
civil liberties is being fought in America; and whether or not it is 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 4015 

"Are you now or have you ever been a Socialist," or "Are you now or 
have you even been a member of Eugene Debs' party," or "a Christian," 
or "Have 3^ou been or are you now anything," your question seems to 
imply a kind of a knowledge about the Communist Party; because 
you have built up in this country, this committee, some kind of a hor- 
rendous plot, and then you say to me, "Answer the question." And 
then when I will refuse to answer, as refuse I will, you have your 
chairman and members of the committee say this — and this is im- 
portant, because it is a part of the American heritage that I would 
die for — you say one of two things is true. When I claim the fifth 
amendment, you know what you say. You say, when I claim the 
fifth amendment, '-'You are either lying because you have no privilege 
or you are guilty of a crime." And, now, when you say this 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you answer the question ? 

Mr. Tenner. Just a moment. I am answering you — — • 

Mr. Tavenner. No ; you are not. 

Mr. Tenner. Because I am giving you the reasons. 

Mr. Tavenner. You answer it, and then give the reasons. 

Mr. Tenner. I decline to answer that question, and now I will give 
you the reasons. 

First, I want to state to you, Mr. Tavenner, and to the members of 
this committee, that I have not knowingly and to my knowledge vio- 
lated a single law on the city, the State, the county, or the national 
level ; and if, indeed, you have such evidence, I woulcl suggest that you 
present it to any appropriate body. But in refusing to answer this 
question, I tell you this — and do you want a picture of me shaking 
my finger, or what ? 

Just a second. Every time I go like this [indicating] , he gets the 
camera. And then when I put it down — I want to oblige him, and I 
will give you the picture. 

Mr. Walter. Just a moment. 

Mr. Tenner. I was refusing to answer that question, and I will 
tell you why. 

I refuse to answer that question because of many things, and there 
is a lot of implications in that question, and it is not a yes-or-no an- 
swer. The answer to this question is in every so-called loyalty oath,, 
and it is in every dismissal of a doctor from a hospital staff, and it is 
in every firing of a professor, and it is in every discharge of a news- 
paperman, and it is in all of the hysteria and the madness in this, 
our beloved America, and it is not an easy question. And then you 
have the gall — yes, and I use my words advisedly, to say "gall" — when 
one person claims the fifth amendment, you say, "Now, look here, 
Mr. Witness," — and I heard this yesterday, and all of you are lawyers 
and you know better — you say, "When you claim the fifth amendment,. 
Mr. Witness, you are either lying because you have no privilege, or 
you are guilty of a crime." And this is false. There is no such de- 
cision by any court in this country. 

On January 10 of this year, the Circuit Court of Appeals in the 
Ninth Circuit took this argument exactly in your language, where a 
judge of this district said, when a witness refused to answer the ques- 
tion, "You are either lying because you haven't any privilege, or 
indeed you are guilty of a crime," and the chief judge of this ninth 
circuit court said the fifth amendment was for the innocent more than 
for the guilty. And for this committee to constantly say, as Mr. 



4016 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Tavenner did all day yesterday after lie heard reason after reason, 
"But you did claim the fifth amendment, didn't you?" — as though 
there was something horendous about it 

I refuse to answer for that reason, based on the fifth amendment; 
and I refuse to answer based on the first amendment, because it is an 
inquiry into my freedom, and into my associations, and into my speech, 
and into my right of religion, because this committee lives by the 
informer, and it is iniquitous to the Jewish religion, and it is called 
the Momzer ; and it is iniquitous to the Christian religion because you 
have your Judas Iscariot. The world abhors the informer ; and you 
live by it, and it is your bread and your butter, and without it you 
"would be out of existence. And I will not cooperate with you. 

I further refuse to answer your inquiry because it violates my 
rights as a citizen under the ninth and tentli amendments, and I will 
answer every one of your inquiries with these refusals, because you 
are not going to buy me with 30 pieces of silver, or to protect the repu- 
tation from this committee. 

Mr. Tavenner. Have you anything further to say ? 

Mr. Tenner. I have given you my answers. 

Mr. Jackson. I should like to have the record show at this time 
that every witness who has been called before the committee np to 
this point has been identified at one time as a member of the Com- 
munist Party by one or more witnesses. And it is not a question of 
the fifth amendment. That is not why they are here. They are here 
because they have been identified by former membere of the Com- 
munist Party, and have not afRrmed or denied those identifications. 

Mr. Tenner. Gentlemen of the press, I just want to answer this 
comment, and let me comment on this. He says I have been identi- 
fied 

Mr. Walter. You are a witness for the purpose of answering ques- 
tions. 

Mr. Tenner. Let me comment on what his question was. 

Mr. Walter. Mr. Tavenner, ask the next question, 

Mr. Tenner. There was a statement that I don't intend to let go, 
that I have been identified. And let the record show that this kind 
of identification was without cross-examination ; and bring them up 
here in front of these people. They are honest newspapermen, and 
bring your informers up and let us cross-examine them, and don't 
have somebody in Washington 10 months ago call me a name and 
then come out here to me 10 months later and say, "Prove yourself 
innocent." 

I will prove myself innocent of nothing, because I am guilty of 
nothing. 

Mr. Tavenner. Let me ask you now, Are you a member of the Com- 
munist Party? 

Mr, Tenner. You will get the same answer you got before, and 
you knew it before you 

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

Mr. Tenner, The same answer, because it is more important. 
Bring your stable out here and let us question them. Give my coun- 
sel the right to cross-examine them. You say you have got testimony, 
and after you smear my name across the newspapers of this commu- 
nity, I haven't violated any laws, and now you come out here and say 



COjNIIMUNISM in LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 4017 

joii will investigate me. You don't have any testimony, and you have 
frightened animals who will do what you say, so you allow them to 
practice, and that is what you have. You are a lawyer, and why don't 
you allow cross-examination? 

Mr. Doyle. Mr. Tenner, may I just make this remark to you, in a 
very cordial vein, and without finding fault with you ? Will }' ou hear 
me just a moment, and I am not asking you a question ? 

I am very proud to hear you say that you have eight citations. I 
think that you, as a younger member of the bar, younger than I am — 
I hope you will come to the point in your experience where you will 
realize that some of us are in Congress because we are fighting for 
peace, you see. 

Mr. Tenner. I think you are, Mr. Doyle, but I heard this Congress- 
man say to a witness yesterday, "Are you for peace, and do you think 
Kussia and America can live together?" 

Mr. Doyle. May I take another 30 seconds, please? 

There are many men in Congress who are fighting for peace. And 
some of us wear a gold star because our boys weren't lucky like you 
were. 

Now, may I say to you that when you appraise this committee, as 
Members of Congress, as running a stable, I just hope tliat you will 
live to come to the point where you recognize that the United States 
Congress is a group of devoted, patriotic American citizens that are 
proud of your achievements on behalf of the security of our Nation. 
I hope you come to that point. I see you are not at that point now, 
and I am not criticizing you. I am just saying to j'^ou that when you 
^do, it will make a difference in your attitude toward your Nation. 

Mr. Tenner. May I make a comment ? 

Mr. Doyle. I am not criticizing you, you understand. 

IMr. Tenner. INIay I comment for 30 seconds ? 

I know of the losses your family has sustained. Congressman, and 
I hope you believe me when I say that I, as a veteran, deeply appre- 
ciate that. But when you say you are fighting for peace, Congress-" 
man, I hope and I pray God that we will have this peace. But yet, 
Congressman — just listen to me for just a moment — what other con- 
clusion can I come to, and what is available to what little logic I have, 
when I see this Congressman Jackson say to a woman on the stand 
yesterday, "Do you really think Russia and America can live to- 
gether?" Good God, is there an alternative? This man is not for 
peace, and maybe you are. 

Mr. Jackson. That is an unmitigated lie. 

Mr. Tenner. You said it yesterday. 

Mr. Jackson. Ninety percent of the soap-box Communists were 
making speeches for the Daily Record, and I spent 4 years in the 
Pacific. Let us have it clear. 

Mr. Tenner. Did you say it ? 

Mr. Jackson. I quoted Stalin, the Grand Poobah of the Communist 
Party, who said it. 

Mr. Tenner. Didn't you say it? 

Mr. Jackson. I did not. Mr. Stalin said this country cannot 
coexist in the same world with the Soviet Union. 

Mr. Walter. Let us have some order. 

Mr. Jackson. If Mr. Stalin said it, I would never say it. 

Mr. Walter. Do you have any more questions ? 



4018 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. Tavenner. I have no more questions. 

Mr. Walter. The witness is excused. from further attendance. 

(The witness was excused.) 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. William M. Samuels. 

Mr. Walter. The committee will stand in recess for 10 minutes. 

(Whereupon, after a brief recess, the hearing reconvened with the 
following members present : Congressmen Francis E. Walter, Morgan 
M. Moulder, Clyde Doyle, James B. Frazier, and Donald L. Jackson.) 

Mr. Walter. The committee will please be in order. 

Will you raise your right hand, please? 

Mr. Samuels. Might I put my brief case on the table, please? 

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

Mr. Samuels. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM M. SAMUELS, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS 
COUNSEL, EOBEET W. KENNY, THOMAS G. NEUSOM, AND DANIEL 
G. MARSHALL 

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

Mr. Samuels. May I have a moment to straighten out my notes? 

Mr. Tavenner. In the meantime, will you tell us who you are? 

Mr. Samuels. My name is William M. Samuels. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you represented by counsel ? 

Mr. Samuels. Before continuing your interrogation, may I 
straighten out my file ? 

Mr, Tavenner. I thought it would save a little time if counsel could 
identify themselves while you are doing that. 

Mr. Kenny. Kobert Kenny, and I am accompanied by Thomas Neu- 
som and Daniel Marshall. 

Mr. Tavenner. When and where were you born, Mr. Samuels? 

Mr. Samuels. If it has any pertinency to the inquiry before us, and 
I fail to see that it has, would you explain what pertinency where I 
was born has to do with this inquiry ? 

Mr. Tavenner, No, sir ; that is so obvious that I don't think that I 
should be called upon to explain. 

Mr. Samuels. It is not obvious to me. 

Mr. Walter. Will you answer the question? It is a very simple 
question. 

Mr. Samuels. Well, questions are simple or not simple, according 
to the person who has to answer them, Mr. Chairman, and I have asked 
for the pertinency of the pending question, and I feel that I have 
a right. 

Mr. Walter. You have no such rights. The committee counsel has 
asked you a very simple question, and will you answer it, please? 

Mr. Samuels. I fail 

Mr, Jackson, I ask that the witness be directed to answer it. 

Mr. Walter. I direct you to answer the question. 

Mr. Samuels. I was born in St. Louis, Mo., in the year 1910, May 5. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long have you lived in Los Angeles, or do you 
live in Los Angeles ? 

Mr. Samuels. May I inquire what other matters concerning my 
personal life you intend to pry into, Mr. Tavenner? 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 4019 

Mr. Tavenner. I will come to them one at a time, whatever they are. 

Mr. Samuels. Do you intend to pry into my personal life? 

Mr. Tavenner. No; I am asking for certain factual information 
which the committee is entitled to. 

Do you reside in Los Angeles ? 

Mr. Samuels. Over the objection that I have heretofore stated, I 
will answer the question "Yes." 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you now or have you ever been a member of the 
Communist Party? 

Mr. Samuels. In answer to that question, I want to first observe, 
Mr. Tavenner and members of this commmittee, that, if there was ever 
any doubt in my mind and in the minds of the American people con- 
cerning the purpose of this committee, that doubt has been completely 
dispelled by the remarks by Mr. Jackson when the prior witness was 
being examined. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you answer my question? 

Mr. Samuels. "As long as there are witches, this committee will 
continue to function." That dispels any doubt in my .mind, and 
should dispel in the minds of the American people, that this com- 
mittee is engaged in a witch hunt. 

Mr. Tavenner. Now, will you answer the question ? 

Mr. Samuels. I charge this committee with doing it, and the proof 
of it has been stated by Mr. Jackson. 

Mr. Jackson. Let me set the record straight. I said : "As long as 
witches insist on letting their tall hats and their brooms lay around 
where constitutions fall over them, the committee will have a job to 
do." 

Mr. Samuels. By that, you mean it is obvious there are witches 
and that you are engaged in hunting witches, Mr. Jackson ? 

Mr. Jackson. We have had the Communist facsimile of witches in 
the witness chair over a long period of time. 

Mr. Samuels. I agree with that. We have had to a certain extent. 
We have had witches before, and you are trying to resurrect the myth 
that witches exist. 

Mr. Jackson. It takes no resurrection. 

Mr. Walter. Will you answer the question, please? It is a very 
plain question. 

Mr. Samuels. I am attempting to answer it, Mr. Wood, and I was 
interrupted. I am sorry, you are Mr. Walter, and I was interrupted 
by a committee member. I shall continue to answer it if I will be 
given an opportunity to do so. 

Mr. Jackson. Make the record show that the committee member 
was interrupted by the witness. 

Mr. Samuels. May tlie record show that my answer was further 
interrupted by the remarks by the committee member. 

Mr. Walter. We have a number of witnesses that we want to ac- 
commodate, and will you answer the question ? 

Mr. Samuels. I don't feel that you are accommodating any wit- 
nesses, and vou are not accommodating me. You made me wait some 
9 or 10 months before I could make my testimony here, and you at- 
tempted to make me wait further. 

Mr. Walter. You came in with a petition to be permitted to testify, 
and that is what we are doing. 



4020 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. Samuels. I have my rights as an attorney at law, and you are- 
not accommodating me and I don't expect you to accommodate me. 

Mr. Walter. Would you rather step down and testify next week'^ 

Mr. Samuels. I am attempting to answer the pending question. 

Mr. Doyle. Go ahead and answer it. Don't quibble. Go ahead, 
please. 

Mr. Samuels. I am not quibbling, and I object to your characteriza- 
tion of my remarks as quibbling. 

Mr. Walter. Oh, answer the question ; will you ? 

Mr, Tavenner. Read the question. 

Mr. Samuels. I had begun to answer the question that you have 
propounded. 

Mr, Tavenner. Please proceed. 

Mr. Sa]\[uels, I decline to answer the question that you have pro- 
pounded for exactly the same reasons that you have heretofore been 
given to you by the witness this afternoon in declining to answer the 
same question, and I repeat that I decline to answer that question, 
first of all^ because, as I have stated, this connnittee is engaged in a 
witch hunt. You have no right to ask me that question nor any other 
question, Mr. Tavenner and members of this committee. 

I agree Avith a Justice of the United States Supreme Court who 
stated in Kflborne v. Thompson that this committee does not have 
the right nor the power to inquire into the private affairs of the citizen. 

As a lawyer — and I began my practice in this city in 1040 — I believe 
it is my duty to defend the rights of citizens against all attempts to 
abridge them; and as a citizen, I feel that I have the right to defend 
my rights against the attempt made by this connnittee or any other 
committee or person to deprive them of such rights. 

The law, in my opinion and in the opinion of other counsel and 
in the opinion of justices of the Federal courts under which this com- 
mittee seeks to function, is in violation of the constitutional rights^ 
of the citizens, and it constitutes an abridgement of the first amend- 
ment; it is an attempt to deprive citizens of the right of free speech 
in violation of the first amendment; of the right to freely express 
their opinions, to believe what they will, to think as they please, and 
Avithout any right on the part of anyone in this country to tell them 
Avhat they shall think or how they shall think. 

In addition to the first amendment of the United States Consti- 
tution, which the committee is seeking here to violate and does violate,, 
I decline to answer tlie question that you have propounded on the 
ground that the fifth amendment of the United States Ccmstitution 
permits me to stand on my constitutional rights and to decline to give 
information which might be used against me in a criminal prosecution. 
That right under the fifth amendment, as has been stated by justices 
of the Federal courts in this land, is a right which is necessary and 
which it is the duty of citizens to invoke in order to prevent and to 
safeguard the rights given to citizens under the fifth amendment. 

I have heard this committee state to witnesses that have appeared 
before this body in the last 2 days some insinuations to the effect that 
they are hiding behind the fifth amendment. There has been an 
implication voiced by this committee that in claiming the privilege 
under the fifth amendment a person is doing something wrong. L 
desire to state that I agree with the justices of the Federal courts in 
this land who have stated that it is the duty of a person to claim the 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 4021 

privilege in order to prevent exactly what this committee is attempting 
to do: That is, to pry into the thoughts and the beliefs of private 
citizens. 

This committee has as its purpose nothing whatever but to pry into 
the opinions and beliefs of persons. Any legislation that might result 
from the activities of tliis committee would only and necessarily be 
unconstitutional. 

For that reason and for all of the other reasons that have been previ- 
ously stated, and which I incorporate by reference, I decline to 
answer your question, Mr. Tavenner, and any similar question and any 
further questions that may be directed to me along the same line. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee what knowledge you 
have of the existence of a Communist Party cell in Los Angeles the 
membership of which is confined to members of the legal profession ? 

Mr. Samuels. That question, Mr. Tavenner, as you must very well 
know, is a similar question, and it is exactly the same question in a 
different form, and it is designed to elicit exactly the same information ; 
and I therefore decline to answer on all of the grounds that I have 
previously stated, and I feel that you have committed an improper act 
in attempting to elicit information from me, as a witness before this 
committee, A\'Tiich I have declined to answer under the fifth amendment. 

The courts of this land have re])eatedly stated that tactics such as 
you are using are in violation of the rights of the citizens of the 
United States. 

Mr. Tavennek. Of course, it is not the same question, because I have 
asked you what knowledge you have of the existence and not what 
part you may have played in it. 

Mr. Samuels. I did not say it was the same question, to put you 
straight on it. I said it was a similar question put in a different form, 
and it is designed to elicit exactly the same information which you 
do not have any right to elicit from me, and which I am not going to 
give you for all of the reasons that I have statetl. 

Mr. Tavenner. I understand. 

Have you ever been a member of the Communist Party ? 

(Further remarks made by the witness were ordered stricken from 
the record.) 

Mr. Samuels. You have been asked if you are hard of hearing, Mr. 
Tavenner. I don't know. I can't make it any more clear to you 
than the witnesses have attempted to make that I am not going to 
answer any question that may involve my jDolitical beliefs, my associa- 
tions, or that are designed to elicit the same information that you 
have been attempting to elicit in your two previous questions. 

I refuse to answer that question, Mr. Tavenner, on all of the grounds 
that I have previously stated, 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you a member of the National Lawyers' Guild ? 

Mr. Samuels. Mr. Tavenner, the National Lawyers' Guild is a bar 
association duly accredited by the State of California, and its mem- 
bership list is filed with the secretary of state of California, in accord- 
ance with law, and my name appears thereon, and you can get that 
information anytime you want it. You did not have to come out 
here from Washington to elicit that information. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you familiar, if you are a member of that or- 
ganization, as I understand you are, from your statement 

Mr. Samuels. I am a member, and I am proud to be a member. 



4022 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know of any plan by which members of the 
Communist Party who are lawyers are required to seek to become 
members of that organization; that is, the National Lawyers' Guild? 

Mr. Samuels. Mr. Tavenner, you make it quite difficult for me. I 
thought that I had made it clear to you that I will not answer any 
questions designed to elicit information concerning my political be- 
liefs or associations; for all of the reasons that I have stated before. 
Do I have to repeat that each and every time ? 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you so decline ? 

Mr. Samuels. And I so decline. 

(Further remarks made by the witness were ordered stricken from 
the record. ) 

Mr. Tavenner. I have no further questions. 

Mr. Walter. Are there any questions ? 

Mr. Jackson. How many identifications as a onetime member of the 
■Communist Party do we have on the present witness? 

Mr. Tavenner. Two. 

Mr. Jackson. By whom ? 

Mr. Beale. Mr. Aaron and Mr. Yerkes. 

Mr. Moulder. I wanted to ask the witness, if you had any knowl- 
edge of Communist subversive activities which you thought con- 
stituted a menace to the security of our country, would you give such 
information or answer questions concerning it ? 

Mr. Samuels. Mr. Congressman, I have told you how I feel about 
this committee, and what the purpose of this committee is ; and, in view 
of the statement that I have made, I think it is rather silly of you 
to ask me such a question. 

Mr. Moulder. You mean to say it would be silly to ask you a ques- 
tion would you be willing to reveal information, if you had personal 
knowledge of such information, of communistic subversive activities 
which would constitute a danger or a menace to our national security? 

Mr. Samuels. Did you hear what I have directed to counsel of this 
committee, Mr. Congressman ? 

Mr. Walter. The witness is excused from further attendance. 

Who is your next witness, Mr. Tavenner? 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Leon Turret. 

Mr. Neusom. I think the record should be clear on that, Mr. Con- 
gressman. If the question is withdrawn, then there is no necessity. 

Mr. Walter. All right ; the question is withdrawn. 

Mr. Moulder. I cannot withdraw the question. 

Mr. Neusom. I believe the witness should be able to state. 

Mr. Samuels. For all of the reasons that I have given, I decline to 
answer Mr. Tavenner's questions, which were directed along the same 
line, and which were an attempt to elicit informfttion which this com- 
mittee does not have any right to seek, and specifically on all of the 
constitutional grounds that I have previously mentioned, including 
the first amendment and the fifth amendment, I will decline to answer 
your question. 

(Whereupon the witness was excused.) 
' Mr. Walter. The next witness. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Leon Turret. 

Mr. Kenny. Mr. Tavenner, the motion for Mr. Turret was made 
inadvertently. He had gone or returned to his office upon the instruc- 
tion of the chairman, and he is willing to waive his right to appearance 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 4023 

now and will appear at sucli other time as the committee directs, either 
Monday as suggested, or any way he acted upon that, and the motion 
in his behalf was made inadvertently. 

Mr. Walter. Let the record show that with that explanation, the 
witness is excused from attendance today, but he is required to be here 
on Monday at 10 o'clock. 

(Witness was temporarily excused.) 

INIr. Tavenxer. Mr. Finn. 

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. Finn. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF AUBREY FINN, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 
ROBERT W. KENNY, THOMAS G. NEUSOM, AND DANIEL G. 
MARSHALL 

Mr. Tavenner. You. are Mr. Aubrey Finn ? 

Mr. Finn. I am, 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you represented by counsel ? 

Mr. Finn. I am. 

Mr. Ta\'enner. Will counsel please identify themselves for the 
record ? 

Mr. Kenny. Robert Kenny, and Thomas Neusom, and Daniel Mar- 
shall. 

Mr. Tavenner. When and where were you born, Mr. Finn? 

Mr. Finn. In 1914, in Massachusetts. 

]\Ir. Ta\t.nner. Do you now reside in Los Angeles? 

Mr. Finn. I do. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long have you lived here ? 

Mr. Finn. Since about 1932. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you a member of the legal profession? 

]\Ir. Finn. I am a member of the State bar of California. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you practice law in Los Angeles? 

Mr. Finn. I do. 

Mr. Tavenner. How lonfx have you practiced law in Los Angeles ? 

Mr. Finn. Snice about 19:37. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Finn, a witness by the name of David Aaron 
and another witness by the name of A. Marburg Yerkes identified you 
as a member of a Communist Party cell in Los Angeles, the member- 
£.hip of which was confined solely to members of the legal profession. 
Will you please tell the committee whether or not those witnesses were 
correct in their identification of you and what knowledge you have of 
the purposes of that organization in so forming a cell of the Com- 
munist Party within the legal profession? 

Mr. Finn. That is a question? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Finn. Previous witnesses at this hearing have given this com- 
mittee and its counsel at lot to digest. I would not care to burden it 
further, and I will make my answer quite short. I do not believe that 
this committee has a right to inquire into my associations or beliefs, 
and I refiLse to answer on the ground of the first amendment and the 
lights guaranteed to me under the first amendment. I also refuse 

95008— 52— pt. 3 9 



4024 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

to answer on the grounds that my answer might tend to incriminate 
me and degrade me. 

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

Mr. Finn. I give the same answer for the same reasons. 

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

Mr. Finn. The same answer for the same reasons. 

Mr. Tavenxek. Tliank you very much for your courteous response. 

Mr. Walter. Are there any questions ? 

(No response.) 

Mr. Walter. The witness is excused. 

(The witness was excu.sed.) 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Jack FrankeL 

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. Fraxkel. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF J. ALLAN FRANKEL, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS 
COUNSEL, KOBERT W. KENNY, THOMAS G. NEUSOM, AND DANIEL 
G. MARSHALL 

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

Mr. Fran^kel. J. Allan Frankel. 

Mr. Ta\'enxer. Are you rejiresented by counsel ? 

Mr. Frankel. Yes, I have three lawyers with me here, and I 
have 

Mr. Neusom. Thomas G. XeusouL 

Mr. Kexx^y. Robert Kenny. 

Mr. Marshall. Daniel Marshall. 

Mr. Tavenxer. When and where were you born, Mr. Frankel ? 

Mr. Fraxkel. St. Louis, 1889. 

Mr. Tavexner. Do you now reside in Los Angeles? 

Mr. Frankel. The past 47 years. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you ]^ractice law in Los Angeles? 

Mr. Frankel. Since 1011. 

Mr. Tavexxer. Mr. Frankel, there has been testimony before the 
conunittee by Mr. David Aaron, Mr. A. Marburg Yerkes, and Mr. 
William G. Israel, that they were members of the Communist Party 
cell located in Los Angeles which was made up exclusively of the 
legal profession, and that you were a member of it. 

Mr. Fraxkel. Of course, I am going to refuse to answer. 

Mr. Tavexner. Will you please advise the committee whether those 
witnesses were correct in their identification of you as a member of 
the organization, and if they were, will you tell the committee how 
the group was organized, if you know, and the purposes of it? 

Mr. Frankel. Of course I am going to refuse to answer that ques- 
tion, standing on the first amendment, on the ground that this com- 
mittee has no right to inquire into my associations, my organizations, 
my right of assembly or religion or anything about my personal life. 
I object on the further ground and I refuse to answer that this com- 
mittee has no right to inquire into my private life, standing on the 
first amendment and also standing on the law under which this com- 
mittee was organized. It was organized for the purpose of investi- 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS "4025 

(ratino- un-American, subversive propacjanda, and I have been sitting 
here the past '2 days and I have not lieard anything about that except 
an attack upon one certain ])olitical party. 

Mr. Walter. You would have heard much about it if some of the 
witnesses had cooperated, because that is what we are trying to get 
up to, you see. 

Mr. Frankel. I would like to answer that. 

Mr. Walter. Because of the lack of cooperation we were unable 
to ascertain Avhether or not the lawyers in this community, or some 
of them, were being used as propaganda agents for the Soviet Union. 
That is what we want to know. 

Mr. Frankel. Every lawyer whom I have heard the past 2 days 
is too decent to cooperate with this committee, because this committee 
has no right to break down the Constitution of the United States, 
and I tliink that this committee has done a very good job in that 
direction. I want to show you what has happened. Since I was a 
child, when this is the land of the free and the home of the brave, 
or M'hatever it was, there is such an atmosphere created in this city 
by this committee that there are people in the motion-picture industry 
Avho are afraid to open their mouths. There hasn't been a decent 
motion picture made since this committee started functioning 5 or 6 
years ago, and this committee has forced the motion-picture industry 
to tell that motion pictures are better than ever when everybody 
knows that motion-picture industry has gone onto the rocks because 
they don't dare express a decent idea, and they don't express any idea. 

There has only been one decent picture that I can recall made in 
the United States since this committee has been functioning, and 
that is called Born Yesterday, and that was a comedy. And I read 
just a week ago that the star of that picture, called before a similar 
committee, had to crawl on her belly, on her stomach, to prevent a 
body of ofiicers of this Government to deprive her of her right of 
livelihood. 

There isn't a school teacher in the country, as a result of this com- 
mittee, that dares express a liberal idea. You know what happened 
in the University of California as a result of the loyalty oath which 
sprung not from this connnittee, I will admit, but indirectly from this 
committee and also from our Presideut's loyalty oath. 

There isn't a city, county, State, or Federal employee in the whole 
United States who dares open his mouth in this land of the free and 
the home of the brave, because of this committee, because you are 
creating an atmosphere of orthodoxy. 

Let me tell you one other thing. I know lawyers in this town and 
I have been practicing here for 47 years, and I know a lot of lawyers. 
I have been discussing this matter of this committee with hundreds 
of lawyers. More than half of them agree with what I am saying to 
you, but they don't dare ex]:)ress it in any way. 

Mr. Walter. You think this committee was unconstitutionally 
constituted? 

Mr. Fraxkel. I am not a constitutional lawyer, Mr. Walter, all I 
say is that the manner in which this connnittee comports itself has 
changed the political complexion in this State, and in this country, 
so that it is bad, almost as bad as it was in the country where my 
father came from. 



4026 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. Walter. You mean by that that we have lessened the interest in 
Communist activities. If we have, I tliink our work has been crowned 
with success. 

(The witness conferred wnth his counsel.) 

Mr. Frankel. You know, the word "Communist" is a hate word 
that has been created by people like this committee, and I am not going 
to discuss it, I still have my rights under the Bill of Rights in this 
country, and that was put into the Constitution before the States, the 
13 States would adopt this Constitution, for my protection and for the 
protection of the public, against inquisitorial bodies like this. 

Mr. Jackson. Has any inquisitorial body like this questioned your 
right to use the provisions of the Constitution? 

]Mr. Frankel. Well, you know, that is a very cute question, Mr. 
Jackson. 

Mr. Jackson. Has anyone deprived you of your freedom of speech 
today before this committee of the Congress of the United States ? 

Mr. Frankel. Yes, by the questions asked by your chairman today, 
the implications that I am a Communist and therefore I am one of the 
hateful citizens of this country, and I resent it, and I think it is one 
of the hate words that was used by Hitler, and I want to tell you 
another thing, that Hitler tried the same thing that this committee 
did, and when Hitler failed to do it he burned the Reichstag, he, 
through Herman Goering, burnt the Reichstag in order to blame the 
Communists for it, and I think that that is one of the steps that may be 
taken in this country at the rate you fellows are going. 

Mr. Jackson. There has been no limitation on freedom of speech, 
and if there has been anything there has been an adequate expression 
before this committee and I have never heard such conversation in such 
a short time. 

Mr. Frankel. Every bit of it is legal. 

Mr. Jackson. That is quite right ; no one has questioned the legality 
of it, and there is no question as to your legal I'ight to take whatever 
provision of the Constitution you want, and nor has any member of 
this committee questioned any witness' right to take the provisions 
of the Constitution in his own defense, not once has it been questioned. 

Mr. Frankel. I liave heard a number of the members of this com- 
mittee not oidy at these hearings but some of the hearings I have read 
about before, infer that anybody who used the fifth amendment was 
guilty, and he was standing behind a constitutional provision put in 
the Constitution for liis protection. That is why I used the word when 
I started, that I am standing on the Constitution. 

Mr. Jackson. You are standing on it, I will go along with you to that 
extent. 

Mr. Walter. Proceed. 

Mr. Tavenner. I think that I should remind you, Mr. Frankel, that 
possibly you have not completed the reasons for your refusal to 
answer. 

Mr. Frankel. That is correct. All of tlie reasons that I mentioned 
before, including particularly the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Tavenner. You had not mentioned the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Frankel. Thank you very much. In the course of time I prob- 
ably would have gotten to it, that is to counsel or my own memory. 
Tliank you very much, sir. I think that is a courtesy which I 
appreciate. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 4027 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you rely on the fifth amendment? 

Mr. Frankel. I do ; I stand on the fifth amendment. 

INIr. Walter. He said he stands on the Constitution, that means the 
Avhole body of the Constitution and its amendments. It is not neces- 
sary to specify which one. 

Mr. Tavenner. Now, I want to call your attention, Mr. Frankel, to 
the testimony of Dr. Louise Light Silver, who appeared as a witness 
before this committee on January 21, 1952. I asked her the question 
after she had testified that she herself had been a member of the Com- 
munist Party at one time : 

Were any directions given by the Comnuinist Party as to the preference in em- 
ployment of nurses or employees, office employees? 
Dr. Light. Yes. 

First, I shoukl ask you the question, are you acquainted with Dr. 
Light '^ 

Mr. Frankel. In view of the fact I understand Dr. Light testified 
before this committee, I am going to stand on my constitutional rights 
and decline to answer the same. 

Mr. Tavenner. I omitted another question : Are you now a member 
of the Comnmnist Party ? 

Mr. Frankel. For all of the reasons afore-mentioned, I decline to 
answer, and there are a number of reasons that come to mind but I 
suppose there is no use of prolonging this discussion. 

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

Mr. Frankel. The same answer on the same grounds. 

Mr. Jackson. How many witnesses under oath have identified Mr. 
Frankel as a member of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. TA^TiiNNER. There are three that I mentioned : Mr. David Aaron, 
Mr. A. Marburg Yerkes, and Mr. William G. Israel. And a fourth 
one. Dr. Louise Light Silver. 

Mr. Frankel. I tlimk I should have observed this point, that Con- 
gressman Jackson here has aroused considerable antagonism by his 
snide methods. He is trying to convince the public and this committee, 
because three stool pigeons used my name without my being present, 
without any opportunity for cross-examination, without my knowing 
what tlieir motivations were. 

Mr. Tavenner. Regardless of their motivations, were they correct 
or were they wrong? 

Mr. Frankel. Well, that would really be a silly answer to give. 
The answer is as before, I stand on the Constitution, and I am cer- 
tainly not going to dignify those people by answering their statements 
or misstatements and I want the committee to know that the fact that 
I refuse to answer these questions ;\nd stand on my constitutional 
rights doesn't mean any guilt on my part. 

Mr. Walter. Why don't you conti'adictthem, why don't you just 
in a word say they didn't tell the truth and it would be a simple way 
to dispose of the whole thing. 

Mr. Frankel. You know, when we had witch hunts in this country 
and I think it was referred to by a number of witnesses, back in 1619, 
men and women in this country were hanged for answering or not 
answering questions, and in the ecclesiastical courts in Spain, in Eng- 
land and in Spain in 1492, no matter what you answered you were 
found to be guilty and I am not going to cooperate with this commit- 



4028 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

tee in tearino; down the Constitution of the United States, and I think 
that this committee is a menace to the democratic institutions of the 
TJnited States of America, and that yon are heading us in the direc- 
tion of fascism as rapidly as you can and I have already cited and I 
want the record to know that the people in these United States and 
the people everywhere are in such a state of fear and terror that this 
is no longer a land of the free. I used to be proud of the institutions 
of this country, generally speaking I am proud of most of them, but 
I think at every age in this country there have been periods of hysteria 
when things occurred just as what are occurring today. I lived 
through the First World War, and I am sure you did, too, Mr. Chair- 
man, and immediately 

Mr. Walter. I fought in it, and I went to France with the first 
100,000 Americans. 

Mr. Frankel. Well, that is quite all right. In the name of the 
citizens of the United States, I thank you. 

Mr. Walter. Did you? 

Mr. Frankel. I did not. 

Mr. Walter. Well, maybe we have a different feeling toward this 
Republic of ours. 

Mr. Frankel. I am interested in the social welfare of the people of 
the United States and I was goins: to call your attention to the fact 
that immediately after the First World War we had a period of hys- 
teria just exactly like that and we had an Attorney General named 
Paul Meer, and the Paul Meer raids brought a blot on the history of 
the United States. We shipped a boatload of aliens to Russia, on the 
ground they were Bolsheviks. The Attorney General raided 6,000 
people in the dead of night. People who were completely innocent of 
of any crime, and there were five men elected legally in the New York 
Assembly on a socialistic ticket and they were refused office. Why? 
Because they were living in an inquisitorial period just like this, 
witch-hunting country just like this. 

Victor Berger, one of the old Conorressmen of the United States, 
was lawfully elected after the First World War, and the House of 
Representatives to which you gentlemen belong, refused to seat him. 
Why was it? On the same type of lie that this committee is battling 
on, the lie that certain organizations are trying to overthrow this 
Government bv force and violence. 

Mr. Doyle. Mr. Frankel, I w^on't ask you a question, but for your 
information, may I say this to you, that I have just returned from the 
Far East, including Korea and Japan, and Okinawa and so forth, 
and every American authority and every international authority with 
whom I spoke, and I spoke with plenty of them, all say frankly that 
there is no question in their judgment but that the Commimist Party 
proo-ram in the United States emanates from the Soviet Union. 

Now, I am not going to ask you whether or not you believe that, but 
I am just telling you for your information, because you are an Amer- 
ican citizen, and dozens of American citizens on whom you and I rely 
in the Far East told me that. 

Now, I give you that for what it is worth. 

Mr. Frankel. Thank you very much, Mr. Doyle. All I want to 
add is that according to the latest polls, 83 percent of the population 
of the United States are opposed to the war in Korea, or the police 
action. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 4029 

Mr. DdYLE. We should move out of there and let the Commies take 
it, should we? 

Mr. Frankel. We could do what 83 percent of the people of this 
country want. 

Mr. ,Iac'kson. Mr. Chairman, the word "stool pigeon" has been 
tossed around here pretty freely during the last couple of days of the 
hearings. 

Mr. Neusom. Is this Avitness going to be excused ? 

Mr. Tavenner. He is excused. 

(The witness was excused.) 

Mr. Jackson. I should like to insert in the record from the docu- 
ment, the Connnunist Party Manual on Organization by J. Peters, 
pages 119, 1'2'2, subhead, "How shall we safeguard the party organiza- 
tion against stool pigeons and spies?", second subhead, "How shall 
we expose the stool pigeons?" if I may have permission to make that 
insertion. 

Mr. Walter. At this point in the record it is ordered. 

(The quotation referred to follows:) 

How Shall We Safeguard the Party Organization Against Stool Pigeons 

and Spies? 

The working class is constantly at war with its enemy, the capitalist class. 
In this war (class struggle), as in any other war, the capitalist class has one 
main objective — to defeat its enemy, the working class. In order to achieve this 
aim. the capitalists use all possible methods to disorganize, demoralize, and 
divide the ranks of the proletariat. One of the most effective weapons in the 
hands of the enemy is the agent provocateur, the stool pigeon, the spy in the 
ranks of the working class, and especially in the ranks of the vanguard of the 
proletariat — the Communist Party. 

The activities of these human rats can l>e listed as follows : 

1. Agents provocateurs are planted in the party either by the police depart- 
ment. Department of Justice, "patriotic" organizations, or counter i-evolutionary 
Trotskyites, with the aim of disrupting the work of the party organizations. 
The methods they use are : 

(fl) Creating sentiment against the leadership of the party ; 

( h ) Systematic destructive criticism against the line of the party ; 

(c) Provocative proposals for certain actions, which, if adopted, would lessen 
the confidence of the masses in the ability of the Communist Party to lead them, 
because of the unnecessarj- sacrifice as a result of such provocative action ; 

(d) The spreading of rumors about individual leaders of the party, concern- 
ing their political integrity or personal life ; 

(e) Creating an atmosphere of spy mania in the party organization by skill- 
fully spreading rumors about certain individuals being spies ; 

(/) Accepting important assignments at strategic points and certain activity 
and then sabotaging the carrying out of the assignment, in this way disrupting 
the action of the party organization. 

The most effective weapon in the hands of the Communist Party against these 
agents provocateurs is the carrying out of the general line of the party, the un- 
compromising fight against any one who attempts to deviate from this line, 
Bolshevik self-criticism and correction of mistakes and shortcomings in the 
work of the party organization or individuals in the process of applying or 
carrying out the general line of the party. In a party organization where these 
principles are strictly adhered to, agents provocateurs will be exposed very 
quickly. 

2. The second type of class enemy in the ranks of the party and in other 
workers' organizations is the stool pigeon. They have the task of gathering 
information about the party and the individual members. They work dili- 
gently, attend every meeting, and take responsible assignments in the organiza- 
tion. They strive to be promoted to higher positions in order to get more 
important information to the police department, or to their bosses. They are 
very inquisitive about individuals, their names and addresses ; they always like to 
get some inside "dope" from and about higher committees. They are present 



4030 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

in every possible place they can get into. They try to get hold of documents 
and keep them for a day or so. They try to find ways and means of getting to 
other party organizations and fractions than their own. 

Against both types of rats, the best safeguard is the proper selection of new 
members. While we do not create difficulties for workers to join the Commu- 
nist Party, we have to be careful in accepting new members, especially those 
who have had no previous connections with any workers' organization or 
with individual members of the party, or whose previous record is hard to ol)tain. 
In order to counteract the activities of the stool pigeon, we have to keep before 
our eyes, always, the following general rules : 

1. Do nor reli any member anything about party members which does not 
concern that member. 

2. Do not discuss any party question outside of the meeting of the party or- 
ganization (unit, membership, unit bureau, section committee, fraction). Stop 
discussing inner party questions on the street corners or cafeterias, where anyone 
can listen in. Do not broadcast inner party decisions to loiig-eared stool pigeons 
who are waiting for the information. 

3. Avoid, as much as possible, keeping membership lists with names and ad- 
dresses, and if you have such lists, do not keep them in your home, or in the 
headquarters of the party unit or section, o-r in your pocket. 

4. Documents which are not for publication should lie read only by those 
party members to whom they are addressed, and should be destroyed" imme- 
diately after reading. Documents which need study must be carefully safe- 
guarded. Every member who has such a document must return it after reading 
it to the party committee, which destroys it immediately. 

HOW SHALL WE EXPOSE THE STOOL PIGEON? 

There is a tendency among some comrades to hide from the masses the fact 
that a stool pigeon has been discovered in the organization. In certain places, 
the comrades develop the theory that if we expose the stool pigeons the workers 
will be afraid to join the party — because there are spies in the organization. 
This conception is entirely incorrect. The mass exposure of a stool pigeon will 
greatly increase the confidence of the masses in the party, since it proves the 
party is able to tind out who the class enemies are in its ranks. 

There is only one proper method of exposing the stool pigeons — and that is 
mass exposure, creating an organizing mass hatred against these rats. Ex- 
perience of the Communist Parties prove that such mass exposures not only do 
not scare away workers, but have resulted in hundreds of new recruits to the 
party. 

The following methods have been used vei-y effectively in many places and 
can serve as a model for exposing spies : 

1. Photograph the spy, and print his picture in the Daily Worker and in 
leaflets and stickers. Spread this material in the place where the spy was 
operating. 

2. Organize systematic agitation among the workers where the sijy was dis- 
covered. 

3. Mobilize the children and women in the block in the part of town where 
the stool pigeon lives to make his life miserable ; let them picket the store 
where his wife purchases groceries and other necessities ; let the children in 
the street shout after him or after any member of his family that they are 
spies, rats, stool pigeons. 

4. Chalk his home with the slogan : "So-and-so who lives here is a spy." 
Let the children boycott his children or child ; organize the children not to 
talk to his children, etc. 

Such forms of agitation will gather around the issue hundreds of workers 
who were outside of the influence of the party before, and who will now come 
with us on some action. At the same time, we will expose and get rid of the 
spy, not through Individual action, but throiurh real mass mobilization. 

Mr. Walter. Who is the next witness ? 

Mr. Tavennek. Victor E. Kaplan. 

Mr. Walter. Will 3'ou solemnlj^ swear the testimony yon shall give 
this committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but 
the truth, so help you God? 

Mr. Kaplan. I do. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 4031 

TESTIMONY OF VICTOR E. KAPLAN, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 
ROBERT W. KENNY, DANIEL G. MARSHALL, AND THOMAS G. 
NEUSOM 

Mr. TA^^NNER. Are you represented by counsel ? 

Mr. Kaplan, Yes; I am. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will counsel please identify themselves? 

Mr. Marshall. Robert W. Kenny, Daniel G. Marshall, and 
Tliomas G. Neusom. 

Mr. Tavenner. When and where were you born, Mr. Kaplan? 

Mr. Kaplan. I was born in Washiufjton, D. C., in July of 1914. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you reside in Los Angeles? 

Mr. Kaplan. I do. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long have you lived here ? 

Mr. Kaplan. Since 192'2. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you a member of the legal profession ? 

Mr. Kaplan. I am. 

Mr. Tavenner. What has been your training for the practice of 
law? That is, your scholastic training. 

Mr. Kaplan. I went to UCLA and UCLA Law School. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long have you practiced in Los Angeles? 

Mr. Kaplan. Since 1938, w^ith the exception of the time that I 
w\as in the Army. 

Mr. Tavenner. How- long did you serve in the Army ? 

Mr. Kaplan. Three years. 

Mr. Tavenner. I want to give you an opportunity to make any 
statement 3'ou desire about your Army service. 

Mr. Kaplan. I haven't any statement to make with regard to that. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Kaplan, Dr. Louise Light Silver testified before 
this committee in Washington on January 21, 1952, and I want to 
read you a part of her testimony as the basis for asking you a ques- 
tion [reading] : 

Mr. Tavenner. Were any directions given by the Communist Party 

Mr. Kaplan. I have read the testimony, and I am familiar with it. 
Mr. Tavenner. But, as a basis for my question, I think it is 
necessary that I repeat it. [Continues reading:] 

AVere any directions given by the Comminiist Party as to the preference in 
employment of nurses or office employees of the doctors? 

Dr. Light. Yes. I had an experience myself where I had employed a girl, 
and she had been in my office for perhaps a week and a half or so, who was a 
previous party member, who had dropped out of the party because of lack of 
interest. They came into me and told me that, and they didn't ask me; they 
told me I would 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. 

Questioner. Who was the person employed by you? 

Dr. Light. The name was Emily Gordon. 

Questioner. 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. 

Questioner. Dr. Max Schoen? 

Dr. Light. That is right ; Schoen. I think he spells his name Schoen. 

Qxji<:STioNER. 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. 



4032 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Questioner. And refused to testify resrarding alleged Communist Party 
membership? 

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

Qttestioner. 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 a 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 movement and would be willing to work with the 
Communist movement. 

Questioner. 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. 

Questioner. Victor Kaplan? 

Dr. Light. That is right. 

Questioner. Will you spell Kaplan? 

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

Questioner. He accompanied Dr. Schoen? 

Dr. Light. That is right. 

They were apparently a committee of two sent by the professional section. 
Tliat 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. 

Did you liave the experience described by Dr. Light in that 
testimony? 

Mr. Kaplan. Well, Mr, Tavenner, I am going to refuse to answer 
that question for the following reasons: In the first place, I rely upon 
the first amendment, in that that question again is an invasion of my 
right of association, my political thinking; and I am not going to 
testify with respect to any person who has testified before this com- 
mittee — I have not been given the right of cross-examination with re- 
gard to these people who have named me — and I further refuse to 
answer on the grounds of the fifth amendment. Since the history of 
that amendment has been so well stated by Mr. Sperber, although it 
could stand repeating, I will not repeat it at this time. I do rely upon 
the fifth amendment, in that I will refuse to bear witness against 
myself. 

Mr. Ta^t.nner. Will you tell the committee what knowledge you 
have regarding the existence of a Conununist Party cell in Los Angeles 
confined to members of the legal i)rofession ? 

Mr. Kaplan. Mr. Tavenner, I know the answer has been said to 
you many times before, but I will refuse to answer questions of this 
kind and of a similar character for the reasons previously stated. 

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

Mr. Kaplan. The same answer and the same reasons. 

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

Mr. Kaplan. The same answer and the same reasons. 

Mr. Tavenner. I have no further questions. 

Mr. Walter. Are there any questions? 

The witness is excused from further attendance. 

(The witness was excused.) 

Mr. Walter. Who is your next witness ? 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 4033 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr, Seymour Mandel. 

Mr. Walter. Will you rciise your riolit hand. You do solemnly 
swear that the testimony you shall ^ive this committee shall be the 
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? 

Mr. Mandel. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF SEYMOUR MANDEL, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS 
COUNSEL, ROBEET W. KENNY, DANIEL G. MARSHALL, AND 
THOMAS G. NEUSOM 

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

Mr. Maxdel. Seymour Mandel. 

Mr. Tavexxer. Are you represented by counsel ? 

Mr. Maxdel. S-e-y-m-o-u-r ]\I-a-n-d-e-l. I am represented bj 
counsel. 

Mr. Tavexxfjr. Will counsel please identify themselves for the 
record ? 

Mr. Kexxy. Kobert Kenny, Daniel Marshall, and Thomas Neusom. 

Mr. Tavexxer. When and where were you born, Mr. Mandel ? 

Mr. Maxdel. I was born in 1912 in Brooklyn, which isin the city 
of New York, for your information. 

Mr. Tavexxer. Now are you a resident of Los Angeles? 

Mr. Maxdel. Th:it is correct. 

Mr. Tavexx^er. How long have you lived in Los Angeles? 

Mr. Maxdel. I believe I came here in 1936. 

Mr. Tavexx^er. Have you lived here since that time continuously? 

Mr. Maxdel. No; I was employed by the United States Army for 
a ]:)eriod of time. 

Mr. Tavex^x^er. How long a period ? 

Mr. Maxdel. For about 3 years. 

Mr. Tavex^x^er. If you desire to make any statement with regard 
to your military record, I would be very glad for you to do so. 

Mr. Maxdel. Well, usually veterans like to discuss military affairs 
and their battle stars with their friends, but I do not feel that this 
committee is such a group. However, I would like to say this : that 
-I was a member of the Amphibious Engineers in the Pacific, and we 
were engaged in many beachhead landings, and before each landing 
no one asked me my political belief, my religious belief, or anything 
about my friends, and I never dreamed then that there would come a 
time, when I came home after fighting against fascism in the Pacific, 
that a so-called committee of Congress would impose or would dare 
to ask me questions such as you have asked other witnesses. I thought 
then tliat if we defeated fascism over there the Fascist would be 
defeated all over, but I hope I am not wrong. I see it again rearing 
its head right here. 

Mr. Tavexxer. Will you take the same attitude against commu- 
nism that you have just taken against fascism? 

(Toe witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Ml. Max'del. I am not going to be enticed into a debate with you 
under these conditions on the subject of communism. I decline to 
ans^^tr that on the following grounds: First, I wish to incorporate 
all oi the grounds that were so ably propounded by the prior wit- 
nesses before this committee. In particular, I would like to say 
this : That the first amendment protects a person against an invasion 



4034 coM]\/ruNisM in los angeles professional groups 

int(; his mind and into his social concepts, and liis beliefs generally. I 
also wish to decline on the basis of the fifth amendment, which gives 
me the right to refrain from testifying against myself, and also the 
ninth and tenth amendments, and also I wonld like to say that the 
•committee is tending to try to intimidate the bar by having hearings 
such as this. I said "the fifth amendment," and I think all of the other 
Witnesses said "the fifth amendment." 

}dr. Tavenner. Yes. 

Mr. Mandel. And that is in the United States Constitution. 

Mr. Tavenner. That is right, and that is a legitimate ground for 
refusal. 

Mr. Mandel. I didn't hear that. 

Mr. Tavenner. I said the fifth amendment which you claimed is a 
legitimate ground for refusal. 

Mr. Mandel, there has been testimony before this committee by Mr. 
David Aaron, Mr. A. Marburg Yerkes, and Mr. William G. Israel that 
you were a member of the Communist Party here in Los Angeles with 
them, which was limited in membership to members of the legal 
profession. Will you state whether or not they were correct in identi- 
fying you as a member of that group; and, if so, will you tell the 
committee what you know of the organization of that group and its 
purposes ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Mandel. Would you mind reading that testimony ? I couldn't 
clearly understand your question. Would you read the testimony? 

Mr. Tavenner. You mean read the question? Is that what you 
mean ? 

Mr. Mandel. Will the reporter read tlie question. 

(The question was read by the reporter.) 

Mr. Tavenner. I will break that question down if you would like 
me to. It is actually two questions. 

Mr. Mandel. I think it is three questions, but I wish you would 
break it down. 

Mr. Tavenner. Very well. If you will first answer whether or not 
those witnesses were correct in identifying you as a member of such a 
group of tlie Conmiunist Party. 

Mr. Mandel. Well, I will decline to answer that question on the 
grounds that I previously stated: my political beliefs are my own 
and my associations are my own, and this committee has no right 
to ask me anything about that, and I also repeat for the record the 
fifth amendment, which gives me the right to refuse to testify against 
myself. 

Mr, Ta\^nner. Are you now 

Mr. Mandel. The ninth and tenth, also. 

Mr. Tavenner. x\re you now a member of the Communist Party? 

Mr. Mandel. Just a moment. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Mandel. The same answer. 

Mr. Tavenner. What reasons? 

Mr. Mandel. I wish I had some additional reasons, but I think 
all of the additional reasons were very well put by the prior hier- 
archic witnesses before this inquisitorial body. 

Mr. Tavenner. But what are your reasons? I don't mean 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 4035 

Mr. Mandel. The first amendment guarantees citizens the right of 
free speech. 

Mr. Tavenner. Just so we know, may I interrupt. I am not ask- 
ing you to go into great detail, but I must be certain as to what 
amendments and what position you are taking in refusing to answer, 
and you can do that without a long explanation in view of the fact 
you have already answered somewhat in detail to other questions. 

Mr. Mandel. Well, I base my declination on the same grounds 
previously stated. 

Mr. Tavenner. Very good ; that is all. 

Mr. Mandel. The same amendments and the same Constitution. 

Mr. Tavenner. Have you ever been a member of the Com- 
munist Party? 

Mr. Mandel. Just a moment. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Mandel. After consulting with my counsel, I will decline 
to answer that question on the same grounds, the first amendment, 
the fifth amendment, the ninth amendment, and the tenth amendment 
of the United States Constitution. 

Mr. Tavenner. I have no further questions. 

Mr. Walter. Any further questions ? If not, the witness is excused. 

(The witness was excused.) 

Mr. Tavenner. I will call Mr. Frank Pestana. 

Is there any possibility of getting your [addressing Kobert W. 
Kenny] client here now, to follow this witness ? 

Mr. Kenny. I don't tliink so. He would have to buck the 5 o'clock 
rush, and it would be impossible to get him. 

Mr. Walter. You do solemnly swear the testimony you shall give 
this committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but 
the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Pestana. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF FRANK S. PESTANA, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS 
COUNSEL, DANIEL G. MARSHALL AND THOMAS Gt. NEUSOM 

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

Mr. Pestana. My name is Frank Pestana. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you represented by counsel ? 

Mr, Pestana. I am; Mr. Thomas Neusom and Mr. Marshall. 

Mr. Tavenner. When and where were you born ? 

Mr. Pestana. I was pleased to discover I am almost a neighbor of 
Mr. Tenner's. I was born on the island of Porto Santo, in the 
Maderia island group, right off the coast of Costa Blanca. 

Mr. Tavenner. When? 

Mr. Pestana. On March 2, 1913. 

Mr. Tavenner, How long have you lived in Los Angeles, or do you 
live in Los Angeles ? 

Mr, Pestana. I do live in Los Angeles. 

Mr. Tavenner, How long have you lived here? 

Mr, Pestana, I have lived here since 1945. 

Mr. Tavenner. Wlien did you first come to the United States? 

Mr. Pestana. I thinlc I was 3 years old. 

Mr. Tavenner. I assume you are a naturalized citizen by derivative 
citizenship. 



4036 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. Pestana. I am not ; I chose to be an American citizen. 

Mr. Tavenner. When were you naturalized? 

Mr. Pestana. Sometime in the middle 1930's. 

Mr. Ta\^nner. Are you a member of the legal profession ? 

Mr. Pestana. I am. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Pestana, there has been testimony by Mr. David 
Aaron, Mr. A. Marburg Yerkes, and Mr. William G. Israel that they 
were members of a Communist Party group in Los Angeles the 
membership of which was confined solely to the legal profession, and 
that you were a member of that group with them. Were you a 
member of that group ? 

Mr. Pestana. I decline to answer that question for the following 
reasons: In the first place, I do not believe that this committee has 
thje power to ask that question because this committee has been 
authorized by the act which gives it its ostensible power to inquire 
into the question of propaganda. I believe that propaganda is a form 
of speech. It is the means by which individuals convey ideas, and in 
a democracy which is envisaged by our Constitution, and our repub- 
lican form of government, the first amendment, the ninth and tenth 
amendment, the democracy cannot work, and it cannot function with- 
out the guarantee that ideas, speech, propaganda, shall be free, and 
that Congress shall make no law with respect thereto as is so consist- 
ently set out in the Constitution of the United States. For the reason 
that this country cannot exist as a democracy unless the sovereigns, of 
which I am one, sir, and of which I hope you are one, and I believe the 
rest of the i:)eople here are, unless the sovereigns of this country have 
a right to hear and to hold any belief which they choose, that this 
democracy cannot function by any manner of means iniless every idea 
which can be expressed short of actual acts of violence or crimes, is 
put on the market place of ideas for acceptance or rejection, and I wish 
to tell you, Mr. TaA^enner, that I would not be a sovereign with a 
right to hire and fire you or elect you, or the other persons who sit 
around here, unless I had the right to know all about you, and your 
ideas, and the legislation you stand for, and the legislation you are 
against, and that means that I have a right to hear anybody who 
wants to talk and to hold any opinion that I want to hold, and to say 
anything short of criminal acts which I want to express, so that you 
and other citizens, I assume you are a citizen and, sir, I am doing you 
that courtesy, so that you and other citizens can determine whether 
you wish to accept or reject the ideas. 

This is my idea of a clemocracy, and this is my idea of what you and 
the committee here is trying so hard to destroy, for all of the citizens, 
and this is the real tragedy, that I, I don't care, I am a lawyer, and I 
think I can handle myself, but that the rest of the citizenry should be 
intimidated by the kind of thing that you people have been doing, to 
the professors, the teachers, and the lawyers and the doctors, ancl the 
trade-unionists of this country, and the people of this country whom 
these people serve and try to represent. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee 

Mr. Pestana. I am ]iot through yet. And upon the further ground 
afforded me by the fifth amendment to the Constitution of the United 
States, and I wish again to express that that amendment was inserted 
for the benefit of the innocent as well as perhaps the guilty, but I wish 
to state this, that I resent your statements and the statements of other 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 4037 

Congressmen here who are imputed in my presence after being called 
on, that to assert the right under the fifth amendment is to admit a 
crime, and insinuation which I think has been the reason for the 
meriting by this connnittee of the statement by President Roosevelt 
that this committee had sordid procedures, or words to that general 
effect. 

I hnd such insinuations indeed sordid, and I resent them deeply. 

I also decline to answer upon the grounds afforded me by the ninth 
and tenth amendments to the Constitution of the 'United States, which 
embodies the id^a which I have already expressed, that this country 
is a democracy aiid tl^it in the peo])le of the country is reposited the 
total and end sovereignty and that you and others are answerable 
to the sovereigns, the electors, the votei'S of this country, and you are 
trying to intimidate those people by your sordid procedures, and I 
will not stand for it for myself, nor for them, especially not for them, 
and for those reasons I decline to answer, and in answer to the question 
that Mr. Jackson here asked I would like to volunteer this 
statement 

Mr. Tavenner. Wait a minute. Just answer my questions. 

(Further remarks made by the witness were ordered stricken from 
the record.) 

INIr. Walter. Well, now, just a moment. What goes on, Mr. 
Tavenner ? 

Mr. Tavenner. I would like to ask one additional question. 

Mr. Pestana. Do you want a stick post. I would like to give it 
to you so that you don't have to stand uj) there. 

Mr. Walter. Never mind, he enjoys that too much. And just don't 
take any more pictures, he is enjoying it too much. 

Mr. Tavenner, ask a question and let us get this over with. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee what you know, if any- 
thing, about the formation of this Communist Party cell which has 
been testified to exists in Los Angeles of which only members of the 
legal ])rofession are admitted, and how it was formed if you know, 
and what the purposes of it are ? 

Mr. Pestana. I would be a traitor to the democratic traditions' of 
this country and against all that I believe in and have expressed here 
today if I were to answer that question. For that reason and for the 
reasons previously expressed I decline to answer the question. 

Mr. Tavenner. I have no further questions. 

Mr. Walter. Any further c{uestions? If not, the witness is 
excused. 

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

Mr. Pestana. I think someone asked — are you serious ? The same 
answer and the same reasons. 

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

Mr. Pestana. The same answer and the same grounds. 

Mr. W^ alter. The committee will now adjourn, to meet at 10 to- 
morrow morning. 

(Whereupon, at 5 p. m., the hearing was recessed, to reconvene at 
10 a. m. Thursday, October 2, 1952.) 



COMMUNIST ACTIVITIES AMONG PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 
IN THE LOS ANGELES AREA 



THURSDAY, OCTOBER 2, 1952 

United States House or Representatives, 

Subcommittee of the Committee 

On Un-American Activities, 

Los Angeles^ California. 
public hearing 

The Subcommittee of the Committee on Un-American Activities 
met, pursuant to recess, at 10: 20 a. m., in room 518, Federal Building, 
Hon. John S. Wood (chairman) presiding. 

Committee members present : Representatives John S. Wood 
(chairman), Francis E. Walter, Clyde Doyle, Harold H. Velcle, and 
Donald L. Jackson. 

Staff members present: Frank S. Tavenner, Jr., counsel; Thomas 
W. Beale, Sr., assistant counsel; Louis J. Russell, senior investigator; 
William A. Wheeler and Charles E. McKillips, investigators; and 
John W. Carrington, clerk. 

Mr. Wood. Let us have order, please. 

In the chance that there are those present now who have not hereto- 
fore been in the audience, I repeat that you are here by the permission 
of this committee and not by any compulsion of it, except those under 
subpena. If you desire to remain, it is essential that we preserve 
order. The committee will not countenance any demonstrations favor- 
able or unfavorable to its work. 

AVho do you call, Mr. Tavenner? 

Mr. Tavenner. Excuse me just a moment, please. 

Mr. Daniel G. Marshall. Mr. Chairman, I have a motion to pre- 
sent on behalf of certain witnesses who were subpenaed to appear this 
morning. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Chairman, possibly I can save the gentleman 
time about that. When we were a half-day behind in our schedule, 
which we attempted to correct yesterday by passing over some of the 
lawyers until Monday, we decided last night to notify those doctors 
who were subpenaed for yesterday, postponing their appearance until 
Monday. Now, it occurred to me that there possibly are a number of 
them that did not get the telegrams, and there may be some who, if 
they did get the telegrams, would nevertheless desire to go ahead now ; 
and so, if any of them are here who want their cases disposed of now, 
it would be my inclination to call them. 

Mr. INIarshall. That is the position of these witnesses upon whose 
behalf I intended to make that motion. 

95008— 52— pt. 3 — —10 4039 



4040 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. Tavenner. Would you mind giving me a list of those ? 

Mr. Marshall. Yes. Dr. . 

Mr. Wood. Have you got a written list of those who are here ? 

Mr. Marshall. >\o; 1 don't, sir. I just have the names. 

Mr. Tavenner. Well, let me suggest that you give me a list of those 
who are here. 

Mr. Marshall. That is what I am going to do. Dr. Thomas Perry, 
Dr. Fred Reynolds, Dr. Alex Pennes. 

Mr. Tavenner. If you want to give them to me separately, it is all 
right. 

Mr. Marshall. I thought you would want those to start with. 

Mr. Tavenner. I would like, if you don't mind coming up here and 
giving me the names. 

(The list of names was handed to Mr. Tavenner.) 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Chairman, I Avould like to call Dr. Oscar Elkins. 

Mr. Wood. Is Dr. Elkins here ? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Wood. Do you solemnly swear the evidence you shall give this 
subcommittee shall be the trutli, the wdiole truth, and nothing but the 
truth, so help you God ? 

Dr. Elkins. I do. 

Mr. Wood. Be seated. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. OSCAR MELVILLE ELKINS, ACCOMPANIED BY 
HIS COUNSEL, ROBERT W. KENNY, THOMAS G. NEUSOM, AND 
DANIEL G. MARSHALL 

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

Dr. Elkins. Oscar Melville Elkins. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you represented by counsel ? 

Will counsel please identify themselves for the record? 

Mr. Neusom. There are not enough chairs here, and I wonder if 
we could get a couple of more chairs. 

Mr. Kenny. Robert Kenny, Thomas Neusom, and Daniel Marshall. 

(Additional chairs were phiced at witness' table.) 

Mr. Kenny. I think we have enough seats now; thank you. 

INIr. Tavenner. Doctor, when and where were you born, please, sir? 

Dr. Elkins. I was born in Chicago, 111., in 1903. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you a practicing physician in Los Angeles? 

Dr. Elkins. I am. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long have you been engaged in the practice of 
medicine in the Los Angeles area ? 

Dr. Elkins. Well, I came out here ever since I graduated from med- 
ical school, and I had my interneship here, and so it is 22 years. 

Mr. Tavenner. What has been your medical training? 

Dr. Elkins. I am a graduate of the University of Wisconsin School 
of Medicine. Do you want the further training? 

Mr. Tamsnner. No, sir; that is sufficient. 

Dr. Elkins. Okay. 

Mr. Tavenner. Have you been in the military service? 

Dr. Elkins. Yes; I have. I have a record of 31 years in various 
military organizations, as a civilian, you know, including the National 
Guard. I won't include the ROTC in that 31 years. That would 
make it 35 years. But after that I was commissioned in the Infantry 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 4041 

Reserve, and I remained in the Infantry Reserve until I was well into 
my medical career, and then I transferred to the Medical Reserve, be- 
lieving)^ that my services could be better used there. Besides, in the 
interim, knowing enough of Infantry, I knew that things had changed 
and I was more useful with my medical knowledge and with my former 
Infantry knowledge, and so I remained in the Infantry Reserve until 
I volunteered for active duty in AVorld AVar II, although, I might add, 
I was in an exempted category; I was in Public Health, and I didn't 
have to go, but I felt I should go. I was married, but we had no chil- 
dren, and my wife went back to war work as a nurse. 

Although it was difficult to go at my age — I wasn't a youngster — I 
volunteered, and they accepted me, and I served over 4 years on active 
duty and was discharged as a lieutenant colonel in the Medical Corps. 
I returned to the Reserve, and recently, in case I might be asked that 
usual question, would I tight if called, apparently they looked down 
their list and they needed a lieutenant colonel psychiatrist, and that 
looked like Elkins, and so they had me down there on a number of 
occasions. 

Mr. Tavenner. When was this? 

Dr. Elkins. Just in the last couple of years, since this Korean thing 
came up. And, after going over me time and again physically, it was 
obvious that I was physically disabled and no longer capable of active 
military duty. So, I was honorably discharged in October of 1951 
as a lieutenant colonel. 

This is my military record, and of course anybody who has had that 
much military service knows that— does full duty as a doctor, but I 
don't mean to say — I know enough of Infantry and I have seen men 
die and wounded and I have seen cemeteries grow. So, I don't mean 
to present myself as a man who is out there really in the front lines, 
although, being on Okinawa from the start of the proceedings there, 
I am well aware that the Infantry and those fellows who are really 
up there dying carry the brunt of it. 

But I did get an award, a certificate of merit, and I have a com- 
mendation ribbon, if you should care to know, for medical work in the 
Phili})pines. 

I think that is my military record in brief. 

Mr. Tanner. Dr. Elkins, Ave have had testimony in the course of 
this hearing by Mr. Harold Ashe of the formation of a cell or unit in 
the Communist Party, made up of members of the different profes- 
sions. That testimony related back to about the year 1936. Then we 
have testimony which was taken here in Los Angeles last year, during 
September of last year, that there was a cell of Communist Party con- 
sisting solely of members of the medical profession. 

Several witnesses have been subpenaed for the purpose of ascertain- 
ing how that cell was formed, the extent of the Communist organiza- 
tion within the medical profession, and the purposes of it, and you 
are called here today as a witness because witnesses have identified 
you as being one of those who was a member of that group within 
the medical profession ; and, therefore, you should have some knowl- 
edge of it. 

Dr. Reznick testified about his own membership in the Communist 
Party from 1935 to 1939, and said that you were a member of the 
medical branch of the Communist Party. 



4042 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Dr. Louise Light appeared before this committee and was asked 
about her knowledge of that cell in the Communist Party, and she 
testified that she had been a member from 1939 to 1945, and she also 
identified you as a member of the medical branch of the Communist 
Party. 

Were you a member of that group of the Communist Party ? 

Dr. Elkins. Of course, Mr. Tavenner, I am going to refuse to 
answer any questions of that type, and my reasons are, first of all, I 
don't believe that this committee, as I understand it — I am not posing 
as a lawyer; but, as it appears to an ordinary layman, this committee 
has a job of submitting reconnnendations for legislation to Congress, 
and I don't believe that this committee can submit any recommenda- 
tions to Congi'ess that would in any way abridge any citizen's right 
to freedom of speech or to require any citizen to divulge or talk about 
or in any way be required to say or give any information as to his 
affiliations, or lack of affiliations, because, as I say, I don't believe 
this committee can legislate to abridge these privileges which are given 
to all people of the United States as stated in the first amendment. 

Furthermore, the scope of this committee has become so diffuse that 
it seems that it reminds me of things I have seen in other countries 
as a sort of a committee that frightens people, makes it inadvisable to 
stand up and act like an American citizen for fear of some kind of 
retribution or being victimized or intimidated in some way. 

There are a lot of fine people in this country, good people, probably 
not courageous people, but they also have the right to be protected 
by the Constitution, and I think it devolves upon me, since I am here, 
to somehow show these people that they do not have to answer to this 
committee as to their affiliations, or to be frightened into keeping 
silent. 

Mr. Tavenner. May I suggest that the witness is certainly going 
very far afield, in answering the question. 

Mr. Wood. The committee does not desire an argument, and we 
desire an answer to the question. 

Dr. Elkins. I am answering it, sir. 

]Mr. Wood. No, sir ; you are not, you are arguing. 

Dr. Elkins. I am answering it in my way. 

Mr. Wood. Do you answer it ? 

Dr. Elkins. I am answering it. 

Mr. Wood. Well, the Chair holds that you are not ; you have entered 
into a dissertation here, and an argument about your personal views 
as to the work of this committee, which are beside the point here. If 
you desire to answer the question or refuse to answer it, please state 
lucidly your reasons. 

Dr. Elkins. I have stated that I am going to refuse to answer this 
question, and I am now stating my reasons why I am refusing to 
answer it. 

Mr, Wood. Confine yourself to reasons and not argument, please. 

Dr. Elkins. I am stating my reasons. 

I also would like to add that, as an ordinary citizen looks at the 
fourth amendment, it seems to me that if you can't take steel mills 
away from private individuals you have no right to demand that a 
person's own thoughts or views be taken from him. That is just an 
ordinary citizen as he reads what he thinks are his privileges. 

But I am not a lawyer, as I say. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 4043 

Finally, I will not answer the question because of my responsibilities 
and duties to all citizens and myself, as stated in the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Tavenner. What is the basis of your refusal to answer under 
the fifth amendment ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Dr. Elkins. As I understand it, I do not have to give this com- 
mittee any further basis than sayino; the fifth amendment, and the 
provisions are according to me included in the fifth amendment, by 
Avhich I decline to answer that question. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you relying upon that provision of the fifth 
amendment which provides that a person may not be compelled to 
testify in a matter which may involve himself in the way of possible 
criminal prosecution ? 

Dr. Elkins. I don't — I am sure that I have not committed any 
crime, Mr. Tavenner. 

Mr. Tavenner. Then you are not relying, I take it, on that pro- 
vision of the fifth amendment. 

Dr. Elkins. I gave you my answer. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Chairman, if the witness can be no more definite 
than that, I ask that he be directed to answer. 

Dr. Elkins. I am relying on every provision aiforded to all citizens 
under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Tavenner. Does that include the provision against possible 
self-incrimination ? 

Dr. Elkins. As I stated, I am relying on all provisions of the fifth 
amendment. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Dr. Elkins. Excuse me one minute. 

Mr. Marshall. Yesterday, Mr. Tavenner, while Congressman 
Walter was in the chair, he announced this ruling: that, when the 
witness said that he stood upon the Constitution, that meant the 
whole Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, and that it was not 
necessary for the witness to specify any part of it. 

Mr. Tavenner. In reply, I think it is possibly my duty to inquire 
as to the good faith of the witness in claiming any provision of the 
Constitution, and I think it is up to me to do that. And if tlie witness 
is evasive on that subject, I propose to follow it up. If it is clear as 
to what he is relying upon, why, I have no further questions to ask 
him about that. 

Mr. Wood. The witness says he is relying on every provision of the 
fifth amendment, and the provision against self-incrimination is one 
of them ; and so, in the view of the Chair, that covers it. 

Mr. Tavenner. All right, sir. 

Doctor, have vou ever used the name "W. Melville" ? 

Dr. Elkins. W. Melville? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Tavenner. Or have you used the name "Melville" regardless 
of what the first initial may be ? 

Lret me ask you a preliminary question which may clear it up. What 
did you state your middle name to be? 

Dr. Elkins. Melville. 

Mr. Tavenner. Well, I think that that answers, that satisfies my 
inquiry. 



40 i4 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. Marshall. Have you witlidraAYii the inquiry ? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes, sir. 

Have you at any time held a Communist Party membership book 
or card ? 

Dr. Elkins. The same answer to that question that I gave you to 
the previous questions, that I declined to answer. 

Mv. Wood. And for the same reasons ? 

Dr. Elkins. And for the same reasons and on the same grounds. 

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

Dr. Elkins. The same answer and the same reasons, and on the same 
grounds that I gave you to the previous questions in tliat order. 

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

Dr. Elkins. Tliat is practically to me the same question, and I give 
you the same answer for the same reasons and on the same grounds. 

Mr. Tavenner. I have no further questions. 

Mr. Doyle. Doctor, you mentioned that you served all through the 
Okinawa incident. 

Dr. Elkins. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Doyle. I was on Okinawa 3 weeks ago, and you know, as I came 
across that same reef where those Marines and others came across, I 
saw a memorial tablet there, and I talked with some of the commanders 
that had been there, and they told me that in their judgment the 
thousands of boys, American boys, that lost their lives there lost them 
there because of the activities of the Soviet Communist Party, and 
because of its propaganda in the United States of America, and its 
subversive activities, don't you see? 

My boy died for the same reason. I just want to say to you, as one 
professional man to another, I am a lawyer, it seems to me' that we as 
professional men perhaps owe a particular obligation to the destiny of 
America, and especially you men who have distinguished military 
records, even in the medical service or any other service, and I com- 
mend you for that distinguished service. 

I am not going to ask you any question. Just as one neighbor to 
another on the professional level of our Nation, I Avant to just suggest 
to you : You have stated that you felt : 'T think it devolves upon me 
to show the people they don't have to be afraid of this committee." 
That was substantially your words, sir, and I just want to say to you 
as a member of this committee, there is no reason in God's world for 
any American citizen to be afraid of this committee, and I don't think 
you are serving your Nation when you are up here fostering the 
thought that American citizens have to be afraid of this committee. 

Mr. Elkins. May I say, Mr. Doyle, that I have heard you speak of 
the loss of your son on other occasions, and you have my deepest sym- 
pathy, and I can understand a little of how you feel, because we had 
a somewhat similar situation in my own family. Since it happened 
that I was the last member of that family to see this relative in the 
Pacific, I felt that having talked to him at the last, and that is the 
last the family ever saw of him, I asked him, "Sammy, when you go 
out of action, buck me a V-mail and I will send it home," and he did, 
and I bucked it home and when the last member of the family read it, 
just about that time came the War Department letter saying he was 
killed in action 10 days after being in on Leyte. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 4045 

When a thiiifj like that comes, you have to talk to yourself plenty to 
make sure that any war is worth while, don't you, Mr. Doyle '^ 

Mr. Doyle. Quite so. 

Dr. Elkins. You have to talk hard to think that a youno; boy with 
everything to live for, and that is why I feel that I should like to hear 
you, of all people, speak for peace, and not only here but in Congress, 
and as I have heard from other members here, I don't hear enough of 
getting up and s})eaking for peace so that other boys don't go. 

I can recall on Okinawa, sitting on a flat piece of bulldozed ground 
and wondering what it w^as for, and the next day seeing crosses up 
there. 

Mr. "Wood. We have a lot of witnesses here, please, sir, and your 
conversation is very interesting, but it is not on the record and it is 
not pertinent to the issue here, and I am sorry to interfere with you, 
but you will appreciate we have got an array of witneses here to hear, 
and I am sorry to interfere. I would like to talk to you personally 
sometime. 

Dr. Elkins. I just wanted to reply to give my sympathy. 

Mr. Doyle. I am not asking sympathy, I am asking for vigorous 
active protection of the constitutional form of government in the 
United States and the American Government, and the Communist 
Party is trying to destroy it, and you know that is true. 

Dr. Elkins. You heard my record. 

Mr. Doyle. I heard your record. Your record before this commit- 
tee isn't what it ought to be, in my judgment. 

Mr. Jackson. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman. I have one re- 
quest, and that is to insert in the record at this point an article from 
Our Sunday Visitor entitled "The Place : China ; the Victim : The 
Innocent," and the story of Father Greene who was tortured by the 
Communist inquisition, quite in contrast to the activities of the House 
Un-American Activities Committee. 

Mr. Wood. That will be admitted. 

<'The article referred to follows :) 

Communist "Trial" 

The Place : China ; The Victim : The Innocent 
By Thomas E. Comber 

"Espionage" was the charge against him — lie was an American in Communist 
China. 

liohert W. Greene was raised in .Jasper, Ind. Wlien he decided to follow 
Christ, he never dreamed that his footsteps would also be the blood steps of 
Calvary. Kwan.usi Province is a long way from .lasper, Ind. 

Terror rule under the Communists is a long way from America's tradition of 
justice for all men. Here are the facts. This is the way the Commies treated 
Robert W. Greene because he was an American — because he was a missionary. 

Before they made his arrest official at Tungan, North Kwangsi, on April 3, 
19r>2, Father Greene had been under "house detention" for 17 months. 

Terror-treatment began on April 3, 1952, and was to last for 11 days. He was 
questioned ceaselessly, his head bowed and his arms tied behind him. He was 
lined up against a wall and threatened by a soldier with a machine gun. 

Robert Greene was put through two public "trials" — at which hysterical mobs 
chanted, "kill, kill!" 

At the first "trial" on Palm Sunday the Chinese Reds brought him out before 
one mol). A guard struck his nose, another clawed at his face. At the second 
"trial" on Easter Sunday 4,000 Chinese yelled for his blood. Tliis Maryknoll 
missionary was accused of "spying, possessing guns and ammunition, spreading 



4046 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

rumors, supplying money to bandits, and killing People's Liberation Army soldiers 
with ether." 

After his second "trial" Father Greene was expelled from Red China. Three 
United States missionaries were in Tuniian when the Communists arrived in 
Kwangsi, December 19, 1949. Besides Robert Greene, there were Gregory Gil- 
martin of Waterbury, Conn., and Irwin Nugent of Dorchester, Mass. They had 
both been previously expelled from Red China. 

They had both seen the Communists seize Chinese Christians and execute them 
outside their mission as "counter-revolutionaries." 

These three Americans got out. There are still hundreds of missionaries 
behind the bamboo curtain and the iron curtain. They look to the free peoples 
of the world to help them — at least we can give them our prayers. They want us 
to pray for their Communist tormentors too ! They want us to pray : "Father, 
forgive them, they know not what they do." — Paulist Information Service. 

(Followed by photograph headed : "Father Greene before and after 
tx)rture.") 

Mr. Wood. Are there any further questions ? 

Mr, Tavenner. No, sir. 

Mr. Wood. Is there any reason why the witness should not be 
excused ? 

Mr. Tavenner. No, sir. 

Mr. Marshall. Counsel might add to that list of names I gave him 
the name of Dr. Joseph Hittleman. 

Mr. Tavenner. We have the name. 

(The witness was excused.) 

Mr. Tavenner. I will call Dr. Bertram L. Roberts. 

Mr. Wood. Dr. Roberts, will you come forward ? 

Will you raise your right hand? Do you swear that the evidence 
you shall give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 
truth, so help you God ? 

Dr. Roberts. I do. 

Mr. Wood. Will you have a seat, please, sir ? 

TESTIMONY OF DR. BERTRAM L. ROBERTS, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS 
COUNSEL, ROBERT W. KENNY, THOMAS G. NEUSOM, AND DANIEL 
G. MARSHALL 

Mr. Wood. Do you have the same counsel ? 

Mr. Kenny. Same counsel. 

Mr. Wood. There is no need for counsel to identify themselves again. 
It is the same counsel as the last witness. 

Mr. Tavenner. Wliat is your name, Doctor? 

Dr. Roberts. Bertram L. Roberts. 

Mr. Tavenner. When and where were you born ? 

Dr. Roberts. I was born in New York, December 6, 1918. 

Mr. Tavi5Nner. Are you now a resident of Los Angeles ? 

Dr. Roberts. I am. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long have you lived here ? 

Dr. Roberts. Since 1934. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you a member of the medical profession ? 

Dr. Roberts. I am an optometrist. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long have you practiced optometry in Los 
Angeles ? 

Dr. Roberts. Since 1940, with the exception of time spent in service. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long were you in the service ? 

Dr. Roberts. Approximately 3 years. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 4047 

Mr. Tavenner. Doctor, we have had testimony before the com- 
mittee of the formation of a cell of the (yommnnist Party in Los 
Angeles limited to members of the medical profession. 

Dr. Light testified that she was a member of the Communist Party 
from 1939 to 1945, and a member of that group, and that yon were a 
member of it. Is that true or false ? 

Dr. Roberts. I am going to decline to answer that question, Mr. 
Tavenner," and I should like to state my reasons for so declining. 

In the first place, as a citizen I object to being brought before this 
committee, which has no constitutional grounds for inquiring as to 
what I think and who my associates are or what my beliefs are. So 
on the basis of the first amendment, I think it is a violation of my 
rights. 

I think Justice Robert Jackson stated it well when he said that if 
there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no 
official hireman can specify what shall be orthodox in religion or other 
matters of opinion. 

Mr. Tavenner. May I ask whether you are reading "from a prepared 
statement ? 

Dr. Roberts. No ; I have a few notes here. 

Mr, Wood. Well, Doctor, would you please give the committee the 
courtesy of at least having a smattering of knowledge of the decisions 
you are quoting from, and pass on to your reasons and not argument, 
because we are not interested in argument. You have a right to state 
your reasons and please state them as concisely as you can. 

Dr. Roberts. I should like to further state my reasons, then. I 
agree that many legal reasons have been given to this committee, par- 
ticularly in yesterday's testimony. However, being a member of the 
health professions I am disturbed about conformity, because of the 
fact that conformity can affect scientific work. I think that science 
can progress rapidly only when there is the greatest freedom from 
uninhibited communication among men. 

Mr. Wood. Now, you are again in pure argument, and please state 
the reasons and leave out the argument. We are trying our best to 
get through here this week, and next week, and we do not want to 
keep these witnesses here indefinitely that are waiting on us. 

Dr. Roberts. Is this a public hearing? 

Mr. Wood. Yes ; it is a public hearing. 

Dr. Roberts. Well, I am not going to be up here too long, and X 
should like to present my grounds. 

Mr. Wood. We are willing to have you submit your reasons, but 
not arguments. 

Dr. Roberts. I think something has not been brought out before 
this committee, and that is some scientific opinion in regard to the 
activities of groups like this. 

Mr. Jackson. I suggest the scientific opinion has nothing to do 
with his reasons. 

Mr. Wood. We are not concerned about your opinions of the com- 
mittee. We are concerned about your willingness to answer plain ques- 
tions, or your unwillingness, and if you are unwilling to give your 
reasons for it. 

Dr. Roberts. My declination is based upon a paper prepared by Dr. 
Kirtley F. Mather of Harvard, which he presented before a group of 



4048 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

scientific workers, and he is president of the American Association for 
the Advancement of Science. He stated 

Mr. Wood. Just a moment, Doctor. We are not going to permit 
you to read extensive excerpts here from the statements of other peo- 
ple. If you have any reasons to offer this committee yourself, we will 
be glad to hear them. 

Dr. Roberts. Well, I must say that this particular paper affected 
my decision greatly. 

Mr. Wood. If you have a copy of it and you desire to submit it for 
the connnittee's consideration, all right ; but I am not going to take 
the time to hear it and let you read extensive excerpts of the state- 
ment. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Wood. I think it has become all too obvious here that what the 
purpose of these long harangues of these witnesses is, and as far as I 
am concerned, I am not going to permit it. Have you any further 
reasons to offer why you will not answer the question, and if so we 
will be glad to have them. 

Dr. Roberts. I should like to place this in the record 

Mr. Wood. We will be very glad to have you place it in the record, 
and now what other reasons do you have ? 

Dr. Roberts. This is an article from Science News Letter. 

Mr. Jackson. Are those the same notes ''i I understood they were 
notes. 

Dr. Roberts. The notes are on the back of it. 

Mr. Jackson. All right. 

Dr. Roberts. I further decline on the grounds of the fifth amend- 
ment and the ninth and tenth amendments of the Constitution. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee what information you 
have, if any, regarding the existence of a Conununist Party cell in 
Los Angeles, confined in membership to the medical profession. 

Dr. Roberts. That question is essentially similar to the first ques- 
tion, and I shall refuse to answer it on the same grounds previously 
stated. 

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

Dr. Roberts. The same answer and the same question. 

Mr. Tavj'^nner. Are you now a member of the Communist Party ? 

Dr. Roberts. The same question and the same answer. 

Mr. Tavenner. I have no further questions. 

Mr. Wood. Mr. Walter, or Mr. Doyle, do you have any questions? 
If there are no questions, is there any reason why this witness should 
not be excused from further attendance ? 

Mr. Tavenner. No, sir. 

Mr. Wood. It is so ordered. 

(The witness was excused.) 

Mr. Tavenner. Dr. Howard Davis. 

Mr. Wood. You do solemnly swear the evidence you shall give this 
committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 
truth, so help you God ( 

Dr. Davis. 1 do. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 4049 

TESTIMONY OF EDWIN HOWARD DAVIS, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS 
COUNSEL, EOBERT W. KENNY, THOMAS G. NEUSOM, AND DANIEL 
G. MARSHALL 

Mr. TAyp:xNER. What is your name, please, sir ? 

Dr. Davis. I am not too liajipy, I don't wish to dnplirato Mr. Ester- 
man's demand for having- my attorneys with me, but I woukl like to 
be able to consult with them without having- to push myself in physical 
inconvenience, and I wonder if it would be possible just to move this 
up and allow my attorneys to sit on the platform [indicatino; a table] ^ 

Mr. Wood. Certainly, move the table forward. You can have all 
of the room. 

Dr. Davis. I don't need a lot of room. 

Mr. Wood. I mean to get all of the room you need for your counsel. 

Mr. Doylp:. There are three, and you have another one coming. 
Who is that? 

Mr. Tavenner. Is that satisfactory? 

Dr. Davis. Thaidv you, that is satisfactory. 

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

Dr. Davis. Edwin Howard Davis. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you represented by counsel ? 

Dr. Davis. I am. 

Ml-. Tavenner. Will counsel please identify themselves? 

Mr. Wood. The same counsel the other witnesses had, and there is 
no need to repeat them. 

Mr. Kenny. That is correct. 

Dr. Davis. The record will so state, will it ? 

Mr. Wood. Yes, the same counsel as previously -were present. 

Mr. Tavenner. When and where were vou born, please, sir? 

Dr. Davis. I was born in Salt Lake City, Utah, May 21, 1919. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you now a resident of Los Angeles? 

Dr. Davis. I am. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long have you lived in Los Angeles ? 

Dr. Davis. Twenty-eight years. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you a member of the medical profession ? 

Dr. Davis. No, I am not. 

Mr. Tavenner. What is your profession ? 

Dr. Davis. I am an optometrist. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long have you been engaged in the practice 
of optometry in Los Angeles ? 

Dr. Davis. Since 1943. 

Mr. Tavenner. Doctor, are you a member of or affiliated with the 
medical division of the Arts, Sciences, and Professions Council? 

Dr. Davis. I will refuse to answer the question on the following 
grounds: First, that I consider questions regarding any organization 
before this committee in the nature of a quasi-trial to be a violation of 
my rights and the rights of the American people under that section 
of the Constitution, article I, section 9, which prescribes against bill 
of attainders, and I do believe that my rights are being violated by 
attempting to punish me for alleged, by implication, membership in 
an organization proscribed by this connnittee. 



4050 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

I do wisli. also, to decline to answer that question on the further 
grounds that are guaranteed to me by the fifth amendment. I wish 
to state that it is my understanding of the fifth amendment that my 
assertion of my privileges thereunder do not in any way bear reflection 
on my guilt or innocence of any charge. 

Mr. Wood. Well, Doctor, just a moment, then I will permit you to 
finish. I am not going to let that inference go unchallenged, because 
the privilege of the fifth amendment is a privilege under conditions 
that are prescribed therein, and there is never a compulsion, no man 
is under any compulsion to claim the privilege of the fifth amendment, 
and if a man says, if he is asked a question if he is guilty of a crime — I 
am not inferring that there would be any — that being a member of 
the Communist Party was a crime, or of the Arts, Sciences, and Pro- 
fessions is a crime, but when a man is asked a question whether he is a 
member of an organization which he deems such as would incriminate 
him with membership in it, if he says that to admit the answer to 
that question truthfully would incriminate him and as a matter of fact 
it would not, then his testimony is false. It is a privilege and he has 
got to claim it and it is not a compulsion. 

Dr. Davis. I do not agree with your full statement, sir, but I do 
agree with that I am claiming the privileges only under the compul- 
sion of my conscience. I additionally understand that in claiming 
this privilege under the fifth amendment that I do thereby avail myself 
at the same time of being refused here to name names of anyone of 
whom you may ask me who may be to my laiowledge a member of 
such organization. And I do therefore most willingly accept the 
privileges granted me in good faith under the fifth amendment to 
refuse to affirm or denj^ my membership in such an organization that 
has been listed unconstitutional by this committee. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you refuse to testify or to answer the question 
on the ground that the answer might tend to incriminate you ? 

Dr. Davis. It has already been stated here yesterday far more elo- 
quently than I, that a citizen does not need to explain his reasons for 
claiming the privileges under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Tavenner. No, but we must be certain as to what you base it on. 

Dr. Davis. I wish to claim my privileges under every section of the 
fifth amendment which do apply to me, and I believe that they do 
apply. 

Mr. Tavenner. That is still not an answer to the question. Do you 
base your refusal to testify on the grounds that to do so might tend 
to incriminate you? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Wood. Is that not a i;)rovision, and he says he claims the priv- 
ilege under all of it. 

Mr, Tavenner. He says "All of it which is applicable to me." 

Mr. Wood. He said that he thought it was all applicable to him. 
You said all of it was applicable to you ? 

Dr. Davis. I understood you to say that if one claimed the privilege 
of the fifth amendment he did not have to further explain it to counsel. 

JNIr. Wood. When you say that you claim all the privileges of the 
fifth amendment, each provision of it, I think that is a complete 
answer. 

Mr. Tavenner. If there is no uncertainty as to his meaning, that 
is all right. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 4051 

Doctor, did you attend a meetinji; of the medical division of the Arts, 
Sciences, and Professions Council on March 14, 1952, at 7410 Sunset 
Boulevard ? 

Dr. Davis. That is the same question and I will answer you the 
same answer for the same reasons, that 

Mr. Wood. You do not need to repeat them. You can say it is the 
same reasons unless you have something additional to add. 

Mr. Tavenner. Dr. Mendell Krieger, in his testimony before this 
committee on September 11, 1951, identified you as a member of the 
Communist Party, of which he also admitted membership on his own 
part. Was that testimony in identifying you correct or was it false? 

Dr. Davis. I refuse to affirm or deny the statement of anyone whom 
I consider to be a stool pigeon. I refuse to answer this question for the 
following reasons : First, it is my understanding of the Constitution, 
the first amendment, that Congress shall make no law interfering in 
any way with the rights of freedom, opinion, association, or the right 
of people to petition Congress for redress of grievances. Now, I do 
believe that this committee does not have the right thereby legislatively 
to ask me a question which can serve no legislative function. It is 
my understanding of the first amendment that a citizen is free under 
this amendment and the guaranties of the ninth and tenth amendments 
to believe as he believes, to think as he wishes, and to associate with 
whom he pleases for any legal purpose. And it is my understanding 
and the history of Nazi Germany has clearly demonstrated — 

Mr. Wood. Now, Doctor, please. 

Dr. Davis. I wish to state my reasons. 

Mr. Wood. I will permit only 

Mr. Davis. This is the reason I claim the privilege. 

Mr. Wood. The committee, please, sir, has a fair understanding of 
the provisions of the Constitution, and would you just please state 
what the provisions are, and can we not have some area of agreement 
here on the question of time. 

Mr. Davis. You did not have to subpena 110 or more witnesses, and 
I wish to have the time to state my reasons. 

Mr. Wood, The point is that the witnesses are here, I will permit 
you to state them but I will not permit you to state a lengthy argument. 

Dr. Davis. I am stating my reasons. 

Mr. Wood. Let us hear your reasons. 

Dr. Davis. Under the first amendment, I believe that it is my right. 

Mr. Wood. Now, you are in argument. We are not concerned about 
your belief, we are concerned about your reasons. 

Dr. Davis. On the grounds in the first amendment, then, which per- 
mit freedom of expression. 

Mr. Jackson. We know what the first amendment permits. 

Dr. Davis. You are interfering with my rights to state my reasons. 

Mr. Jackson. I am not interfering with them at all. Why don't 
you state your reasons? 

Dr. Davis. Don't interfere with my rights to state my reasons, and 
I resent it. 

Mr. Jackson. You have stated them 10 times in detail. 

Dr. Davis. I have not stated them 10 times in detail. 

Mr. Wood. Doctor, won't you please state your reasons and elimin- 
ate the arguments? 



4052 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Dr. Davis. I didn't start an argument on this, and I merely tried 
to state my reasons. 

Mr. Wood. You said that you invoked the provisions of the first 
amendment. We understand what it is. Go to the next one, please, sir. 

Dr. Davis. I refuse to answer this question, because it is my under- 
standing that the establishment of qualifications, religious, or politi- 
cal, for the practice of a profession is, in my mind, a violation of my 
rights under the first amendment, and I do refuse to cooperate with 
this committee in denying my rights to have what opinion or associa- 
tion I want without limiting my rights thereby. I think history ade- 
quately demonstrated 

Mr. Wood. Now, we are not going to permit you to go into a his- 
torical dissertation here. Doctor, we might as well have an area of 
agreement here somewhere. 

Dr. Davis. I will also refuse to answer this question because I am 
accused of no crime, and yet I am being tried by this committee with- 
out the procedures guaranteed to me under the sixth amendment. And 
I do wish to assert that I know of no crime for which I am being com- 
pelled to appear here, and yet it is your intent to punish me if I do not 
cooperate with the committee. 

(Further remarks made by the witness were ordered stricken from 
the record.) 

Dr. Davis. My further reason for refusing to answer this question 
is that it is my understanding of the ninth and tenth amendments that 
I have the right not only to claim my democratic rights under the 
Constitution for myself and others as well, but I have the right, also, 
to engage in the demand that I be given the continued right to seek 
redress of grievances that is represented by the existence of this com- 
mittee in its attack on the freedoms of all individuals. , 

I further wish to refuse to answer this question, because I am not 
prepared to provide new victims to be sacrificed on the altar of politi- 
cal conformity in the interest of preparation of a third world war, in 
exchange for any 40 pieces of silver or your commendations. 

I do claim finally that I am not compelled to either affirm or deny 
the question that you have asked me other than by stating that I shall 
not so do under the fifth amendment. 

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

Dr. Davis. That is the same question, and I will give you the same 
answer. 

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

Dr. Davis. I will answer that question in the same way for the samt^ 
reasons. 

Mr. Tavenner. I have no further questions. 

Mr. Jackson. I have no questions. 

Mr. W(WD. Is there any reason why the witness should not be ex- 
cused from further attendance on the committee? 

Mr. Tavenner. No, sir. 

Mr. Jackson. It appears to me that having failed to disrupt these 
proceedings by the establishment of the ])icket line in front there is a 
deliberate effort being made by slow-down to sabotage and defeat the 
purposes of this committee, and it is quite obvious that if these tactics 
continue we will not be able to reach all of the witnesses wdio have been 



COMMUNISM IN 'LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 4053 

slated, and it might well be that that is the reason for the tactics being 
employed. 

Mr. Wood. I do not know about that, but I will assure you that they 
are going to be reached whether this week or next. 

jVIr. Kenny. Just as a matter of personal privilege, my duty here 
and the duty of other lawyers is to advise witnesses under their con- 
stitutional rights, and we have so advised them. These witnesses have 
been subpenaed and they have been under subpena for 9 months and 
they have been publicized and they want an opportunity, and I have ad- 
vised them, that they have an opportunity to spread on the record, if 
they want to, fully their reasons for refusal. 

Mr. Wood. I do not object to that at all, Mr. Kenny, and I have not 
objected to it ; but please let us try to eliminate arguments about it. 

Mr. Ki<:nny. That is correct, but if the guillotine is to be operated 
on people I don't think that we have to speed it up. I don't think we 
are guilty of any slow-down on anything. 

INIr. Jackson. If they want to get back to their offices, it is going to 
be another week before we can get through with them. 

Mr. Kenny. There again I say that these people were not guilty of 
any slow-down 

Mr. Wood. I sincerely hope that the attitude of the witnesses will 
deinonstrate that your advice to them has been accepted. 

Mr. Marshall, I want to rise in particular objection to Congress- 
man Jackson's accusations, that there has been 

Mr. Jackson. I did not reflect upon counsel at all. 

Mr. Marshall. And I don't like any reflection on the witness. 

Mr. Jackson. My only reflection is that much time is being de- 
stroyed, in what I think is a repetition of reasons which have already 
been stated by the witnesses. 

(The witness was excused.) 

Mr. Wood. Whom do you call next, Mr. Counsel ? 

Mr. Tavenner. I will call Dr. Fred Eeynolds. 

Mr. Wood. Do you solemnly swear the evidence you shall give this 
connnittee Avill be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 
truth, so help you God ? 

Dr. Reynolds. I do, 

TESTIMONY OF DR. FKEDEKICK G. REYNOLDS, ACCOMPANIED BY 
HIS COUNSEL, ROBERT W. KENNY, THOMAS G. NEUSOM, AND 
DANIEL G. MARSHALL 

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

Dr. Reynolds. My name is Frederick G. Reynolds. 

Mr. Tavenner. When and where were you born ? 

Dr. Reynolds. I was born on the 8th day of July in Salt Lake Citv, 
Utah, in 1903 ^' 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you now reside in Los Angeles? 

Dr. Reynolds. Yes, I do. 

Mr. TavenneIj. How^ long have you lived in Los Angeles? 

Dr. Reynolds. I have lived in Los Angles since about 1918. 

]Mr. Tavenner. What is your profession ? 

Dr. Reynolds. My profession is that of a physician, a doctor of 
medicine. 



4054 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. Tavenner. How long have you practiced your profession in 
Los Angeles? 

Dr. Reynolds. I practiced my profession in Los Angeles since 1937, 
save for an interruption in militai-y service. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long were you in military service? 

Dr. Reynolds. Approximately 3I/2 years. 

Mr, Tavenner. Doctor, there has been testimony of the existence 
of a Communist Party cell within the medical profession in Los 
Angeles, and that is a cell limited in membership to members of the 
medical profession. Dr. Louise Light and Dr. Reznick have testified 
with regard to the existence of that branch of the Communist Party 
and they have identified you as a member of it. Were they correct in 
that identification, and if so I would like for you to tell us what you 
know about the existence of that cell, and its purposes. 

Dr. Reynolds. Mr. Tavenner, members of the committee, my con- 
science and the sacred vows that I took when I entered the profession 
of Hippocrates compel me to decline to answer that question on the 
following grounds : First, as a physician I must oppose any attempts 
to oppose political conformity on the medical profession or any of 
the scientific professions because such conformity is fatal to scientific 
progress. I cite the example of Germany in which medical 
science 

Mr. Wood. Again you are in argument, and I am not going to per- 
mit argument. 

Dr. Reynolds. If he will withdraw the question, I will stop speak- 
ing, but I was subpenaed to answer questions and I am going to 
answer them in my own way. 

Mr. Wood. You are not going to answer them by arguments because 
I am not going to permit it and if you have any further reasons 

Dr. Reynolds. Will Mr. Tavenner withdraw the question ? 

Mr. Wood. The question is not withdrawn. 

Dr. Reynolds. I can answer it in my own way. 

Mr. Wood. You will answer it by stating your reasons, and you are 
at liberty to do so. 

Dr. Reynolds. This is one of my reasons. 

Mr. Wood. Not by giving a history of Hitler Germany. 

Dr. Reynolds. I want to point out in Germany doctors were so 
degraded they vivisected human beings. 

Mr. Wood. A lot of other folks were degraded, too. 

Dr. Reynolds. I further decline to answer the questions on the 
grounds provided by that portion of the Hippocratic oath, which 
reads : "Whatsoever things I see or hear concerning the life of man 
and my attendance upon the sick or even a part thereof" 

Mr. Tavennfj?. I asked you no question that called for an answer 
regarding a confidential relationship between a doctor and his patient. 

Dr. Reynolds. This is one of the grounds, however. 

Mr. Tavenner. Regardless of the (;iuestion, you mean. 

Dr. Reynolds. "Wliich ought not to be nosed abroad. I will keep 
silence thereon, counting such things to be sacred secrets." Lastly, I 
decline to answer tliis odious question, this unconstitutional question, 
because it violates my rights under the first, fifth, ninth, and tenth 
amendments to the Constitution of tlie United States, upon which this 
conunittee was so ai)tly instructed yesterday by the legal profession. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 4055 

Mr. Tavenner. Have you ever held a Communist Party member- 
ship book ? 

Dr. Keynoi-ds. This is essentially the same question, and the answer 
to it is the same and the grounds are the same. 

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

Dr. Eeynolds. If this committee is going to insist on being dull 
and monotonous, I shall be as dull and monotonous as the committee 
and give you the same answer on the same grounds. 

Mr. Tavenner. Have you 

Mr. Wood. Do you give the same answer on the same grovmds ? 

Dr. Keynolds. The same answer and the same grounds. 

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

Dr. Rey'NOLds. The same answer and the same grounds. 

Mr. Tavenner. No further questions. 

Mr. Wood. Are there any questions? Any reason why the witness 
should not be excused ? 

Mr. Ta\"enner. No, sir. 

Mr. Wood. It is so ordered, and the committee will stand in recess 
for 15 minutes. 

(The witness was excused and a brief recess was taken.) 

(The committee members present at this point were Representa- 
tives John S. AVood, Clyde Doyle, Harold H. Velde, and Donald L. 
Jackson.) 

Mr. Wood. Let us have order, please. 

Counsel, who will you have ? 

Mr. Tavenner. Dr. Ben Lieberman. 

Mr. Wood. Dr. Lieberman, will you raise your right hand, please? 
Do you solemnly swear the evidence you shall give this subcommittee 
shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so 
help you God ? 

Dr. LiEHERMAN. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. BENJAMIN M. LIEBERMAN, ACCOMPANIED BY 
HIS COUNSEL, ROBERT W. KENNY, THOMAS G. NEUSOM, AND 
DANIEL G. MARSHALL 

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

Dr. Lieberman. Benjamin M. Lieberman — L-i-e-b-e-r-m-a-n. 

Mr. Tavenner. When and where were you born ? 

Dr. Lieberman. Born in New York City the 19th day of July 1903. 

Mr. Tavenner. I believe you are i-epresented by the same counsel 
that appeared with the former witness? 

Dr. Lieber3ian. I am very proud to be represented by this very 
able counsel. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you a resident of Los Angeles? 

Dr. Lieberman. I am. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long have you lived here ? 

Dr. Lieberman. Some 30 years, just perhaps a month short. 

Mr. Tavenner. What is your profession ? 

Dr. Lieberman. I am a physician, doctor of medicine. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long have you practiced your profession in 
Los Angeles? 

95008— 52— pt. 3 11 



4056 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Dr. LiEBERMAN. I WRS admitted to practice in the State in ISIarch 
of 1932. 

Mr, Tavenner. Have you ever used the name "M. Landau,"" 
L-a-n-d-a-u? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Dr. LiEBERMAN. I decline to answer that question on the grounds 
of the fifth amendment. 

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

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Dr. LiEBERMAN. Ou tliis question I feel that I should give more 
than a "yes" or "no" response, and I shall decline to answer that ques- 
tion on the following grounds : 

First, because I think the question itself violates my constitutional 
rights under the first amendment, and that it is an invasion of my 
privacy of belief, thoughts, ideas, and associations. 

And secondly — and I wish I had the eloquence that some of the legal 
fraternity had here yesterday to tell you why — I also use the ninth 
and tenth amendments, in which I am informed the committee does 
not have the right to investigate into any area in which it cannot 
legislate. 

And furthermore, I decline on the grounds of the fifth amendment, 
which not only gives me the privilege but the right and the duty, as a 
citizen, to decline to answer, in that I shall not testify against myself. 

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

Dr. LiEBERMAN. Well, this is a variation of the same question, and 
I shall decline to answer it on the grounds previously stated. 

Mr. Tavenner. I have no further questions. 

Mr. Wood. Mr. Doyle, do you have any questions? 

Mr. Doyle. I have no questions. 

Mr. Wood. Is there any reason why the witness should not be excused 
from further attendance on the committee ? 

Mr, Tavenner, No, sir. 

Mr. Wood. It is so ordered, 

(The witness was excused,) 

Mr, Wood, Wlio do you have next ? 

Mr, Tavenner, Dr, Jacob Druckman. 

Mr, Wood, Will you hold up your right hand and be sworn ? 

Do you solemnly swear the evidence you shall give this subcom- 
mittee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, 
so help you God ? 

Dr, Druckman. I do, 

Mr, Wood. Have a seat, 

TESTIMONY OF DR, JACOB S. DETJCKMAN, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS 
COUNSEL, ROBERT W. KENNY, THOMAS G. NEUSOM, AND DANIEL 
G. MARSHALL 

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

Dr, Druckman, My name is Jacob S. Druckman, M, D. 

Mr, Tavenner, When and where were you born. Doctor ? 

Dr, Druckman. I was born in New York City, August 11, 1907. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you reside in Los Angeles ? 

Dr. Druckman. I do. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 4057 

Mr. Ta\'enner. How long have you lived in Los Angeles ? 

Dr. Druckman. I have lived here approximately 15 years. 

Mr. Ta'st.nner. Will yon spell yonr name, please, sir ? 

Dr. Druckman. D-r-u-c-k-m-a-n. 

Mr. Taa^nner. How long have you been engaged in the practice 
of your profession in Los Angeles ? 

Dr. Druckman. Since 1937. 

Mr. Ta\tsnner. Dr. Druckman, shortly after Dr. Louise Light ap- 
peared before the Committee on Un-American Activities and identi- 
fied you as one of the medical branch or as a member of the medical 
branch of the Communist Party in Los Angeles, the Los Angeles 
Examiner published the comments made by several of those whose 
names had been mentioned, including you. The Examiner, on Janu- 
ary 22, 1952, at page 4, reports you as saying: 

I have never been called by the Un-American Activities Committee, and, as 
far as I know, my name has never been mentioned in testimony. 

But I would like to advise you that in addition to Dr. Light's testi- 
mony relating to you. Dr. Reznick, Dr. Samuel Reznick, appeared 
before this committee and identified you as a member of the medical 
branch of the Communist Party. 

Now, having assured you that your name has been mentioned in 
the testimony on those two occasions, will you now tell the committee 
whether or not the statements that you were a member are true ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Dr. Druckmax. In answer to tliat question, I feel, first, that I must 
explain to the committee my grounds for answering it. I choose not 
to divide my profession 

Mr. TA^'ENNER. Excuse me for just a moment. I don't quite under- 
stand. You say you want to explain your grounds for answering. 
May I suggest if you first answer it, and 

Dr. Druckman. I decline to answer the question, and the grounds 
are as follows : 

I decline to answer on the basis that one cannot separate himself 
from his work and from his profession. In other words, I feel that 
in speaking to this committee and in being investigated here, I am 
being investigated not only as a citizen but as a physician. I feel that 
any question that is directed toward any of my thinking or my associ- 
ations inevitably must involve my position as'a physician. 

Mr. TA^'ENNER. Let me interrupt you at that point. Do you take 
the position that a member of the medical profession has an immunity 
from testifying in an investigation of communism, which is not en'- 
joyed by a member of a labor union or someone in the field of enter- 
tainment? 

Mr. Marshall. The witness Avill not yield to the interruption. 

Mr. Tavenner. I liave a right to ask him to explain it. 

Mr. Wood. Please let tlie witness do his own answering. Tlie i)r()v- 
ince of counsel is to advise the witness whatever his rights are, but let 
tlie witness do his own speaking, please. 

Mr. Marshall. May it be understood that the witness has adopted 
tlie statement that I have just made? 

Mr. Wood. If the witness says so. 

Dr. Druckman. I most certainly do, and I want to thank (lie 
counsel. 



4058 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. Wood. The committee will not permit, hereafter, counsel to 
make a statement and ask the witness if he adopts it. Let the witness 
make his own statement. 

Dr. Druckman. May I continue, Mr. Tavenner? 

Mr. Tavenner. No. I want to ask you to make plain your position, 
whether you claim that there is an immunity enjoyed by the medical 
profession which is not extended to members of the, say, labor unions 
or in the field of entertainment? 

Dr. Druckman. I claim that there is an immunity of all citizens, 
and perhaps best known by the medical profession, from the virus 
and the poison and the evil intents that this committee wishes to foist 
and to propagate into the minds of citizens. I claim that immunity. 

Mr. Tavenner. Well, is that an immunity which you say or you 
contend can be enjoyed only by members of the medical profession? 

Dr. Druckman. On the contrary, I pointed out that I was not only 
a member of the medical profession, but also a citizen, and that the 
two cannot be separated, but that as a member of the medical profes- 
f ion we have a very keen nose for the odor of disease. 

Mr. Tavenner. And, therefore, a greater amount of immunity, is 
that it? 

Dr. Druckman. Not a greater amount of immunity, but perhaps 
a need to protect it more vigilantly than others, just as we protect the 
health of our patients in our community as vigilantly 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you think that you are entitled to greater im- 
munity than the leader of a labor union, or someone working in gov- 
ernment ? 

Dr. Druckman. I refuse to enter into comparisons of professional 
smears. I think the labor union leaders can take care of their own 
privileges. I am interested in pointing out to the committee how 
I must defend mine. 

Now, to continue, I feel that by being asked this question, that you 
are invading not only my rights as a citizen as guaranteed by the 
Constitution, but also, and inseparably and inextricably linked, are 
my rights as a physician, whicli are not only rights given to me as 
an individual but are rights which flow from the community to me, 
and in turn flow back to them. They are rights which are directed 
to maintaining the basis of the Hippocratic oath, rights which are 
reflected in the development and furtherance of medical science, so 
that even members of this committee benefit by maintaining and per- 
petuating the integrity of the medical profession, which is being 
attacked by bringing us before you today. 

I want to further point out 

Mr. Tavenner. Let me interrupt you again there. We are not 
bringing you here because you are a member of the medical profes- 
sion. We are bringing you here because, under sworn testimony 
before this committee, you have knowledge regarding the matter 
which is being investigated. 

Dr. Druckman. Again, I want to make the grounds of my answer 
very clear to you. I feel that by bringing me here today, whatever 
your intent may be, it has a social and political effect on the commu- 
nity, and that effect is that I am a doctor, and this raises doubt, fear, 
and insecurity in the minds of the community, not only in regard to 
me but in regard to all doctors. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 4059 

Mr. Tavenner. And, tlierefore, this committee sliould not call 
before it anyone who happens to be a member of the medical pro- 
fession ? 

Dr. Druckman. I think tliis committee should not call anyone 
before it, because it is invading constitutional rights. 

(The witness conferred Avith his counsel.) 

Mr. Wood. Doctor, have you finished outlining the reasons behind 
your refusal to answer the question ? If not, please proceed with your 
reasons. 

Mr. Marshall. I think the record now discloses that three ques- 
tions 

Mr. Wood. I have asked the doctor a question, and I want him to 
answer me. 

Mr. Marshall. Sir, there is a pending question which he didn't 
complete his answer on. 

Mr. Wood. I am asking the doctor a question now, and if you have 
any further reasons to offer as to why you do not want to answer these 
questions, without argument 

Dr. Druckman. I want to continue with my reasons. 

Mr. Wood. Without argument. 

Dr. Druckman. Except as I am being provocated into argument 
by counsel. 

Mr. Wood. Proceed. 

Dr. Druckman. I would like to continue and point out that one 
of the bases, or the basis for the mental health and physical health 
of the community lies in the fullest degree of confidence that people, 
and particularly patients, may have in their physicians. I feel that 
by being brought before this committee, that you are not only im- 
pugning me as a citizen but as a physician ; and becoming a physician 
has been a matter of great difficulty and the spending of many hours 
of study and of studying people in illness and in death, and in study- 
ing health departments and in studying communities and the State 
and the Nation, and in studying the effects of the economic currents 
on the lives of people. Much goes into the making of a physician. 
And here today, you bring me as well as others before you, I feel 
with little understanding of what effect you are really having on the 
community. 

It is my feeling that the respectable Congressmen here may be in 
ignorance of some of the things that they accomplish 

Mr. Wood, Doctor, we do not want to be lectured, please, sir. Will 
you finish your reasons, and eliminate the arguments? I do not feel 
that we need any lecture here. We came here to do our duty. 

Dr. Druckman. I feel that m refusing to answer this question as a 
citizen-physician, that I also refuse to enter into a plan which I feel 
this committee is a part of, a plan which directs itself consciously and, 
let us say, unconsciously, to certain ends which are inimical to the 
interests of the American people, not only in regard to their health 
in direct ways, but also in ways which affects their security, and in 
ways which affects their thinking, and in ways which makes them 
frightened, and in ways which makes them avoid going places and 
doing things that they would ordinarily do. 

In other words, I feel that you are using the immunity of your 
committee to sow the germ and the virus in the minds and the hearts 



4080 COMMTJNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

of the American people wliicli in the end, like all epidemics, will 
destroy those who provocate it. 

Mr. Wood. Now,- we have been very patient with that part of the 
argument, and I am not going to permit any more. 

Do you have any reasons why you refuse to answer this question ; 
and if so, please state them. 

Dr. Druckman. I do have some reasons. 

Mr. Wood. State them without the arguments. 

Dr. Druckman. I will give the reasons that were so ably developed 
by the legal profession. 

I think my grounds for refusing to answer this question on the 
basis of the first amendment of the Constitution, which guarantees me 
the right 

Mr. Wood. The committee knows what it guarantees. 

Dr. Druckman, The first amendment, the fifth amendment, the 
ninth and tenth amendments of the Constitution. And in taking the 
privilege of these amendments and refusing to answer this question, 
I do not in any way render up any shred of collusion or involvement, 
as was inferred by the nature of the question. 

Mr. Tavenner. Forgetting, for the moment, that you are a mem- 
ber of the medical profession, and without asking you any questions 
as a doctor, just tell this committee, if you will, anything you know 
about the organization of this Communist Party cell and the purposes 
in organizing it; that is, the one established and shown to have been 
established in Los Angeles and confined to members of the medical 
profession. 

Dr. Druckman. Mr. Tavenner, I went to great length to point 
out that that separation that you ask is impossible, and it is impos- 
sible ; and furthermore, I cannot relinquish the 

Mr. Wood. Do you answer the question, or not ? 

Dr. Druckman. It has taken me the greater part of my life to be- 
come a pliysician 

Mr. Wood. Will you answer the question, please, Doctor ? 

Dr. Druckman. Therefore, I refuse to answer that question on the 
grounds previously mentioned. 

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

Dr. Druckman. I must refuse to answer that question on the same 
grounds. 

Mr. Wood. You do not "have to refuse," please. Doctor. Do you 
refuse? 

Dr. Druckman. I do refuse to answer it on the same grounds. 
Thank you for the parliamentary advice. 

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

Dr. Druckman. I refuse to answer the question on the same grounds. 

Mr. Tavenner. That is all. I have no further questions. 

Mr. Doyle. May I just ask a question there ? 

You stated the degree of mental health which the community has 
depends upon the degree of confidence which the community has in 
the medical profession. 

Dr. Druckman. If I did, it was an incorrect inference. The degree 
of mental health rests on the degree of health that lies in the influences 
which affect the community. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 4061 

Ml\ Doyle. I think the record will show what you stated. I wrote 
it down pretty substantially. 

Does the degree of your mental attitude toward this committee have 
any relationship to the organizations of which you are a member? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Dr. Druckman. That is obviously a question which is designed, 
again, to impugn my character 

Mr. Doyle. Not to impugn your character. 

Dr. Druckman. And also to reduce the confidence and the respect 
which patients have in me; and therefore, I refuse to answer that 
-question. 

Mr. Doyle. I assure you, Doctor, that I am not trying to impugn 
your character or reduce the amount of respect your patients have 
in you, but you undertook to give a considerable dissertation on those 
things, and you undertook to charge this committee with distribution 
of vh'us and epidemic, and I want you to know, as another professional 
man, that I think that that is a warped conception, and I resent it 
immensely. 

Now, one question : Did you ever go into the relationship, or will 
you give us an opinion on the effect it has, of being a Communist, as 
relates to Communist relationship to the community ? Will you give 
us that, if you are qualified to do so ? 

Dr. Druckman. I will say this. Congressman Doyle, that if you 
aren't aware of what you are doing, as many people are with illnesses, 
you should be examined by a competent physician to find out 

Mr. Doyle. I am not going to sit here as a member of this committee 
and allow you to go unchallenged when you challenge this committee 
with distributing virus and epidemic, and I want you to know it. I 
deny your insults. 

Dr. Druckman. "We found many patients with tuberculosis who 
have the same attitude. 

Mr. Doyle. And we find many Communists who have the same atti- 
tude that you have. 

Mr. Marshall. Are there any other questions of the witness? 

Mr. Wood. I will make that inquiry, please, sir. 

Mr. Walter. May I ask a question ? 

Doctor, you have testified that the residents of the community will 
have lost their respect for you if you were to answer the question as to 
whether or not you were a member of the Communist Party, is that 
correct ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Dr. Druckman. I do not think that I said that. Congressman. I 
won't waste the valuable time of the committee in asking the record 
to be reread. I will rephrase what my thoughts were on the matter. 

I said that as a citizen-physician, that in answering any question 
of the nature propounded, I would be giving up my rights of free 
speech and association ; and in doing so, that my patients would have 
no confidence in me, because they could not trust me. 

Mr. Walter. Do you mean that, or do you mean that they would 
not trust you if you admitted that you were a member of a conspiracy 
to overthrow this Government that has given to you so many things? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 



4062 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Dr. Druckman. This may be your distorted way, Mr. Congressman, 
of interpreting my answer, but I think that the English I used is very 
clear, and I meant what I said. 

]\fr. Wood. Are there any further questions? Mr. Velde? Mr. 
Jackson ? 

Mr. Jackson. Have you been asked today any questions touching 
upon the relationship between you and your clients of a confidential 
nature ? 

Dr. Druckman. No, sir, but the questions involve such a relation- 
ship. 

Mr. Jackson. Do the questions involve a confidential relationship 
with an international conspiracy known as communism, and not any 
relationship between you and your clients ? 

Dr. Druckman. I happen to be practicing medicine in Los Angeles, 
and spending the greater part of my time dealing with patients, and 
I have no other activities of the nature that you wish to impugn. 

Mr. Jackson. Then you are not a member of the Communist Party 
at the present time? 

Dr. Druckman. I refuse to answer that question, on the gromids 
previously stated. 

Mr. Jackson. No further questions. 

Mr. Wood. Is there any reason why the witness should not be 
excused ? 

Mr. Tavenner. No, sir. 

Mr. Wood. It is so ordered. 

(The witness was excused.) 

Mr. Wood. I think that we had better stop for lunch. 

The committee stands in recess for an hour and a half, and we will 
reconvene at a quarter to 2. 

(Whereupon, at 12:20 p. m., the hearing was recessed until 1:45 
p. m., of the same day.) 

AFTERNOON SESSION 

(The subcommittee reconvened at 1:55 p. m., the following mem- 
bers being present at this point : Representatives John S. Wood, Fran- 
cis E. Walter, Clyde Doyle, Harold H. Velde, and Donald L. Jackson.) 

Mr. Wood. The committee will be in order, please. 

Who do you call, Mr. Counsel ? 

Mr. Tavenner. Dr. Thomas Perry. 

Mr. Wood. Do you solemnly swear the evidence you shall give this 
subcommittee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and notliing but the 
truth, so help you God? 

Dr. Perry. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. THOMAS L. PERRY, JR., ACCOMPANIED BY HIS 
COUNSEL, ROBERT W. KENNY, DANIEL G. MARSHALL, AND 
THOMAS G. NEUSOM 

Mr. Tavenner. Wliat is your name, please, sir? 
Dr. Perry. My name is Thomas Lockwood Perry, Jr. 
Mr. Ta^^nner. For the benefit of the record, this witness is repre- 
sented by the same counsel as the preceding witnesses. 
When and where were you born, Doctor? 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 4063 

Dr. Perry. I was born in Asheville, N. C, on August 10, 1916. 

Mr, Ta\^nner. Do you now live in Los Angeles ? 

Dr. Perry. Yes; I do. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long have you lived in Los Angeles ? 

Dr. Perry. I have lived in Los Angeles for the last 5 years. 

Mr, Tavenner. AVhat is your profession? 

Dr, Perry, I am a physician. I am a pediatrician, and I believe I 
am the first pediatrician you have called before you, and I feel you 
really should have had an obstetrician first so that I could carry the 
baby from there. 

I might add that I am certified by the American Board of Pediatrics 
as a specialist in pediatrics. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long have you been engaged in the practice of 
your profession in Los Angeles? 

Dr. Perry. For the last 5 years. 

Mr. Tavenner. Doctor, there has been testimony before the Com- 
mittee on Un-American Activities identifying you as 

Dr. Perry, Excuse me. Mr. Tavenner. Perhaps I should give some- 
thing of my educational background, because I believe it is pertinent 
to the record, and I don't know whether 

Mr. Wood. Will you please just answer the questions that are asked 
you, if you can? 

Dr. Perry. Well, I would like to have permission to give something 
of my educational background and my military service, because I 
know that you have asked this of other witnesses, and I believe it is 
proper for identification, 

Mr. Tavenner. I will give you the opportunity to do it presently. 

As I was stating, there has been evidence before the committee by 
the witnesses Dr. Light — possibly that is the only witness, but at least 
by Dr. Light — that you were a member of a group or cell of the Com- 
munist Party established in Los Angeles, the membership of which 
was confined to the medical profession. 

I want to ask you whether or not you were a member of such a 
group, and then I will follow it by the question of what you know 
about it and what its purposes were, if you know. 

Dr. Perry. Before I answer that question, Mr. Tavenner, I would 
like to ask the chairman whether or not I will be permitted to state 
my educational record. Is the committee afraid to hear 

Mr. Tavenner. I stated to you that I proposed to ask you that 
question. 

Dr. Perry. I think it would be more proper if it came in in its 
proper place, 

Mr. Wood. The committee will judge the propriety with which it 
conducts the investigations, and will you answer the question, or not? 

Dr, Perry, If I am directed to, I certainly will. 

Mr. Wood, That is right, 

Dr, Perry. Will you read the question again, please? 

(Whereupon, the pending question was read by the reporter.) 

Dr. Perry. Mr. Tavenner, I shall and do decline to answer this 
question, and I wish to give the following reasons for my refusal 
to answer: 

In the first place, I have no intention of answering any questions 
regarding statements of or knowledge of or association with people 
who have turned informer before your committee. 



4064 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

In the second place, I wish to state that I feel this investigation into 
the medical profession in Los Angeles to be unwarranted meddling 
and something which can only endanger the high standards of my 
profession and endanger the quality of medical care given to the 
people in Los Angeles; and as a physician, I consider the health needs 
of the people in this community to be very important. 

I would like to give you an example which will show you 

Mr. Wood. We do not want argument. We want reasons. 

Dr. Perry. I will give you a reason. It bears out what I have said. 

A few months ago 

Mr. Wood. That is an argument, and we are not going to hear argu- 
ments. Have you any further reasons why you are not answering 
this question? 

Dr. Perry. I do have further reasons. 

Mr. Wood. Well, state them, please. 

Dr. Perry. I would like to be given the courtesy to answer the 
question in my own way. 

Mr. Wood. I am giving you the opportunity to answer. 

Dr. Perry. I am a physician, and I am used to being treated cour- 
teously, and I have waited a long time for these hearings and my 
patients have been kept waiting who are sick 

Mr. Wood. Just answer the question, and then we will get you back 
to your practice. 

Dr. Perry. I believe that this investigation does hurt the health of 
the people of this community. An example is the firing of three 
doctors from the Cedars of Lebanon Hospital as a direct result of 
the interference of this committee. 

Mr. Wood. We do not want argument, and I have just told you we 
do not want arguments. Now, will you please give your reasons? 

Dr. Perry. I am giving my reasons, and I am trying to do it in the 
best way I can ; and if the committee would not get angry with me 
it would be a great deal easier. 

Mr. Wood. I am not getting angry with you, but I am getting 
awfully weary. 

Mr. Doyle. You see, if you will just confine yourself to reasons, you 
will get back to your sick patients that much faster. 

Dr. Perry. I will give my reasons in my own way, and I believe 
that I have that right, as all other witnesses who have appeared before 
you here. 

Mr. Wood. None of them have been given the right to argue. 

Dr. Perry. I don't want to argue at all, and I am not an argumenta- 
tive sort of person. 

Mr. Wood, That is what you are doing right now. 

Now, have you got any further reasons to offer why you are not 
answering this question? 

^ Dr. Perry. I do have further reasons for not answering the ques- 
tion. 

Mr. Wood. State them. 

Dr. Perry. I believe that the investigation being carried on by this 
committee, of the medical profession, is in violation of the first amend- 
ment to the Constitution of the United States; and I value that Con- 
stitution, because my people came over on the Mayftoioer^ and my 
mother's people 

Mr. Wood. That is argument again, and we all value it. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 4065 

Dr, Perry. I am sorry to appear argumentative. I am trying to 
state the reasons. 

Mr. Wood. All right, yon said the first amendment. Now, any 
other ? 

Dr. Perry. I value the Constitution of this country very dearly, and 
it means a great deal to me, and my people 

Mr. Wood. So do all of us, but don't argue the question, please sir. 
Have you got any further reasons ? The first amendment is a reason. 
Now, do you want to state any other ? 

Dr. Perry. I wish to complete my statement. 

Mr. Wood. 1 am not going to permit you to argue this matter. 

Dr. Perry. It is my feeling that the first amendment does not give 
this committee the right to investigate into anybody's political beliefs, 
religion, associations, speech, or any of these things, and I believe 
that the entire investigation which is being carried out here this week 
is entirely unconstitutional and illegal. 

My next ground is that I believe that to answer the question which 
you have asked me would violate my rights under the fifth amendment, 
which provides that no person may be compelled to testify against 
himself. And my people came over from England precisely because of 
the persecution which the Puritans were suffering from. 

Mr. Wood. We are familiar with the provisions of the fifth amend- 
ment. 

Dr. Perry. I wish to give another reason from my refusal to answer 
this question. I do not believe this to be a duly constituted committee 
of Congress, because it is my belief that its chairman is not legally 
a Member of Congress, in violation of the second section of the four- 
teenth amendment to the Constitution, which provides that when the 
people of any State, in an election for Congress, are denied the right 
to vote, as they are in Georgia, the re])resentation from that area shall 
be decreased. And I do not believe that any of the present Congress- 
men from Georgia have been legally elected to the Congress of the 
United States. 

These are the reasons why I refuse to answer the question which 
you have directed to me. 

Mr. Jackson. I ask unanimous consent of the committee that the 
references to the chairman, personal references to the chairman and 
other Members of Congress, be stricken from the record. 

Mr. Wood. I do not object to it staying in, because if the witness 
is no better informed about the other things he has offered here than 
he is about the laws of Georgia with reference to voting, he has very 
little grasp about it, because we have the most liberal voting laws of 
any State in the Union. 

Mr. Jackson. Your logic is overwhelming. I withdraw. 

Mr. Wood. In my State, anybody over 18 years of age can vote. 

Are there any further questions ? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes, sir. I promised the witness I would give him 
an opportunity to state his war record. 

Wliat has been your service in the military ? 

Dr. Perry. My service in the Army — I served for 3 years from 
1943 to 1946. Two of these years were spent overseas in combat as a 
member of General Patton's Third United States Army. I was 
awarded five bronze battle stars for participation in major campaigns 
in Europe, and I reached the rank of major in the Army. I consider 



4066 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

it a privilege to have served under General Patton and to have played 
a part in the defeat of German fascism. _ • j.» 

Mr. Tavenner. What does your educational experience consist ot i 

Dr. Perry. My educational training for my profession is as follows : 

I attended Harvard College, where I was graduated with an A. B. 
degree, summa cum laude, in 1937, and I was elected to membership 
in Phi Beta Kappa and in Sigma Chi, which is an honorary scientific 
society, as a result of research I did at that time. 

I was then elected a Rhodes scholar to Oxford University from the 
State of North Carolina, and I studied at Christ Church College at 
Oxford from 1937 to 1939; received my B. A. degree, which is the 
equivalent of a master's degree in this country. 

I attended Harvard Medical School, and I was graduated cum 
laude with my M. D. degree in 1942. 

Following this, I was an intern at the Roosevelt Hospital m New 
York City; and later, after finishing my active duty in the Army, 
I was an intern at the New York Hospital, and later a resident and a 
fellow in pediatrics at the Los Angeles Children's Hospital. 

In addition, I would like to say that, as a result of being born m 
the South, I learned from my earliest years to respect the rights of 
minority peoples, and it has always been my feeling 

Mr. Wood. That has got nothing to do with your qualifications as a 
doctor. 

Dr. Perry, I feel it is a part of my education. 

Mr. Wood. The Chair holds it is not. 

Do you have any further questions for the witness? 

Mr. Tavenner. When were you a Rhodes scholar ? 

Dr. Perry. From 1937 to 1939. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you acquainted with Duncan Lee? 

Dr. Perry. I refuse to answer on the basis of the fifth amendment. 

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

Dr. Perry. I refuse to answer on the basis of the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you acquainted with Donald Niven Wheeler ? 

Dr. Perry. I refuse to answer on the basis of the fifth amendment 
to the Constitution. 

Mr. Walter. As a matter of curiosity, I would like to know who 
these three people are whose names you mentioned. 

Mr. Doyle. Who were they ? 

Mr. Tavenner. Wheeler has been identified as a member of the 
Communist Party. 

Dr. Perry, Is this the Mr. Wheeler who is here ? 

Mr. Tavenner, I gave you the opportunity of stating whether you 
knew him ; and, so, let me ask you again : Are you acquainted with 
Donald Niven Wheeler? 

Dr, Perry, I give you the same answer that I gave you before, 

Mr. Tavenner, I think that that answers your question, 

Mr, Chairman, you have asked me a question to divulge certain 
information here which has been the subject of executive session, testi- 
mony in executive session, and a matter wdiich is at present under 
investigation. I am just wondering whether you want me to proceed 
to describe these persons, in the light of that situation? 

Mr. Walter, Are these three persons Communists ? 

Mr, Tavenner, Yes, sir. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 4067 

Mr. Walter. Then do I understand your reason for not answering 
the question whether or not you know them is because they are 
Communists? 

Dr. Perky. I have given you my reasons for refusing to answer 
them : Tliat I will not answer on the basis of the fifth amendment, and 
that is all that I will answer about it. 

Mr. Wood. Any further questions? 

Mr. Tavenner! No further questions. 

Just a moment. 

Are you now a member of the Communist Party ? 

Dr. Perry. I refuse to answer this question for the reasons which I 
have previously given. 

(Further remarks made by the witness were ordered stricken from 
the record.) 

Mr. Tavenner. Have vou ever been a member of the Communist 

Party? 

Dr. Perry. I refuse to answer this question on the same grounds I 
have previously given. 

Mr. Tavenner. I have no further questions. 

Mr. Doyle. Where did you say you were born, and when? 

Dr. Perry. I was born in Asheville, N. C, August 10, 1916. I am 
very proud, as a southerner, to have a Negro attorney representing 
me here, and I consider it a real honor. 

Mr. Doyle. Are you a member of the Los Angeles Medical Associa- 
tion? 

Dr. Perry. No; I am not a member of the Los Angeles County 
Medical Association, because up to this point I have not made suffi- 
cient money in my practice to be able to afford the initiation dues, but 
I have applied, and expect to join in the near future. 

Mr. Doyle. Are you a member of any other professional medical 
organization in the country? 

Dr. Perry. I belong to hospital staffs, and the Phi Beta Kappa, and 
T have mentioned that, and the Sigma Chi Society. 

Mr. Doyle. Why didn't you plead the fifth amendment when I 
asked if you were a member of those organizations? That is an 
inquiry into your memberships. Why did you plead the fifth amend- 
ment when we asked you about the Communist Party, but not when 
we asked you about the medical associations ? 

Dr. Perry. Because, Mr. Doyle — I think that the answer is very 
simple — your committee has branded — unconstitutionally, I believe, 
and without investigation — certain organizations as being subversive, 
and you have not branded others, and I am not willing for you to 
connect me with organizations which you consider subversive and for 
wdiich you might subsequently stimulate prosecution. 

Mr. Doyle. Do you consider the Communist Party subversive? 

Dr. Perry. I refuse to answer any questions about it for the reasons 
that I have given. 

Mr. Doyle, Then your test, young man, is this : That it is not a 
matter of inquiry by us into associations that you object to, I take it ; it 
is only an inquiry on our part as to whether or not you are a Commu- 
nist, and that is what you object to, or whether or not we ask you if 
you are a member of any organization which we have listed as sub- 
versive, or the Attorney General, because you have volunteered the 



4068 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

fact that you are not a member of these other groups. So, it is not 
a bona fide answer on your part — is it? — that you feel we have no 
constitutional right to inquire into your membership or associations? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Doyle. If I am in error, you tell me so, young man. 

Dr. Perry. My answer to your question. Congressman Doyle, is 
that I do not believe this committee has the authority to inquire into 
any of my associations, under the first amendment. However, I may 
choose, under certain circumstances, to tell you certain things about 
my associations or certain things about my opinion. But I do not 
believe you have the right to ask me anything about myself, or to call 
me or any other doctors before you. 

Mr. Doyle. I notice that you objected to our asking you about 
^vhether or not you were a Communist or had been, but you had no 
objection to our inquiring as to whether or not you were a member of 
certain professional or honorary associations. 

Dr. Perry. Then perhaps I have not made myself clear. Let me 
make it very clear that I object to the entire investigation, and I 
object to every question which I have been asked here, and every 
question which my colleagues have been asked here. 

Mr. Doyle. Why, of course 

Dr. Perry. And the sooner this committee goes back to Washington 
and lets me get back to my practice, and letting other doctors taking 
care of the health of the citizens of this community, the better we 
will all be. 

Mr. Doyle. May I just suggest this to you, young man : The sooner 
you disassociate yourself with the Communist Party and the activities 
of the Communist Party the better. 

You fought for this country, and other boys have died for this 
country, and I am amazed that, after you have had the God-given 
blessings you have had and the educational opportunities by our great 
Nation, you would come back here and identify yourself with any 
organization with which you are ashamed to admit identification. 

Dr. Perry. Nobody has said that I am identified with any of these 
organizations, and my using the fifth amendment in no way implies 
that I am associated with any of these organizations, and you know 
that as well as I do. 

Mr. D0Y1.E. I am not saying it does, young man, at all. You have 
a perfect right. 

Mr. Tavenner. Dr. Light has so testified. 

Mr. Jackson. Is there an identification of the witness as a member 
of the Communist Party? 

Mr, Tavenner. Yes; identification under oath by Dr. Light. 

Mr. DoYT.E. "Wliy don't you deny that testimony under oath, if you 
are so proud of your military service to our great Nation, and you are 
so proud of your educational qualifications, and you are so proud of 
the Nation that gave you birth? And you ought to be proud of it. 

Dr. Perry. I am very proud of it, and I am so proud of it that I 
will do everything to defend it and to increase its democracy, and I 
will do nothing to help you men destroy the democracy that my people 
helped build up in this country, and I will do everything to defend 
it, and I will do'it to my dying day. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 4069 

Mr. Doyle. The democracy we are trying to preserve is the democ- 
racy the Communist Party in this country is trying to destroy. That 
is the difference between your position and mine. 

Dr. Perry. The democracy you are trying to preserve is not the 
democracy of the Bill of Rights. 

Mr. Wood. Any further questions ? 

Mr. Ta\^nner. No questions. 

Mr. Velde. Mr. Chairman, I have no questions of the witness, but 
I would like to ask counsel if, in response to Mr. Walter's question 
concerning the present Communist membership of Dr. Boorstein, you 
intend to infer that he is presently a member of the Communist Party? 

Mr. Tavenner. No, sir; and I should make it clear that I am not 
speaking from personal knowledge, but only from testimony that has 
come before the committee. It 'is not that he is presently a member 
of the party. 

Mr. Wood. Are there any questions ? 

Is there any reason why the witness should not be excused from 
further attendance? 

Mr. Tavenner. No, sir. 

Mr. Wood. It is so ordered. 

(The witness was excused.) 

Mr. Wood. Let us have the next witness. 

Mr. Tavenner. Dr. Gordon Rosenblum. 

Mr. Wood. Do you solemnly swear the evidence you shall give this 
subcommittee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 
truth, so help you God? 

Dr. Rosenblum. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF LR. GORDON ROSENBLUM, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS 
COUNSEL, ROBERT W. KENNY, DANIEL G. MARSHALL, AND 
THOMAS G. NEUSOM 

Dr. Rosenblum. May I request no photographs be taken during- 



Mr. Wood. If you desire, sir, none to be made, w^e will have to respect 
the witness' wishes. 

You are willing for them to take the photographs now ? 

Dr. Rosenblum. Yes. 

Mr. Wood. The witness says he is perfectly willing for you [news 
photographers] to photograph him now, but not during his testimony. 

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

Dr. Rosenblum. My name is Gordon Rosenblum. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you spell your last name ? 

Dr. Rosenblum. R-o-s-e-n-b-l-u-m. 

Mr. Tavenner. For the benefit of the record, it appears that the 
same counsel represent this witness as the previous witness. 

Mr. Neusom. That is correct. 

Mr. Tavenner. When and wliere were you born, Doctor ? 

Dr. Rosenblum. I was born on September 30, 1904, not more than 8 
blocks from this hearing room, in Los Angeles City. 

Mr. Tavenner. You are now a resident of Los Angeles ? 

Dr. Rosenblum. I have lived here all of my life. 

Mr. Tavenner. What is your profession ? 



4070 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Dr. RosENBLUM. I am a physician and surgeon. And may I request 
the same privilege that was granted to Dr. Perry, of stating my back- 
ground ? I feel that the committee has a right to know whom they are 
interrogating. 

Mr. Tavenner. I will be very glad to have it. If I have omitted 
that from any witness, it has been unintentional. 

What has been your educational background ? 

Dr. RosENBLUM. I was educated in the public schools of the city of 
Los Angeles. I attended Jefferson High School which, in the days 
that I attended it, was a school that was about half Negro and many 
Jews, and other minority races, and I merely want to state that I think 
everyone can get along well unless they are taught to hate each other. 

Following my graduation from high school, I attended the USC — • 
University of Southern California— College of Pharmacy, between 
the years of 1922 and 1924. 

Following that, I passed the State Board of Pharmacy of the State 
of California in 1925, and became a registered pharmacist. 

I then worked at that profession, with the thought in mind of 
accumulating enough money to enter medical school. 

Between the years of 1927 and 1930, I attended premedical classes, 
divided between the University of California in Los Angeles and the 
University of Southern California. 

In 1930, I entered the Medical School of the University of South- 
ern California, from which I graduated in 1934. 

In 1934, I served an intership of 1 year in the Los Angeles County 
General Hospital. 

Following that, I served the county of Los Angeles on the Los 
Angeles County Maternity Service. I am an obstetrician by specialty. 

Between the years of 1935 and 1939, I served as resident physician, 
obstetrics and gynecology, at the Los Angeles County General 

Hospital. . -r. 1 i. 

In 1941, I passed the examination of the American Board of 
Obstetrics and Gynecology, and became a member thereof. About 
that same time, I was elected a member of the Los Angeles Obstetrics 
and Gynecological Society, which is one of the most important so- 
cieties in that profession in the United States. 

I was elected to the council of that society, and I successively served 
as secretary-treasurer, vice president, and during the years of 1950 
to 1951, it was my honor to be the president of that society. 

During those same years I have been on the executive board of the 
Los Angeles Post Graduate Assembly, an obstetrical forum of this 
city, and I am a member of the American Medical Association, Cali- 
fornia Medical Association, Los Angeles and County Medical As- 
sociation. 

I have been a member of the Association for the Advancement of 
Science, and I am a member of the Association for the Study of In- 
ternal Secretions, of the American Society for the Study of Sterility, 
of the International Society for the Study of Sterility, and I am 
an instructor of obstetrics of the Southern California Medical School, 
although I don't know how long I will continue after this hearing. 

I served the county of Los Angeles 

Mr. Wood. In response to that, I hope that will be governed by 
your own conduct, sir. 

Proceed. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 4071 

Dr. RosENBLUM. I served the county of Los Anoeles as attending 
physician of obstetrics of the Los Angeles County Hospital from the 
years of approximately 1940 to 1951. 

Mr. Tavenner. Doctor, have you also been a member of the medical 
branch of the Communist Party in Los Angeles, a Comnumist organ- 
ization limited in membership to members of the medical profession? 

Dr. RosENBLUM. I am going to decline to answer that question, 
and I would like to state my reasons for declining. 

I am obviously no attorney, as you can gather from my record. 
Since receiving my subpena, I think I have learned more law than 
I ever knew existed before, and law doesn't run to my taste. I am 
a scientist. But I have learned a few little things that I can use 
in telling you why I must decline. 

I say "I must," because I feel in conscience impelled to decline. 

As I understand the Constitution of the United States under the 
Bill of Rights of the hrst amendment, no one, not even this committee, 
has a right to inquire of my beliefs and associations. 

I also understand that under the fifth amendment, no one may be 
compelled to be a witness against himself. 

Therefore, I am availing myself of the constitutional privilege of 
not answering that question. 

Mr. Taa^nner. Are you now a member of the Communist Party ? 

Dr. RosENBLUM. That is essentially the same question, and I would 
like to give you the same answer and make clear the same grounds, 
that I am using the first and the fifth amendments. 

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

Dr. RosENBLuivr. Well, that is the same question; and I w^ould like, 
for the record, to state my grounds are the same. 

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

Mr. Walter. I have no questions. 

Mr. Wood. If there are no questions, is there any reason why tho 
witness should not be excused? 

Mr. Tavenner. No, sir. 

Mr. Wood. It is so ordered. 

(The witness was excused.) 

Mr. Tavenner. Now, Mr. Chairman, at this point I want to digress 
from this line of questioning, and I would like to call as a witness 
Mr. Owen Vinson. 

Mr. Wood. Do you solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give 
this subcommittee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 
but the truth, so help you God ^ 

Mr. Vinson. I do. 

Mr. Marshall. Will the chairman hear me, sir? There are other 
of these medical witnesses that have been in the courtroom this after- 
noon and they wish to be called. 

Mr. Taa'enner. Mr. Chairman, I think I can obviate the necessity 
of any questioning about that. I am willing to stay here until 8 
o'clock tonight to hear those doctors, if the committee will. 

Mr. Wood. We will get to them in due time. Other people besides 
the doctors have been inconvenienced here. 

Mr. Walter. I see the doctors and the lawyers who made such a big 
to do, they are still here. 

95008— 52— pt. 3 12 



4072 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

TESTIMONY OF OWEN VINSON 

Mr. Wood. At any time during the progress of your interrogation, 
if you will tell me you would like to have counsel, please let it be 
known. 

Mr. Vinson. I will, sir. 

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

Mr. Vinson. My name is Owen Vinson. 

Mr. Ta\'enner. When and where were you born, Mr. Vinson? 

Mr. Vinson. I was born in a small town in the Dust Bowl of Kan- 
sas, in 1903. 

Mr. Ta\^nner. Are you a resident of Los Aiigeles ? 

Mr. Vinson. I am a resident of Los Angeles County, Santa Monica, 
to be exact. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long have you lived in Los Angeles ? 

Mr. Vinson. Since 194,5. 

Mr. Tavenner. What is your profession ? 

Mr. Vinson. Professionally, I am a director of radio programs. 

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

Mr, Vinson. I am a graduate of the East Denver High School in 
Denver, Colo., and a bachelor of arts degree from the University of 
Denver, also of Denver, Colo., and I have had some training in Den- 
ver at the Denver College of Music, and training since then has been 
more or less private training as a singer. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you state briefly your record of employment, 
whether it is self-employed or otherwise ? - 

Mr. Vinson. I would like to ask how far counsel would like me to 
go back into my record of employment. 

Mr. Ta^^nner. Not earlier than 1935. 

Mr. Vinson. About 1934, or 1931, I went into radio as a full-time 
occupation, as an actor and a radio singer and a writer, and I was 
with a station in Omaha, Nebr., until 1934, as I recall, at which time 
I went to Milwaukee, Wis., as chief of production of a regional net- 
work, which lasted a few months and folded. 

Then I went to Chicago in 1934 and I was Avith the Sam Insull 
Network, which was another regional network in Chicago, for about 
1 year. I do not recall tlie exact date, I think it was about 1936. 

From there I went to WLW in Cincinnati, as a director of programs, 
and was with tliem for two and a half years or so, until 1939, and the 
last year of which I was program director of the station. 

In 1939, in the fall, I went to Chicago as a director of two daytime 
serials, so-called soap operas, Koad of Life, and Woman in White, and 
I was doing this for the Call Western Co., which handled those pro- 
grams over the networks. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you speak a little louder, please ? -  

Mr. Vinson. In 1941, I believe it was, I became the producer-di- 
rector of a show called That Brewster Boy, which was on the network 
as a half-hour evening show for a period of three and a half years. 
^ When that program was canceled in the spring of 1945, I came to 
California, and in 1946 sold a show or became the producer-director 
of a shoAv called Let George Do It, which was later sold. I sold my 
rights m that to the Standard Oil Co. That was in 1947, in the spring 
of 1947. ' F to 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 4073 

Since that time my association with radio has been ahnost com- 
pletely severed. . , 

Mr. Tavenner. That is a fairly accurate description of your activity 
in the radio f eld without going into too great detail ? 

Mr. Vinson. Yes, I think without going into too much detail it is; 

yes, sir. . 

Mr. Tavenner. Well, during that ])eriod of time when you were 
active in the radio field, did you become a member of the Communist 
Party? 

Mr. Vinson. Yes, sir ; I did. 
Mr. Tavenner. When was that? 

Mr. Vinson. As nearly as I can recall, I became a member of the 
Communist Party in 1943, or thereabouts. 

Mr. Tave'nner. Are you now a member of the Communist Party ? 
Mr. Vinson. I am not. ^ 

Mr. Tavenner. How long did you remain a member of the Party ? 
Mr. Vinson. I disassociated myself from the party sometime in the 
late winter of 1947 or the early spring of 1948. 

Mr. Tavenner. Where were you when you became a member of 
the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Vinson. I became a member of the Communist Party in Chi- 
cago. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee the circumstances and 
how you were recruited into the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Vinson. Well, as I recall, two persons who I knew as members 
of the radio industry and who were associated with me in some of my 
programs or some of the programs which I was producing, asked me 
if 1 would like to become a member of the party, and they presented 
it as a means by which I could work more fully toward the improve- 
ment of conditions and the working conditions in my own branch of 
the industry as well as other branches of the radio industry, and to 
improve our working conditions, and it was principally through this 
argument that I joined the party. 

At that particular time tliere was a feeling, I think, of comparative 
good will toward the Soviet Union, and many men whose loyalty to 
this country has never been questioned thought of the Soviet Union at 
that time as being a country helping us a great deal, and we were an 
ally. I was not ])articularly conscious of any political implications 
when I went into the party. 

I said, I do not know anything about what the Communist Party 
is supposed to mean, and I was told that that was not an essential to 
joining the party as long as my heart was in the right place. I 
assumed that to mean as long as I felt or I had a sympathy for and 
understanding of my fellow workers. I believe that covers your 
question rather fully, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Now, you said there were two persons who were 
associated with you in your programs at that time, who suggested to 
you that you join the party. 
Mr. Vinson. That is right. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was Louis Scofield one of those persons? 
Mr. Vinson. That is right; Louis Scofield was. 
Mr. Tavenner. How do you spell his first name? 
Mr. Vinson. L-o-u-i-s. 
Mr. Tavenner. What is the spelling of his last name ? 



4074 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. Vinson. S-c-o-f-i-e-l-d. 

Mr. Tavenner. What was liis occupation ? 

Mr. Vinson. Louis Scofield was a writer, and previously had 
experience as an actor on radio programs. 

Mr. Tavenner. Who was the other person? 

Mr. Vinson. The other person was Louis Terkel. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you spell the name ? 

Mr. Vinson. T-e-r-k-e-1. 

Mr. Tavenner. Is the first name spelled L-o-u-i-s? 

Mr. Vinson. That is right. 

Mr. Ta\t.nner. What was his occupation? 

Mr. Vinson. He was an actor, a writer, and I think he did some 
work as a disc jockey. 

Mr. Tavenner. Well, at that time were these two persons active 
in the radio field or was it purely in the field of writing? 

Mr. Vinson. No ; they were active in the field of radio as writers, 
and as actors. 

Mr. Vei.de. Did they reside in Chicago at that time? 

Mr. Vinson. That is right. 

Mr. Tavenner. As a result of your agi^eeing to come into the party,, 
were you assigned to a group or cell of the party ? 

Mr, Vinson. As I recall, we met at that time in that neighborhood 
group, and a good many, if not a high percentage of the meetings 
were open meetings, in which the public was invited, and I can recall 
several meetings which I attended that were held in public halls with 
placards at the front of the building announcing that this was a 
Communist meeting. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you acquainted with the wives of both of the 

E arsons whose names have been mentioned, Louis Scofield and 
ouis Terkel ? 

Mr. Vinson. Yes; I was. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were they members of the same group or unit of 
the Communist Party that you were a member of? 

Mr. Vinson. I believe them to be. They attended the meetings. 

Mr. Tavenner. What was the name of Mrs. Scofield? Do you 
remember her first name? 

Mr. Vinson. I believe it was Janette, but I don't know how to spell 
it. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you recall the first name of Mrs. Terkel ? 

Mr. Vinson. It was Ida. 

Mr. Tavenner. During the period that you were a member of the 
party, did you hold any official position? 

Mr. Vinson. At the time I was a member of the party, in Chicago,, 
I did not hold any official position, if that is your question. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you acquainted with a person by the name of 
Ken Pettus ? 

Mr. Vinson. Yes, sir ; I was. 

Mr. Tavenner. Is that the correct spelling, P-e-t-t-i-s? 

Mr. Vinson. It was either "i-s" or "u-s." I do not know for sure. 
I think it is "u-s." 

Mr. Tavenner. Was Mr. Pettus known to you to be a member of the 
Communist Party 

Mr. Vinson. Mr. Pettus attended the meetings of the Communist 
Party, yes. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 4075 

Mr. TxWENNEK. Was that at Chicago ? 

Mr. Vinson. Yes, sir, that is right. 

Mr. Tavenner. What was his occupation? 

Mr. Vinson. Mr. Pettus ^Yas a writer. 

Mr. Tavenner. When you state that he attended meetings of the 
23arty, what type of meetings were those which he attended ? 

Mr. Vinson. Those were meetings of the neighborhood branches of 
the party. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know wliether or not he attended closed 
party meetings or whether the meetings at which you saw him were 
open meetings? 

Mr. Vinson. I don't recall of any particular instance where Mr. 
Pettus attended a closed party meeting. 

]\Ir. Tavenner. Are you confident and certain that he was a member 
of the Communist Party? 

Mr. Vinson. I would say that he was, yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. On what do you base your statement? 

Mr .Vinson. On personal association with him and talks with him 
outside of the meetings. I believe I would be correct in saying that 
he did attend closed meetings of the Communist Party, but I do not 
recall at this moment a specific instance of that. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know of any other, or have you told us the 
character of work that he was engaged in ? 

Mr. Vinson. I think I said he was a writer. 

Mr. Tavenner. In what field ? 

Mr. Vinson. In the field of radio. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long did you remain a member of the party in 
Chicago ? 

Mr. Vinson. Until I came to California in 1945. 

Mr. Tavenner. So you were a member of the party in Chicago ap- 
proximately 2 years ? 

Mr. Vinson. That is my guess, sir, without having kept any records 
of when I joined exactly ; that is right. 

Mr. Tavenner. Wlien you left Chicago, did you make any arrange- 
ments for your transfer to the Communist Party in Los Angeles ? 

Mr. Vinson. No, sir ; I did not. 

Mr, Tavenner. After you came to Los Angeles, did you become affili- 
ated with the Communist Party there ? 

Mr. Vinson. No, sir ; I did not, not immediately. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you subsequently become affiliated ? 

Mr. Vinson. Yes, sir ; I did. 

Mr. Tavenner. About how long was that after you came to Los 
Angeles ? 

Mr. Vinson. I came to Los Angeles in April of 1945, and I believe 
it was some time in the fall, October or November or December, I 
believe it was, or maybe the following year, when I again became as- 
sociated with the Communist Party in Los Angeles. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee the circumstances which 
led up to your affiliation with the Communist Party in Los Angeles? 

Mr. Vinson. The circumstances around which I became reaffiliated 
with the Communist Party are comparatively vague to me. As I re- 
call, some member of the Communist Party in Los Angeles contacted 
me and made themselves known to me, and informed me as to where 



4076 COMJMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

meetings would be held or there was to be a meeting, and asked me to 
come, and I do not recall who the person was at the time. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do yon know how that person or whether that per- 
son knew that you had been a member of the Communist Party in 
Chicago ? 

Mr. Vinson. I assume that that person knew, and I have no first- 
hand knowledge of how they knew and how they found out. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you recall who that person was ? 

Mr. Vinson. I do not recall. 

Mr. Tavenner. To what unit or gi'oup of the Communist Party 
were you then assigned ? 

Mr. Vinson. To the radio group. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know what section of the Communist Party 
that group was a part of ? 

Mr. Vinson. Well, I believe it was called the Hollywood section. 

Mr. Taatenner. Did you remain in that same group during the entire 
time you were a member in Los Angeles, or did you transfer to others ? 

Mr. Vinson. I was in that same group. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you hold any office in that group of the Com- 
munist Party ? 

Mr. Vinson. Yes ; I did. 

Mr. Tavenner. Wliat was it? 

Mr. Vinson. I was the treasurer of the unit for some months, I 
think probably 12 to 18 months. 

Mr. Tavenner. During that period of time, it was your duty to 
collect dues of the organization ? 

Mr. Vinson. That is right. 

Mr. Tavenner. What were the dues? 

Mr. Vinson. The dues, the dues schedule, you mean ? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes. 

Mr. Vinson. As I recall, there w\as a certain set dues based on in- 
come up to, I do not recall exactly, I think it was $50 a week, which 
was probably $2 dues a month, and above that there was an assess- 
ment or dues of 4 percent of the gross salary. 

Mr. Tavenner. How many members were there in your group; 
that is, the radio group ? 

Mr. Vinson. I would have to guess at somewhere around 20, maybe 
more, or that would be a minimum number, and I think that there 
were at least that many. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did they hold meetings ? 

Mr. Vinson. Yes; we did. 

Mr. Tavenner. How frequently were these meetings held ? 

Mr. Vinson. I would say the meetings would be held no more often 
than once a week, and sometimes every 2 weeks. 

Mr. Tavenner. Now, what was done and what was considered at 
those meetings ? 

Mr. Vinson. Our principal consideration in the meetings was the 
improvement of our craft and improvement of the working condi- 
tions in our craft. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you during that period of time receive Com- 
munist Party literature to study ? 

Mr. Vinson. We did; Communist Party literature was brought to 
the meetings and those who wished to purchase it did so. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 4077 

Mr. Tavenner. Were classes of instruction given at any of those 
meetings ? 

Mr. Vinson. There were at meetings so-called educational pro- 
grams in which we would be instructed, I would say, or informed as 
to procedure in our unions or the guilds and so on ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Who were the other officials of that group that you 
can recall ? - 

Mr. Vinson. Well, the officials were changed from time to time as 
we elected new ones. As I recall, the chairman of the group at one 
time was Billy Wolff. 

Mr. Tavenner. I am sorry ; I could not hear you. 

Mr. Vinson. Billy Wolff. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you say "Billy Wolff"? 

Mr. Vinson. Yes; who was the chairman of the group at one time. 

Mr, Tavenner. How do you spell the last name? 

Mr. Vinson. I guess it is W-o-l-f-f or W-o-l-f-f-e; I am not sure.^ 

Mr. Tavenner. What was his occupation ? 

Mr. Vinson. He was a radio writer, I believe, at that time. 

Mr. Tavenner. Can you give any other descriptive information, 
regarding him ? 

Mr. Vinson. That is about all I know about him. 

Mr. Tavenner. I am not certain whether I understood his first 
name. 

Mr. Vinson. Billy. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know whether his name was William, and 
Billy was the name that was used ? 

Mr. Vinson. I never heard him called anything but Billy. 

Mr. Tavenner. What was his position in the cell? 

Mr. Vinson. He would be termed "chairman" of the group, or I 
guess it was called "organizer." I am a little hazy as to the 
terminology. 

Mr. Tavenner. Can you give me the name of any other person who 
was an official of the group ? 

Mr. Vinson. Well, at another period of time I believe Hy Alex- 
ander was the chairman of the group. 

Mr. Ta\tdnner. Is that "Hy" or "Harmon"? 

Mr. Vinson. I believe the name was Harmon, called "Hy." 

Mr. Tavenner. What M\as his occupation? 

Mr. Vinson. He was a radio writer. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are there any other persons whom you can name 
who held positions in your Communist Party gi'oup ? 

Mr. Vinson. No. My memory as to who held positions in the group 
after a period of time is a little hazy. 

Mr. Tavenner. Where were the meetings held? 

Mr. Vinson. The meetings were held in the homes of various mem- 
bers of the Communist Party ; my home was one of them. 

Mr. Taa'enner. Do you recall whether the meetings were held at 
any time at the home of Hy Alexander ? 

Mr. Vinson. Yes; I believe they were. There were some meetings 
held there. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you acquainted with Sam Moore? 

Mr. Vinson. Yes ; I know Sam Moore. 

-1 See testimony of William Wolfif, p. 4218, Communist Activities Among Professional 
Orroups In the Los Angeles Area — Part 4. 



4078 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. TA^^ENNER. Was he a member of that group ? 

Mr. Vinson. Yes ; he was. 

Mr. Ta^^nner. How do you know that ? 

Mr. Vinson. He attended meetings, and I collected dues from him. 

Mr, Tavenner. What was his occupation ? 

Mr. Vinson. He was a radio writer. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were vou acquainted with a person by the name 
of Ruben Ship? 

Mr. Vinson. Yes ; I was. 

Mr. Tavenner. Ruben Ship appeared before this committee last 
September and refused to answer any material questions that were 
asked him. Was he a member of that group? 

Mr. Vinson. Yes ; he was. 

Mr. Tavenner. How do you know that? 

Mr. Vinson. He attended meetings and I collected dues from him, 
also. 

Mr. Tavenner. What was his occupation? 

Mr. Vinson. Radio w^riter. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you acquainted with Stanley Waxman? 

Mr. Vinson. Yes ; I know Stanley. 

Mr. Tavenner. What was his occupation ? 

Mr. Vinson. He is a radio actor. 

Mr, Tavenner. Was he a member of the group that you were a 
member of? 

Mr, Vinson. That is right, he was ; yes, sir, 

Mr, Tavenner. On what do you base your statement? 

Mr. Vinson. He attended meetings. 

Mr. Tavenner, Did you collect dues from him ? 

Mr, Vinson, Yes ; I did, 

Mr, Tavenner, Were you acquainted with Dave Ellis? 

Mr, Vinson, Yes, sir. 

Mr, Tavenner, What was his occupation ? 

Mr, Vinson, He was a radio actor and writer, 

Mr, Tavenner. Was he a member of your group ? 

Mr. Vinson. Yes ; he was. 

Mr. Tavenner. How do you know ? 

Mr. Vinson. He attended the meetings, and I collected dues from 
him. 

Mr, Tavenner. Now, can you recall the names of other persons from 
whom you collected Communist Party dues as a member of that unit 
of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Vinson. Lee Barrie. 

Mr, Tavenner, How do you spell his last name ? 

Mr. Vinson. It is Miss Lee Barrie, L-e-e B-a-r-r-i-e, 

Mr, Tavenner. That is two words ; the first name is Lee ? 

Mr, Vinson, That is right, 

Mr. Tavenner. And what is the spelling of the last name? 

Mr. Vinson. B-a-r-r-i-e. And Lynn Whitney. 

Mr. Tavenner. How do you spell the first name ? 

Mr, Vinson, L-y-n-n Wliitney. 

Mr, Tavenner. What was the profession of Lynn Whitney ? 

Mr. Vinson. She was an actress. 

Mr. Tavenner. And what was the profession of Lee Barrie ? 

Mr. Vinson. She was a singer, as I recall. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 4079 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you acquainted with a person by the name of 
Charles Glenn 'i 

Mr. Vinson. Yes ; I know Charles Glenn. 

Mr, Tavenner. What was his occupation when you knew him ? 

Mr. Vinson. I believe he was doing radio writing. 

Mr. Tavenner. He was doing radio writing ^ 

Mr. Vinson. That is right. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you ever collect Communist Party dues from 
Charles Glenn? 

Mr. Vinson. Yes, sir ; I did. 

Mr. Tavenner. How do you spell the last name ? 

Mr. Vinson. G-1-e-n-n, I suppose. 

Mr, Tavenner, Was he a member of your group or c^ll of the 
party ? 

Mr. Vinson. Yes, sir ; he was. 

Mr. Tavenner, Were you acquainted with Elaine Gonda ? 

Mr. Vinson. Yes, sir ; I was. 

Mr. Tavenner. E-1-a-i-n-e G-o-n-d-a; is that the correct spelling? 

Mr. Vinson. I think so. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you collect Communist Party dues from her ? 

Mr. Vinson. I did. 

Mr. Tavenner. Wliat was her occupation ? 

Mr. Vinson. She was in charge of some radio-transcription com- 
pany, as I recall ; the distribution of certain radio transcriptions. 

Mr. Tavenner, Are you acquainted with her married name? 

Mr. Vinson. She is Mrs. Glenn. 

Mr, Tavenner. Were you acquainted with Georgia Backus? 

Mr. Vinson. Yes ; I know Georgia Backus. 

Mr, Tavenner, "Wliat was her occupation? , 

Mr, Vinson, Radio actress, 

Mr. Tavenner. That is spelled B-a-c-k-u-s ? 

Mr. Vinson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you collect Communist Party dues from her? 

Mr, Vinson. Yes, sir; I did. 

Mr. Tavenner, Was she a member of your unit of the Communist 
Party? 

Mr. Vinson. She was. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you acquainted with a person by the name 
of Gene Stone? 

Mr, Vinson, Yes, 

Mr. Tavenner. What was his occupation ? 

Mr. Vinson. Radio writer. 

Mr. Tavenner. That is spelled G-e-n-e S-t-o-n-e ? 

Mr. Vinson. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you collect Communist Party dues from him? 

Mr. Vinson. Yes, sir; I did. 

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

Mr. Vinson. Yes; he was. 

Mr. Tavenner. Can you recall others from whom you collected 
Communist Party dues ? 

Mr, Vinson, Not at the moment. The names do not present them- 
selves to my mind at the moment. 

Mr, Tavenner, Do you recall a person by the name of Jack Rob- 
inson ? 



4080 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. Vinson. Yes ; I knew Jack Kobinson. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was he a member of that group ? 

Mr. Vinson. He was. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did yoii collect Communist Party dues from him ? 

Mr. Vinson. Yes; I did. 

Mr. Tavenner. What was his occupation ? 

Mr. Vinson. Radio writer. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you acquainted with a Mary Eobmson? 

Mr. Vinson. Only slightly ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was she a member of that group ? 

Mr. Vinson. I believed her to be. She attended meetings, and 
I do not recall of any instance of having collected dues from her; 
but I believe she was. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you acquainted with Janette Harper^ 

Mr. Vinson. Not Janette Harper; I knew Annette Harper.^ 

Mr. Tavenner. Was she a member of the Communist Party? 

Mr. Vinson. Yes ; she was. -, j, -, o 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you collect Communist Party dues from her i 

Mr. Vinson. Yes; I did. 

Mr. Tavenner. Wliat was her occupation ? 

Mr. Vinson. She was a radio actress. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you acquainted with Paul Marion ? 

Mr. Vinson. Yes ; I knew Paul Marion. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you collect Communist Party dues from him? 

Mr. Vinson. I did. 

Mr. Tavenner. I think that I should ask you, and I should have 
asked you before, in the case of any of these persons whom you have 
testified were members of the Communist Party, and from whom you 
collected dues, if they are known to you to have left the Communist 
Party since that time, I think that you should say so. 

Mr. Vinson. I would be glad to, if I know of it. 

Mr. Tavenner. If you know. 

Mr. Vinson. That is right. 

Mr. Tavenner. All right. 

Mr. Vinson. I would like to say at this time that to my knowledge, 
to the best of my knowledge, the two people mentioned, in Chicago, 
Mr. Scofield and Mr. Terkel, have been out of the party for some 
years. I base that on a visit I made back there in 1947, and short 
conversations with them, in which the indication was that they were 
not active in the party at that time and had no intention of continuing 
as active party members. 

Mr. Tavenner. Now, are there any others of the group that you 
have mentioned, up to this point, that you have reason to believe have 
withdrawn from the Communist Party? 

Mr. Vinson. I have no way of knowing what the activities of any 
of these members have been 'in relationship to the party since I left 
the party in 1948. I would not like to say that they are members of 
the party or they are not members; I have no way of knowing, and 
I have not discussed the matter of party association with any persons 
since I disassociated myself from it. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you acquainted with Mitchell Lindeman? 

Mr. Vinson. Yes, sir ; I knew him. 

A See testimony of Annette Harper, p. 4214, Communist Activities Among Professional 
iGroups in the Lo's Angeles Area — Part 4. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 4081 

Mr. Tavenner. That is spelled L-i-n-d-e-m-a-n ? 

Mr. Vinson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you collect Communist Party dues from him? 

Mr. Vinson. I did. 

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

Mr. Vinson. He was. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you acquainted with Ed Max ? 

Mr. Vinson. Yes ; I knew Ed Max. 

]Vfr. Tavenner. Have you collected Communist Party dues from 
him ? 

Mr. Vinson. I have. 

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

Mr. Vinson. He was. 
 Mr. Tavenner. What was his profession ? 

Mr. Vinson. Radio actor. 

Mr. Velde. What was the profession of the gentleman you spoke 
about just before Mr. Max, Mr. Mitchell Lindeman ? 

Mr. Vinson. I believe he was a director. 

Mr. Tavenner. AVere you acquainted with Abe Burrows ? 

Mr. Vinson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was Abe Burrows a member of the Communist 
Party, to your knowledge ? 

Mr. Vinson. Abe Burrows attended meetings of the Communist 
Part}', which I attended ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Wait a moment. I didn't get the spelling. Is that 
B-u-r-r-o-w-s? 

Mr. Vinson. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. Have you collected dues from him ? 

Mr. Vinson. I believe I have. I recall many instances of trying to, 
or at least a few instances. 

Mr. Tavenner. What do you mean by that ? 

Mr. Vinson. Well, Burrows was a little hard to pin down when it 
came to collecting his dues. 

Mr. Tavenner. You say "hard to pin down" in the collection of 
dues ? 

Mr. Vinson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavtjnner. You mean difficult to collect them ? 

Mr. Vinson. That is right. 

Mr. Velde. Mr. Vinson, did you ever collect dues other than at pri- 
vate meetings of the Communist Party? 

Mr. Vinson. Only on rare occasions, when it appeared more con- 
venient for the person who owed the dues to pay at a given time. And 
I don't recall at the moment any specific instance of that. 

Mr. Velde. In the case of Abe Burrows, do you recall any instance 
where you attempted to collect dues from him other than at a private 
meeting of the Cormnunist Party? 

Mr. Vinson. I never did. 

Mr. Tavenner. AVhat was your purpose in going to see him ? 

Mr. Vinson. I beg your pardon ? 

Mr. Tavenner. I say, did you go to see him in an effort to collect 
dues ? 

Mr. Vinson. No; I just said that I did not go to see him to collect 
dues. 

Mr. Tavenner. I could not hear you. I am sorry. 



4082 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. Vinson. Not at any time outside of party meetings, that I 
recall. 

Mr. Tavenner. But at party meetings you endeavored to collect 
dues from him? 

Mr. Vinson. That is right. 

Mr. Tavenner. Well, was there any occasion when he paid the 
dues ? 

Mr. Vinson. Yes; I think, as I recall, there were a few occasions 
when he paid at least a part of them. 

Mr. Tavenner. What reason did he ascribe at any time for not 
paying all of the dues that were supposed to be paid? 

Mr. Vinson. Principally that he did not have the money with him, 
as I recall. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was there ever a time when any question was raised 
by him that he was not supposed to pay dues because he was not a 
member of the party? 

Mr. Vinson. I don't recall any such instances ; no, sir. 

Mr. TA^^NNER. As treasurer of the group, did you consider that he 
was one of those from whom you should collect dues ? 

Mr. Vinson. Yes, sir ; he was one whom I considered I should col- 
lect dues from ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. What part did he play in the meetings that were 
held? 

Mr. Vinson. Mr. Burrows was an infrequent attender of the meet- 
ings, and he was considerably vocal, and he is an extrovert. But I 
think he did not stick to the subject very well and what was going on,, 
and he seemed more interested in being an extrovert than sticking to 
the business at hand. 

Mr. Tavenner. Over how long a period of time did you consider 
that he was a person from whom you should collect dues ? 

Mr. Vinson. I would have to guess at that. As I recall, Mr. Bur- 
rows commuted between Hollywood and New York, and he would 
probably be out here a few months or weeks at a time. And I would 
say, over a period of time that I was responsible for dues, it was prob- 
ably not more than 4 to 6 months at the most when I would consider 
him as a member out here. 

Mr. Tavenner. And that 4 to 6 months were not consecutive months, 
as I have understood you today ? 

Mr. Vinson. I could not say for sure on it ; that is purely a guess, 
and I don't recall exactly. 

Mr. Tavenner. I am not certain that I asked you a moment ago 
what the profession of Paul Marion was. 

Mr. Vinson. I believe he was a radio actor. 

Mr. Tavenner. And Mary Robinson ? 

Mr. Vinson. I don't know what her profession was. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you acquainted with Anna Klowden? 

Mr. Vinson. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. That is spelled K-1-o-w-d-e-n ? 

Mr. Vinson. Yes ; I know her. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you collect dues from her ? 

Mr. Vinson. I did. 

Mr. Tavenner. She was a member of your group ? 

Mr. Vinson. She was. 

Mr. Tavenner. What was her profession ? 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 4083 

Mr. Vinson. She was a radio actress. 

Mr. Tavt.nner. Were you -acquainted with Herman Waldinan? ^ 

Mr. Vinson. That is right. 

Mr. Tavenner. What Avas his profession? 

Mr. Vinson. Radio actor. 

Mr. Tavenner. That is spelled W-a-1-l-m-a-n ; is that correct? 

Mr. Vinson. I think it is W-a-1-d-m-a-n. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you collect Communist Party dues from him? 

Mr. Vinson. I did. 

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

Mr. Vinson. He was. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are there any others whom you can remember who 
were members of your group of the Communist Party and from whom 
you collected Communist Party dues? 

Mr. Vinson. No, sir; no other names come to my mind at this time. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you have visitors at your meetings from mem- 
bers of the Communist Party functionaries on a higher level ? 

Mr. Vinson. Rarely. I can recall, I think, only one occasion when 
we had party functionaries present at our meetings. 

Mr. Tavenner. Who was it, if you recall? 

Mr. Vinson. The only person that I recall who appeared in the 
meetings was John Stapp, who was a known Communist. 

Mr. Tavenner. What was his purpose of visiting the meeting? 

Mr. Vinson. I don't recall the exact purpose of his visit to the meet- 
ing. It seems to me that it came at a time when there was some 
need for possibly some guidance in how to proceed in certain affairs. 
I cannot recall exactly. But it would seem to me, as I recall, that 
that would be the purpose of his appearance. 

Mr. Tavenner. To whom did you make an accounting as treasurer 
of your organization ? 

Mr. Vinson. I turned over the money that was given me to a woman 
whose first name was Naomi, and whose last name I am not quite sure 
of, but I believe it to be 

Mr. Tavenner. If you are not certain of the last name- 



Mr. Vinson. I am quite certain that the last name was Robeson, 
l)ut I am not sure of the spelling. 

Mr. Tavenner. Have you any knowledge of what disposition she 
made of the funds that you collected ? 

Mr. Vinson. No, sir ; I have no knowledge of it. 

Mr, Tavenner. What was the monthly amount that you turned over 
to her, on an average? 

Mr. Vinson. I have no records of the monthly amounts that I col- 
lected or turned over to her. Whatever I collected I turned over. 

Mr. Tavenner. Can you make a fair estimate ? 

Mr. Vinson. I would say, at the very top, you see, our dues were 
Teased on a percentage of our income, and, if everyone were working 
at one time, the dues might run to $500 or $600 a month. 

However, I must say that I do not recall any time when they ran 
that high, and the average was probably considerably lower. 

Mr. Velde. Did you know this Naomi Robeson to be a member of 
the Communist Party ; and if so, in what capacity ? 

^ See testimony of Herman Waldman, also known as David Wolfe, p. 4207, Communist 
Activities Among Professional Groups in the Los Angeles Area — Part 4. 



4084 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. Vinson. I assumed that she was, or I would not have been 
instructed to turn the money over to her. But I have no knowledge 
of it, other than that, that she was a member. 

ISIr. Ta\^nner. Do you recall from whom you received instructions 
to turn the money over to her? 

Mr. Vinson. No ; I do not recall that. 

Mr. Tavenner. During the period you were collecting dues of the 
Communist Party members, did you keep any record or notation of 
paid and unpaid dues? 

Mr. Vinson. Only the very meagerest notations, and none of which 
were preserved, of course. 

Mr. Doyle. AVere you given a receipt for the money ? 

Mr. Vinson. I was not given an}^ receipts. 

Mr. Tavenner. During the time you were treasurer of the organiza- 
tion, specifically what work were you engaged in ? 

Mr. Vinson. At the time, during at least part of the time I was 
treasurer, I was producing and directing the show called "Let Georire 
Do It." 

Mr. Tavenner. I did not hear the name. 

Mr. Vinson. "Let George Do It." 

Mr. Tavenner. During the period that you were acting in that 
capacity, I imagine that you were employing a number of people ? 

Mr. Vinson. I employed a few people, yes; the show itself had the 
standard cast and we hired a few extra people. 

Mr. Tavenner. During the period that you employed people, and 
during that period you were a member of the Communist Party, were 
you influenced in any way in the employment of people by the fact 
that you were a Communist ? 

Mr. Vinson, Well, let me answer that by saying that there were 
no members of our permanent cast in the show wlio were Communists. 
I used people who had been identified this afternoon as members of 
the party on occasion, when I felt that they were the best persons to 
put in the job; and, otherwise, I was never influenced or there was 
never any outside influence used upon me to use members of the 
Communist Party. 

I might expand that by saying that I suppose I gave preference 
to those people who were members of the Communist Party, all other- 
things being equal, just as one Avould a fellow Elk. 

Mr. Tavenner. Just as if what ? 

Mr. Vinson. Just as one would a fellow Elk. 

Mr. Tavenner. While you were a member of the Communist Party, 
did you take any active interest in the promotion of the interests of 
the Communist Party through what are referred to as front organ- 
izations? 

Mr. Vinson. I don't recall that I was a member of any front organ- 
izations. I guess I held a membership card in ASCAP, as I recall, 
for 1 or 2 years, but I did not consider myself active in the organiza- 
tion, and I do not know whether that is considered a front organization 
or not. 

Mr. Tavenner. By "ASCAP," you are referring to the Arts, Sci- 
ences, and Professions Council, are you not? 

Mr. Vinson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know anything about the formation of the 
Hollywood Kadio Community Group? 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 4085 

Mr. Vinson. I only know that I was asked to subscribe some stock 
to it, and did. 

Mr. Tavenner. Wlio requested you to subscribe to it? 

Mr. Vinson. I was asked to subscribe to stock by Sara Moore. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you ? 

Mr. Vinson. I did. 

Mr. Tan-enner. Do you have personal knowledge of any plan for 
the sale of that stock ? 

Mr. Vinson. I do not understand the question. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you have any personal knowledge of the plan for 
the sale of stock in that group ? 

Mr. Vinson. I do not have any first-hand knowledge of how the sale 
of the stock was being handled, if that answers your question. 

Mr. Jackson. May I interpose a question? Counsel, 1 think there 
should be some clearance of tlie matter of ASCAP and the Arts, Sci- 
ences and Professions Counsel. We should find out as to what organ- 
ization the witness had reference to, whether it was the Arts, Sciences 
and Professions Council or ASCAP. 

JNIr. Tavenner. Possibly I misunderstood you. What organization 
was it that you said? 

Mr. Vinson. I do not know the full name. It was called ASCAP, 
and whatever that is I don't know. 

Mr. Tavenner. That is different from what I had in mind. 

Mr. Wood. There is too much conversation in the room. 

Mr. Jackson. Did the witness have reference to ASCAP or to the 
Arts, Sciences and Professions Council ? 

Mr. Vinson. ASCAP was what I was referring to. 

Mr. Jackson. I don't think ASCAP is in any way subversive. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know what ASCAP was? 

Mr. Vinson. No, sir; I don't know the full name of it. 

Mr. Tavenner. Now, ASCAP, as I understand it, consists of the 
initials of the words "American Society of Composers, Authoi-s and 
Publishers." 

Mr. Vinson. I have been in error. I did not belong to that. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you have reference to HICCASPC, which is 
the Hollywood Independent Citizens Committee of the Arts, Sciences 
and Professions Council ? 

Mr. Vinson. That is right. 

Mr. Jackson. There is a considerable difference. 

Mr. Vinson. I would say so. The name ASCAP appears in the 
radio so often that you get so you say it without thinking. 

Mr. Tavenner. I believe you stated that you left the Connuunist 
Party in 1948. 

Mr. Vinson. That is right. 

Mr. Tavenner. Now, what were your reasons for leaving the Com- 
munist Party ? 

Mr. Vinson. In 1948, when I left the party, I think that I am not 
aware of any reason for leaving. The only thing I can recall after 
these few years is that I did feel at the time a compulsion to get away 
from the party and the associations in the party, and to get off and 
study the thing from a little greater distance, so that I could see myself 
in relationship to the party. 

Now, as I look back upon it, I think that I realized that my asso- 
ciation in the party was almost wholly an unhappy one; and, for 



4086 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

want of a better way of expressing it — this may surprise some peo- 
ple— I think the isolationism of the Communist Party is the thing 
that drove me from it. 
Mr. Doyle. Tlie what ? 

Mr. Vinson. The isolationism. I have to explain that, I know. 
But, as I look back upon my association in the Communist Party, I 
have the feeling that thought and action in your feeling or thinking 
toward betterment of your guild positions "and betterment of your 
industry is so isolated from the realities around you that your actions 
are ineffective. 

Perhaps I can straighten out that sentence; perhaps it is involved, 
but I mean that your time and your energies are so taken with party 
duties and things you are supposed to do and meetings you are to 
attend that you have no time to have any social or craft association 
with other people with whom you should associate in order to learn 
the true relationship of you yourself to your craft. 

I would like to say that throughout the time that I was a member 
of the Communist Party I do not recall any member or at any time 
was there any mention of overthrowing the Government by force; 
and I have no reason, from my own personal association with the 
members in the unit to which I belonged, to believe that any of them 
were anything but sincere in their endeavor to improve their craft 
and to improve their status in their craft. 

I have no reason to believe that they were anything but good citi- 
zens, to my own knowledge. I think that possibly if some of them 
would do as I have done, and get away far enough to see a true picture 
of how the very energies that you consume in being a Communist 
Party member can consume your life, if you get off and back away 
and take a look at it, many of them would do as I have done. 

There was quite a snicker throughout the audience in my reference 
to having studied as a singer, and I think that that is probably going 
to be played upon, that I am "singing" this afternoon. If I am, I 
would like the people that I have sung about to feel that I have done 
it in their best interests, although they will not think so. It is not 
particularly a love song or a swan song, but I am very sincere in be- 
lieving that many of these people who were my very close friends 
in the past, and for whom I have the finest regard in most respects, if 
they would get away far enough from it, as I have done, to be able 
to view the thing as a whole picture, they would realize that they 
cannot gain thi', ends they wished to gain in their craft by isolating 
themselves from the rest of the world. 

Mr. TiUT^NNER. I have no further questions, 

Mr. Doyle. You used the term just a second ago "consuming"; 
thatjt consumes you. Do you remember that ? 

Mr. Vinson. I believe I did; yes, sir, 

Mr. Doyle. What do you mean by that, sir? 

Mr. Vinson. It uses up your energies, sir. 

Mr. Doyle. Why shouldn't it use up your energies? If you are in 
it, why shouldn't you use up your energies in what you believe in? 

Mr. Vinson. Well, I do not know why you should not. You should, 
I guess. But I think those energies could be better consumed in 
seeing the picture in a truer light, 

Mr. Doyle, Well, did you mean to tell us in connection with that, 
and your term "isolationism," that your service to the Communist 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 4087 

Party consumes your being to the exclusion of substantially any or all 
other interests; is that what you mean to tell me? 

Mr. Vinson. Would you say that again, pleased ihat is a little 

difficult. , <. ^- • • xi 

Mr Doyle. Do you mean to tell me that your functioning m the 
Communist Party consumes your strength and your resources to the 
extent of isolating you from other interests? 

Mr. Vinson. I think it does to a great extent; yes. 

Mr. Doyle. I did not realize I was asking you a question you might 
answer affirmatively, because I have never met you in my life. I am 
just trying to draw a conclusion from your testimony, sir. 

What is it about your membership in the Communist Party that so 

consumes you ? • j 

Mr. Vinson. It is the time that you use in attending meetings and 

doing things. I think it is mostly attending meetings and talking 

about how you should proceed in your guilds and unions and things 

like that. 

Mr. Doyle. I was interested in your statement that it could amount 
to the payment of the dues in that group, on the basis of 4 percent of 
the gross ; it could have amounted to $500 or $600 a month. 

Mr. Vinson. I say that would be the very peak, considering every- 
one was working at his top salary. 

Mr. Doyle. With an average of $300 a month, I think you said. 

Mr. Vinson. I don't think that I said exactly that. I said it would 
be considerably less than that. 

Mr. Doyle. About how much less ? 

Mr. Vinson. I would say that normally the average was maybe 
$200 a month. 

Mr. Doyle. $200 a month? 

Mr. Vinson. That would vary, you see, from season to season, and 
also throughout the seasons, depending on what it was. 

Mr. Doyle. That would mean a group paying, over a 12-month pe- 
riod, approximately $2,400 into the Communist Party treasury. 

Mr. Vinson. I guess that is what would be the figure, at that rate ; 
yes, sir. 

Mr. Doyle, That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

Now, may I ask the gentleman this question : Have you any sug- 
gestion to this committee as to what we might do, if anything, to 
properly further seek the cooperation of folks that are taking the 
position you take : that you consider it is for the welfare of the coun- 
try that you come clean and tell your experiences, even though it is 
embarrassing to you, as it must be, because I heard a snicker, too, from 
a certain portion of the room when you began to reveal the names of 
people, and I realize it must be embarrassing. 

Mr. Vinson. It is embarrassing; yes, sir, and I don't thinlv anyone 
can say it is not. No; I liaven't thought about trying to convince any 
of these persons to do as I have done. I had to consider it sometime 
myself before I decided. 

Mr. DoYT.E. You have been here in the room and heard many people 
including high-class professional men, yesterday and today. Have 
you been here at all times ? 

Mr. Vinson. I have been here this morning; yes, sir. 

95008— 52— pt. 3 13 



4088 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. Doyle. And you heard some of these gentlemen designate 
any person that gave any names or cooperated with this committee 
as a "stool pigeon." 

Mr. Vinson. I knew before I decided to give this testimony, Mr. 
Doyle, that I would be called those names. It is very hard to think 
that you will be called those names by people who are very close to 
you, or were at one time. 

Mr. Doyle. Of course, the term "stool pigeon" is generally used 
with reference or by a person who has been closely enough associated 
with you to know that you may have told the truth about them. 

Mr. Vinson. I do not know about that. I do not laiow what it is. 

Mr. Doyle. That is my experience as a practicing lawyer; that 
that is the general way in which most people used that term. I thank 
you very much. 

You came onto this stand knowing that there would still be people 
in this room, while you were testifying, that would hear you testify 
and who would designate such persons as you as "stool pigeon." 

Mr. Vinson. I came here with a full realization that that would 

be a fact. 

Mr. Velde. Mr. Vinson, during the time you were in the Commu- 
nist Party with Abe Burrows, do you know what he was doing for a 
livelihood ? 

Mr. Vinson. I think Burrows, as you know, does many things for 
a livelihood, and I could not rightly say what he was doing at the 
time. 

Mr. Velde. Could you fix the period a little more definitely? 

Mr. Vinson. Well, it must have been sometime from the middle of 
1946 to the middle of 1947, during that particular period. 

Mr. Velde. Was he making a salary at the time of such nature or 
of such amount that you would collect more from him, dues, party 
dues, than the ordinary party member ? 

Mr. Vinson. I do not have first-hand knowledge of what he was 
doing at the particular time that I was trying to collect dues from 
him, maybe he was not working those weeks as you know a man work- 
ing as lie does works a good deal by weeks. I would assume that dur- 
ing the time tliere were periods whe.n he was earning considerable 
safary, and should have been paying, at the normal rate, quite a high 
sum. 

Mr. Velde. Now, Mr. Vinson, do you know of anything else in the 
nature of the Communist activities here, subversive activities here or 
in Chicago, that might be helpful to this committee? 

Mr. Vinson. I have no knowledge or first-hand knowledge, I would 
say, of the activities of the Communist Party at this time or any of 
the people in it, that they are subversive. I would not like to answer 
that question by saying that, because I do not have first-hand knowl- 
edge that they are. I do not have any knowledge, or at least I cannot 
think of anything at the moment that would give me an answer to 
your question. 

Mr. Velde. Let me say personally, Mr. Vinson, that is very refresh- 
ing after listening to some contemptuous and contumacious witnesses, 
here for the past 2 days, to listen to your clear and direct testimony, 
which I am sure will be of great assistance to this committee in ferret- 
ing out the subversives in this area, as well as all over the country. I 
appreciate it very much. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 40S9 

Mr. Jackson. I, too, Mr. Vinson, would like to add a word of thanks. 
If you did indeed "sing" today, I think the tune was more like Yankee 
Doodle than the Song of Russia. 

You are going to be called a lot of names, but you can take some 
satisfaction out of the fact that the committee probably has been 
called everything that would come to mind on the part of those who are 
going to call you anything. This committee has no desire to persecute 
anyone, certainly not those who see fit to cooperate with the committee 
of the Congress and the American people. 

We are grateful to you, on behalf of the American people, and you 
will find that in spite of the abuse you will take, that 98 percent of 
the American people will approve of the action you have taken today. 

You are from Santa Monica, which happens to be my home town. 
Are you married ? 

Mr. Vinson. Yes, sir, I am. 

Mr. Jackson. Wliere is your wife employed ? 

Mr. Vinson. My wife is employed by the Board of Education at 
Santa Monica, as one of the secretaries to the superintendent of 
schools. 

Mr. Jackson. How long have you been married to your present 
wife? 

Mr. Vinson. Since the 27th of May 1950. 

Mr. Jackson. Did you at any time discuss with her your previous 
associations in the Communist Party? 

Mr. Vinson. No, sir, I did not. 

Mr. Jackson. Did she have any knowledge, at the time that you were 
married, that you had once been a member of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Vinson. No, sir, she did not. 

Mr. Jackson. I bring this up, Mr. Chairman, solely to see if it can 
be of service to the city of Santa Monica, and to the board of education, 
to insure that no reprisals are taken, and I sincerely hope that your 
neighbors and your friends and business associates in Santa Monica 
will take a sympathetic view of your appearance here today, and that 
they will realize that you went out of here with a wholehearted thanks 
of a committee of the Congress of the United States for your assistance. 

Mr. Wood, Mr. Vinson, I join in extending to you our thanks and 
appreciation, and through us that of the loyal element of the American 
people, which are, of course, in the majority. 

I know it is not very pleasant to do what you have done. Wlien a 
man becomes afhliated with an organization of this sort and breaks 
with it from an ideological standpoint and sincerely desires to put him- 
self back into society with patriotic American citizens, he is entitled 
to the commendation of all people who believe in the perpetuation of 
our institutions. 

I do not think that you should be too much concerned about the 
discordant notes that you will hear now and then, because they are 
really croaks from the mire and not blasts from the mountains. 

Is there any reason why we should not excuse this witness ? 

Mr. Tavenner. No, sir. 

I would like to make a statement with reference to his testimony. 
He has mentioned two witnesses, and I think I should state now, the 
witness Paul Marion, to whom he referred, as a member, has been in- 
terviewed by the committee, and the committee has been told that he 



4090 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

is no longer a member of the party, and I rather think he will testify- 
about those matters. 

In other words, he is not a member now, but I think I should tell the 
committee that that is the Paul Marion to whom the witness referred. 

Mr. Wood. Very well. 

Mr. Tavenner. And then as to Mr. Burrows, in the early part of 
the year he made a statement to the committee, which was not a denial 
of his membership, but the committee has been working on that matter. 

Mr. Wood. The committee will stand in recess for 15 minutes, and 
you are excused for the day. 

(The witness was excused and a brief recess was taken.) 

(At this point the subcommittee membei-s present were : Represent- 
atives John S. Wood, Francis E. Walter, Clyde Doyle, and Harold H. 
Velde.) 

Mr. Wood. Let us have order. 

At this time I desire to read into the record a communication that 
has just come to me which reads as follows : 

City of Los Angeles, Calif., 

September 30, 1952. 
JOHI7 S. Wood, 

Chairman Un-American Activities Committee, 

Care of Mr. E. B. Stillwell, Superintendent of Building, 
Federal Building, Los Angeles, Calif. 

Dear Sib : At the meeting of the Council of the City of Los Angeles held Sep- 
tember .30, 1952, the following resolution was adopted : 

"Whereas the City Council of Los Angles is pleased to know that there will 
be a banquet honoring the members of the Un-American Activities Committee 
of the Congress of the United States, to be held on Wednesday, October 1, in the 
city of South Gate; and 

"Whereas this Un-American Activities Committee of the Congress is i)erform- 
ing a great public service to the people of America by investigating communistic 
activities and helping to eliminate subversive activities in our country ; and 

"Whereas this committee deserves commendation for their untiring efforts in 
protecting the security of America ; and 

"Whereas in this area Congressman Clyde Doyle and Congressman Donald L. 
Jackson serve on this committee ; and 

"Whereas the other members of the committee are John S. Wood, chairman, 
Francis E. Walter, Morgan M. Moulder, Harold H. Velde, James B. Frazier, 
Bernard W. Kearney, and Charles E. Potter : Now, therefore, be it 

"Resolved, That the City Council of the City of Los Angeles commends the 
members of the Un-American Activities Committee for their great public service." 
Yours very truly, 

Walter C. Peterson, City Clerk, 
By A. M. Moore, Assistant City Clerk. 

I file this for the record. 

Who do you call next? 

Mr. EsTERMAN. Before we go on the record, may I ask to have 
something placed in the record, if I may ? 

Mr. Wood. If you have something in writing, I will be glad to 
consider it. 

Mr. EsTERMAN. I have a request. 

Mr. Wood. Submit it in writing. Just a moment now. We might 
as well have a definite understanding. 

From time immemorial, since we have had a Congress, it has been 
the province of counsel to advise their clients ; and if you have any 
advice to give to your client, do it. And if you have a motion or 
suggestion to make to this committee, make it in writing and conform 
to the rules. I have ruled. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 4091 

Mr. EsTERMAN. I want to ask you to let me cross-examine the 
last witness. 

Mr. Wood. I hope you won't make it necessary to eject you from 
the room. 

Mr. EsTERMAN. I represent people 

Mr. Wood. Will you please eject this man from the hearing room? 

(Mr. William B. Esterman was ejected from the hearing room by 
the marehals.) 

Mr. Wood. Call the next witness, Counsel. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Paul Marion. 

Mr. Wood, Will you come forward, please. 

Do you solemnly swear that the evidence you will give this sub- 
committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 
truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Marion. I do. 

Mr. Wood. Are you represented by counsel ? 

Mr. Marion. No ; the only counsel I am represented by is my own 
conscience. 

Mr. Wood. If you desire to have counsel, please let me know. 

Mr. Marion. I expect to cooperate fully. 

TESTIMONY OF PAUL MARION 

Mr. Tavenner. What is your full name ? 

Mr. Marion. My name is Paul Marion. 

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

Mr. Marion. I was born in New York City in 1915. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you now reside in Los Angeles ? 

Mr. Marion. I do. 

Mr. Ta\t:nner. How long have you lived in Los Angeles? 

Mr. Marion. I have lived here about 11 years now. 

Mr. Tavenner. What is your profession ? 

Mr. Marion. I am an actor, a screen actor, a television actor, and 
a radio actor. 

Mr. Ta-s^nner. Will you tell the committee briefly what your edu- 
cational training has been and what your experience has been in the 
acting profession? 

Mr. Marion. Well, I finished high school in the Bronx, and I went 
to the Academy of Dramatic Arts, and I went there in 1932 and got 
out in 1934, and I did very little stage work then. I would say that the 
greatest amount of my professional career has been in Hollywood 
where I have appeared in pictures and television and on radio, and 
some of the pictures I have done have been Ten Tall Men, The Sword 
in the Desert, Harem Girl, and Vendetta, just to mention a few. And 
on the radio I appeared on these programs, Lux Radio Theater, Caval- 
cade of America, The Whistler, and Dr. Christian, and others. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you acquainted with Mr. Vinson who was a 
witness before you ? 

Mr. Marion. I am, yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you present during his testimony ? 

Mr. Marion. Yes, sir, I was. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Vinson referred to you as having been a member 
of a radio branch of the Communist Party in Hollywood, of which he 
was also a member. Is that true ? 



4092 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr, Marion. Yes, that is perfectly true. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you willing to give the committee whatever in- 
formation you have regarding that organization ? 

Mr. Marion. Yes. First, I want to say I got out, and I got out I 
would say about early in 1948, and before I go ahead and name the 
members of the Communist Party with whom I was associated and 
also some of the activities, I would like to make some points relative 
to this question. 

I have been told in conversation with people that I had no right to 
assist a committee which is empowered by my Government by giving 
information about my past activities and by revealing the names of 
my former associates. If I did, they said, I would be aiding those who 
are destroying civil rights, and that was a point which was made. 
Well, I have examined my position in relation to the realities of the 
existing world, and this is what I have found. I found that the con- 
spiratorial ramifications of the Communist plan of world domination 
to be enormous, and that the worst aspect of Communist imperialism 
was its exploitation of the mind and ideals. It was a case of taking 
its natural resources and making waste. I found that all roads must 
lead to the Kremlin, that the Communist Party in America was on that 
road, and that the Communist Party in this country was only Amer- 
ican in a geographical sense. 

Mr. Wood. If you are reading from a prepared statement, it is not 
permitted under the rules. 

Mr. Marion. I was just referring to it, sir. Now, I would like to 
quote from The Yenan Way by Eudocio Kavines, an ex-Communist 
from South America and former active member of the Comintern. He 
was in Russia for three different meetings, and this is a quotation from 
a meeting where he was present. During a meeting in Eussia, Manu- 
ilsky, one of the Russian heads of the Comintern, was asked this ques- 
tion : "If the Soviet Union is attacked?" And Mr. Manuilsky's reply 
was : "The duty of Communists would be to work for the clef eat of 
capitalism in their own countries." In other words, all of the Com- 
munists in the United States and elsewhere would be obligated to create 
the worst possible conditions and make every effort to facilitate the 
victory of the Socialist homeland. 

There should be no scruples about the method and procedures ; a wave of 
terror spread that is as disruptive as possible. This must be planned ahead 
and done without hestitation or fear — your thoughts fixed on the motherland 
of socialism whose soldier every Communist must be. 

This is valid for Communists until we have crushed the last stronghold of 
opposition to the U. S. S. R. The tactics may change, but the goal will not 
change for the essential duties of every Communist. 

Now, there was another member of the Comintern, Dimitrov, who 
was the author of United Front, which has been used for the last 
10 or 15 years in Communist tactics. He said : 

Our program must be to gain our ends through our friends, sympathizers, and 
allies while keeping ourselves in the background. As Soviet power grows 
there will be a greater aversion to Communist Parties everywhei-e. So we 
must practice the techniques of withdrawal — never appear in the foreground — 
let our friends do our work. We must always remember that one sympathizer 
is worth generally more than a dozen militant Communists. A university pro- 
fessor who, without being a party member, lends himself to the interest of the 
Soviet Union is worth more than a hundred men with party cards. 

There are thousands of people, there will be millions later whom we can at- 
tract and domesticate. The application of the popular-front tactics has shown 
it to be much easier to domesticate the lower middle classes and even a few 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 4093 

of the upper middle class to follow us docilely. There are so many persons 
full of protest against something and a prey of broken hopes. They long for 
something without knowing what, but something new and emotional and hope- 
ful. There are thousands who don't know where they stand or what they 
want, but who long at any rate for a change in posture. 

Mr. Wood. Let me call your attention to the fact again that the 
rules of the committee do not permit you to read a prepared statement. 

Mr. Marion. This is, I felt, very pertinent to my stand. 

Mr. Wood. You can file it here if you desire. 

Mr. Marion. All right, sir. 

Mr. Wood. Confine your answers to the questions that are asked. 

Mr. Marion. I would like to say in closing that the reason I am 
going to mention the names of the people I was associated with, was 
because if I did not I would be entering into a conspiracy of silence 
which I do not want to be a part of. Here at the committee I have 
a choice, and I have a choice either to cooperate or not to cooperate, 
and this is not really the committee with which I am cooperating, this 
is the American j^eople because this is a duly constituted Govern- 
ment committee. I think I have said enough. 

Mr. Tavenner. When did you join the Communist Party? 

Mr. Marion. I would fix it about early 1946. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long did you remain in the party? 

Mr. Marion. I would say generally about a year and a half. 

Mr. Tavenner. Would you tell the committee, please, briefly, the 
circumstances under which you became a party member ? 

Mr. Marion. Well, before the war I was not interested in poli- 
tics at all, and all I was interested in was in the theater and being 
a good actor. There was one thing which did make quite an 
impression on me and that was the depression. Later I went into 
the Army, and there for the first time I was also conscious of the 
fact that something was the cause of this, so I would say that the 
two main reasons for my becoming a member of the Communist 
Party was the interest I had in averting depressions and wars. 

Now, I have read a lot of material— the New Masses, and I had 
read Browder's Victory in Africa, and that was one of the things 
that did interest me, the fact that he spoke of cooperation with 
the American monopolists and capitalists, as he called it, and he 
said that they were much too strong and the Communist Party 
could not do anything about overthrowing them. 

Therefore, the Communist Party was going to be a political asso- 
ciation and they were going to talk about theory, Marxist theories, 
and dialectical materialism. 

As it turned out there was a letter from Jacques Duclos telling the 
American Communists that they were all wrong, and that they were 
very soft, and the Communist Party, in order to really fulfill its 
historical position, was to become a militant organization. 

Now, when I came back from the service, I did a lot of reading and 
I became very much interested in becoming a Communist, and nobody 
asked me to join. I wanted to join. One day I was contacted by 
Georgia Backus, who was one of the people who was the head of the 
radio group, and she talked to me and I was in. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you assigned to any particular group or unit 
after joining the party? 

Mr. Marion. Yes; the radio group. 

Mr. Tavenner. How many composed that group ? 



4094 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. Marion. Well, I cannot rightly say how many composed that 
group. 

Mr. Tavenner. What type of activity did the group engage in after 
you became a member ? 

Mr. Marion. Well, at first I was sent to what was called the be- 
ginners' group, where we had to learn the principles of socialism, 
and the teachers of that group were Charles Glenn and Irving Wliite, 
and they had about three or four of us there at that time. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know what the profession was of both of 
those individuals? 

Mr. Marion. Well, I understand Charles Glenn is — I understand 
he is with the People's World, a correspondent, and at the time I 
thought he was a radio writer, and I understood from the classes that 
he was supposed to also have been up on Socialist principles. 

Mr. Tavenner. What was the profession of the other person whose 
name you mentioned, Irving White ? 

Mr. Marion. He was a playwright and screen writer. 

Mr. Tavenner. Is there any other information that you can give us 
regarding the formation of that study group ? 

Mr. Marion. Well, there was nothing much except that they were 
supposed to set- us on the road to socialism, or the road to Socialist 
principles, for us to get a slight understanding so that we would not 
be at a loss, or a total loss when we got into our regular groups. I 
think the Communist Manifesto was studied. 

Mr. Ta\'enner. How long did you remain in that group ? 

Mr. Marion. I would say about 3 or 4 weeks. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you recall the name of any other person who was 
a member of that gi'oup ? 

Mr. Marion. I only recall one name, Margaret Gruen. 

Mr. Tavenner. What was her profession ? 

Mr. Marion. She was a screen writer. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you give us the spelling of that ? 

Mr. Marion. G-r-u-e-n. 

Mr. Tavenner. Then, after having been a member of that study 
group for a period of time, what was your next assignment ? 

Mr. Marion. Well, I got into the radio group, the regular Holly- 
wood group. 

Mr. Tavenner. During the period you were a member of that group, 
were you assigned any special function ? 

Mr. Marion. Well, not at the beginning, no ; but later on I became 
a literature director, and also at one time I stood in for somebody 
who was supposed to attend a veterans' committee meeting, and this 
was held at Paul Jarrico's house, and I was there with Paul Jarrico 
and one other fellow, and Jeff Corey was another fellow who was 
there, and the object of the meeting was to discuss the infiltration of 
Communist veterans into veterans' organizations. 

I joined AVC as a result of that, and there was a quote from Lenin, 
which brochure I do not know, but to the effect that it was very diffi- 
cult to infiltrate into certain reactionary groups, and the American 
Legion was one which was cited, and nobody, I think, joined the Ameri- 
can Legion that I know of. 

Mr. Tavenner. When you say no one, you mean no one from the 
Communist Party ? 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 4095 

Mr. Marion. No one that I know of. I imagine it was a little too 
difficult. There was one thing in relation to that: I was called one 
night by somebody whom I do not remember about attending a meet- 
ing at the AVC in order to vote on something which I did not know 
anything about, and which I voted on, and there was a kind of — you 
can sense which is the right or which is the side you are supposed to 
vote for, and that was the side I voted for. And, as a result of that, a 
faction or a splinter group in opposition to what I imagine was the 
left group left and formed their own group. 

Mr. Tavenner. Where was that meeting held? 

Mr. Marion. That was held in Hollywood, on, I think, Ivar Avenue. 

INIr. Ta\'Enner. Do you recall the names of any persons who were 
present ? 

Mr. Marion. I am soriy; I do not. I will say something about 
functions — that we had a function in AFRA. That was a very im- 
portant thing, and that is our union, the American Federation of 
Radio Artists. 

And we also had a function in the Hollywood Citizens' Committee 
of Arts, Sciences, and Professions. 

Mr. Tavenner. When you say "we had a fiuiction," what do you 
mean ? 

Mr. Marion. We ; yes. 

Mr. Ta\^nner. To whom are you referring? 

Mr. Marion. I am speaking of the people in the Communist group. 
The radio writers were to function in their group and the actors in 
their group, and they had a lot of things to do. 

I am afraid, as far as I was concerned, I was not particularly good, 
because I just do not think that there was enough time for anybody 
to really know what they are doing, except if you concentrate on one 
thing. 

Also, in reference to that, there was talk about getting on the press, 
too, the various union papers, so you could, if you wanted to influ- 
ence them in whatever way you wanted to, influence them. 

There was also this objective, I think, behind it all, and which later 
showed up in a lot of the union alfairs, and that was to always try 
to get an all-industry group together. That was the objective, to get 
what you would consider in the terms of the Screen Actors' Guild, in 
terms of the motion-picture industry, to get the Screen Actors' Guild 
and the Screen Writers' Guild and all of the lATSE members to be 
part of one union, so that any time you wanted to make demands and 
really wanted to back them up, you could back them up. 

Mr. Tavenner. Just a moment. Did you ever attend a faction 
meeting in Avhich any business of the Screen Actors' Guild was 
involved ^ 

Mr. Marion. Yes, I did, but that was an altogether different thing. 
I contacted Karen Morley, who was one of the, I imagine, guiding 
geniuses of the Hollywood Screen Actors' group ; so that I kept up 
with what was going on there. 

Now, there was a gToup that was formed, which was a si)linter group, 
part of the Screen Actors' Guild, which was composed of Comnuuiists 
and non-Communists, and I would say mainly non-Communists. And 
there were meetings held at various people's houses, mainly stars, in 
order to make it seem very important, and wages and working con- 
ditions in the first meeting were discussed. As a result of that, some 

95008— 52— pt. 3 14 



4096 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

very good things were gotten into the Screen Actors' Guild contract, 
that is true. 

Now, out of that, the group gained some great importance also, and 
they put up members which they were interested in as the people they 
would like to have on the board of directors of the Screen Actors' 
Guild, and also for the positions of vice president and secretary. 

Now, during the strike this group was used to great effect and almost 
succeeded in winning or bringing out the Screen Actors' Guild, which 
was the main objective. 

Mr. Tavenner. What do you mean by bringing out the Screen 
Actors' Guild ? 

Mr. Marion. To get them out on strike in support of the CSU.^ 

Now, in order to get meetings there had to be petitions with names 
of about 350, 1 think, so that the meetings could be called, and we only 
had one meeting a year in the Screen Actors' Guild. 

Now, we went out, this group went out and got these meetings 
together. And before one of the big meetings in which very important 
people were invited to speak for the side that was for the CSU, we 
had a meeting, and I will say that a great many people were for the 
CSU emotionally, without knowing much of the background. I did 
not know anything of the background either, but I went along. 

There was a meeting held before this big meeting where tactics and 
strategy were to be discussed in relation to that meeting, and this 
meeting was held at Alvin Hammer's house. This was a meeting that 
was a closed Communist meeting. 

At this meeting strategy and tactics were discussed, and we were 
helped by a man by the name of Ben Margolis, who was there at the 
time, besides Karen Morley and Lloyd Gough. The only one I re- 
member is Marc Lawrence, because I did not know the group very 
well, having never really been at a closed meeting before. 

Also, we were told at that meeting that there was going to be a very 
effective demonstration outside, which was called a silent protest where 
people would just look at us and say nothing, and they all had signs, 
and it was very effective, I must say. During the meeting all sides 
were heard and, luckily, the Screen Actors' Guild did not go out on 
strike. And, as I understand it now, everything is settled there. 

The Screen Actors' Guild, by the way, as far as I know, is com- 
posed of people who are not left in any way. That is, the board and 
the members. 

Mr. Tavenner. During the period you were a member of the Com- 
munist Party, were your meetings attended at any time by high 
functionaries of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Marion. Well, we were helped once by John Stapp in our 
radio group, the actors group, that -is, the actors fraction. Sam Sillen 
came out one time during the Maltz controversy, and he was showing 
the group where Albert Maltz was wrong. He convinced everybody 
that Albert Maltz was wrong. The point about that was that he 
would not write as he saw fit, or as his characters demanded, in terms 
of their own natural growth, but if you were to really serve the Com- 
munist principles at the end, he would become a Communist, I sup- 
pose, or join a union, or do something which was considered typically 
working class. 



^ CSU — Conference of Studio Unions. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 4097 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know what position Sillen had in the Com- 
munist Party ? 

Mr. Marion. No ; I do not. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know where he was from ? 

Mr. Marion. I understand he was from New York City, and he 
came out there especially to face that issue. 

I would like to make another point that is in relation to the Inde- 
pendent Progressive Party. We in the Communist Party did a great 
deal of work for the Independent Progressive Party, and we went 
out and filled a great many petitions in order to get on the ballot for 
1948. The Communist Party, that is, did that — and I don't like to 
say "we" any longer, but the Communist Party at that time, I would 
say, had a great deal to do with the vitality of the Independent Pro- 
gressive Party, and getting it on the ballot. 

Also I will say — I would like to make another point — that when 
it was discussed and there were questions asked, someone told me it 
would be really independent and that it would be a free-wheeling 
organization, that if a Republican or Democrat was good and had a 
good record, there would be no doubt but what they would back them ; 
and Helen Gahagan Douglas was cited as one of them, that they would 
in this case back her. 

Now, when I went around with a petition I was asked the question — 
I would like to make one correction. I do not remember anybody 
saying anything about Helen Gahagan Douglas at the time that this 
happened. I did say something. There was an answer to a question 
by a radio actor who said, "I am a Democrat and I want to vote for 
Douglas." 

And I said, "There is absolutely no difficulty about that, we are a 
free-wheeling organization, we are independent, we will hit hard wher- 
f ver we have to because it is a real progressive organization and we 
will vote for anybody. Republican or Democrat." 

That was the idea that I had. 

Now, I would also like to say something about the study group that 
we had. We studied a thing called History of the U. S. S. R. We 
studied a lot of Lenin's work, and we studied The United Front by 
Dimitrov, and I don't know, I imagine we studied it for reasons 

Mr. Velde. How did you study it, Mr. Marion ? 

Mr. Marion. Somebody was assigned a certain chapter and they 
read it at home and they conducted what they called the "Educational." 
Also there was something which was the Negro question. When I 
got in there there was a new policy by the Communist Party to the 
effect that the Negro people in America were a nation, and their 
policy was that this was a nation within a nation, and that the correct 
policy in regard to Negro people was to fight for that nation, and 
now this was based on Stalin's book The National Question, when he 
said that a nation has a right of self-determination if they have the 
same language, and the same interests, and the same cultural interests 
and the same territory and so on. 

Now, as far as the Communists in the Soviet Union were concerned, 
this might have been able to fit their program, because they had 
nations that were nations all of the time, but to advocate something 
within the Communist Party, which the Communist Party had fol- 
lowed in the Soviet Union here in the United States, I thought was 
a little wrong, even though I went ahead and I read a lot of books and 



4098 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

I made the "Educational" myself in a pretty mechanical way, be- 
cause the books were read and all we had to do was to decide this 
should be the way we feel, think, and talk. 

Mr. Tavenner. Most of the groups or cells of the Communist Party 
had literary directors ? 

Mr. Marion. Literature directors, yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. Who was the literature director of your group ? 

Mr. Marion. I was for quite a while. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you recall anyone else who occupied that posi- 
tion in your group ? 

Mr. Marion. I think Ruben Ship did once, or a couple of times, 
and it was not too clear in my mind. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you give us the names of those persons who 
were members of your group of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Marion. Well, Lynn Whitney and David Wolfe. 

Mr. Tavenner. Not so rapidly. Lynn Whitney. How do you spell 
Lynn ? 

Mr. Marion. L-y-n-n, and Whitney, W-h-i-t-n-e-y. 

Mr. Tavenner. What was Miss Whitney's profession? 

Mr. Marion. Well, Lynn Whitney was a radio actress and a sci'een 
actress, as far as I know, and also she was a Yugoslavian and pro-Tito 
when Tito was in accord with the Soviet Union, and I imagine she 
was anti-Tito or is anti-Tito now. 

Mr. Tavenner. All right. Will you continue ? 

Mr. Marion. And also she made a remark once that she very seldom 
read, which gave you an idea oi the meclianality of the minds of some 
of the people. 

Mr. Tavenner. Who else were members of that group? 

Mr. Marion. David Wolfe, who was named as Herman Waldman. 

Mr. Tavenner. You mean they are the same person, David Wolfe 
and Herman Waldman ? 

Mr. Marion. Yes. And Hy Alexander, Bill Wolff 

Mr. Tavenner. Was there any relationship between the two 
Wolfes? 

Mr. Marion. Not that I know of. 

Mr. Tavenner. To your knowledge ? 

Mr. Marion. No. There was Ed Max, Stanley AVaxman, Jack 
Robinson, Gene Stone, and Mary Robinson. 

Mr. Ta\^nner. You are talking too rapidly. Now will you pro- 
ceed, please? 

Mr. Marion. AVhat Avas the last one ? 

Mr. Velde. I think it would be helpful, as he reads those, if he 
would tell the occupations, and the api)roximate time and how many 
meetings you sat in, and so forth. 

Mr. Marion. I cannot tell you how many meetings I sat in. That 
would be beyond tlie matter of recall. I do not know if I could do 
that. I could tell you what I know as far as their profession was 
concerned. 

Mr. Tavenner. I asked you about the profession of Lynn Whitney. 

Mr. Marion. Yes. She was an actress. And David Wolfe is an 
actor, and Bill Wolfe, I imagine, Avas a radio writer, and I am not sure. 

Mr. Tavenner. Let me ask you again : You say you attended Com- 
munist Party meetings with tliein. What gi-oup of the Communist 
Party was that ? 



COMJVnjNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 4099 

Mr. Marion. Well, I do not know if they had a name or not, but it 
was the Hollywood radio group, or people that were involved that 
were in radio in some manner or form. 

Mr. Tavenner. Is it the same group of which Mr. Owen Vinson 
was the treasurer? 

Mr. Marion. Yes. 

Mr. TA^^NNER. What type of meetings were held by that group, 
and when you say people were present at that group, was it the prac- 
tice for people who were not members to attend it ? 

Mr. Marion. That I do not know anything about, but as far as I 
understood, "No." 

Mr. Tavenner. I would like for you to state as fully as you can 
your reasons, or the reasons for your statement that each of these 
persons were members of the Communist Party. 

Mr. Marion. My reasons? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes. 

Mr. Marion. You mean why they joined the Communist Part}'? 

Mr. Tavenner. No, the reasons why they were, to your knowledge, 
members of the Communist Party, if you know that. How would 
you identify them as members of the Communist Party? 

Mr. Marion. How do I identify them? As being with them in 
meetings, and discussions of Conununist problems, I would say, that 
is, problems relating to the Communist Party, and how to bring 
socialism in America through the Communist Party, and the paying 
of dues. We studied the history of the U. S. S. R. I do not know 
what other reason except to learn, to get lessons from their experi- 
ment, and from their history. Every once in a while someone would 
say, "We, as Communists," and someone would call someone else 
"Comrade," and a few people would say, "Comrade Chairman." 

Mr. Jackson. These were closed meetings of the party ? 

Mr. Marion. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jackson. I just want to make certain on what you are basing 
your statement that these various persons were members of the Com- 
munist Party. 

Mr. Marion. Well, I went on this, the fact that I signed a card, 
which was a card of the Communist Party of America, and I went to 
meetings as a result of that card, and I studied problems relating to 
the Communist Party, studying Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and all of these 
things. 

Mr. Jackson. And the people to whom you have referred were 
people who took part in those activities the same as you did ? 

Mr. Marion. Yes. 

Mr. Jackson. All right. 

Mr. Tavenner. Now, will you tell us, and I am going back to each 
of those that you have named, and ask you to state what their profes- 
sion was in order to be able to identify them. 

Mr. Marion. All right. 

Mr. Tavenner. To identify them more particularly. 

Mr. Marion. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. You referred to Mr. Waxman and Stanley Waxinan. 

Mr. Mu\RioN. He was a radio announcer. 

Mr. Tavenner. You have mentioned Bill Wolff as a member of this 
Communist Party group. 



4100 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. Marion. Yes, sir ; and I do not know too much of what he did,^ 
I would not say. 

Mr. Tavicnner. And Hy Alexander. 

Mr. Marion. He was a radio writer, I understood. 

Mr. Tavenner. And Ed Max. 

Mr. Marion. He was an actor. 

Mr. Tavenner. And Jack Robinson. 

Mr. Marion. A writer. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mary Robinson. 

Mr. Marion. A writer. 

Mr. Tavenner. Ruben Ship. 

Mr. Marion. He was a writer. 

Mr. Tavenner. And Gene Stone. 

Mr. Marion. A writer. 

Mr. Tavenner. And Herman Waldman.^ 

Mr. Marion. He is an actor. 

Mr. Tavenner. I think that is all. Did you mention a person by 
the name of Lloyd Gough ? 

Mr. Marion. Yes. He was a screen actor, and he was not in that 
group. 

Mr. Tavenner. He was not in that group? 

Mr. Marion. No. 

Mr. Tavenner. You met him in the fraction meeting that you 
testified to? 

Mr. Marion. Yes; the Screen Actors' Guild. 

Mr. Tavenner. I believe you mentioned Mr. Alvin Hammer. 

Mr. Marion. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. Wliat knowledge did you have, if any, that he was 
a member of the Communist Party? 

Mr. Marion. None whatsoever, except that this meeting was held 
at his house. 

Mr. Tavenner. You are speaking of the Communist Party fraction 
meeting that you described ? 

Mr. Marion. Yes. 

Mr. Doyle. Was he there at that meeting? 

Mr. Tavenner, Was Mr. Hammer there at that meeting? 

Mr. Marion. Well, I would not say one way or the other, since it 
was the only meeting I ever attended, a closed actors' meeting ; I am 
very unsure of it. I imagine, since it was at his house, he was there, 
and I would not swear on the fact of his presence. 

Mr. Ta^^nner. You spoke of Karen Morley. 

Mr. Marion. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was she a member of the Communist Party, to 
your knowledge? 

Mr. Marion. Well, ajjain I must say she was at the meeting, and, 
as far as I knew when I met her, I met her as a Communist, because 
"when I met her it was really as a liaison for the radio group actors, 
who were screen actors as well. 

Mr. Tavenner. You referred to Mr. Ben Margolis as having given 
advice. 

Mr. Marion. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. At a meeting. 

Mr. Marion. Yes, sir. 



* Herman Waldman, also known as David Wolfe. 



COMMtJNISM EST LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 4101 

Mr. Tavenner. Wliat meeting was that ? 

Mr. Marion, That was the Screen Actors' Guild meeting, and he 
was asked questions and he gave his advice on the questions about 
the strategy and tactics of the meeting. 

Mr. Tavenxer. Did you ever attend a meeting, any other meeting 
with Mr. Margolis? 

Mr. Marion. No, I never did. 

Mr. Ta\-enner. All right. Now, can you recall any other persons 
who were members of your group of the Communist Party? 

Mr. Marion. Well, I would like to refer to my notes here. 

Mr. Tavenner. You have mentioned Georgia Backus in the early 
part of your testimony. What was her occupation or profession? 

Mr. Marion. She was an actress. There was Mitchell Lindemann, 
who was a director, a radio director, and Pauline Hopkins, who was a 
writer. 

Mr. T.WENNER. That is Pauline Hopkins ? 

Mr. Marion. Yes. 

Mr. Ta\texner. How do you spell the name ? 

Mr. Marion. H-o-p-k-i-n-s. 

Mr. Tavexner. What was the first name that you mentioned ? 

Mr. Marion. Pauline. 

Mr. Tavenner. How do you spell the other name ? 

Mr. Marion. L-i-n-d-e-m-a-n-n. 

Mr. Ta\t^xxer. Wliat was Pauline Hopkins' occupation? 

Mr. Marion. Radio writer. Then there was Ellen Davidson. 

Mr. Tavenner. How do you spell that ? 

Mr. Marion. E-1-l-e-n D-a-v-i-d-s-o-n. And I understand she was 
just a housewife, and I do not think she was doing anything at the 
time. I knew her as an actress. 

Mr, Tavenner. A housewife is a rather important job, though, ig 
it not? 

Mr. ]VL\RiON. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenxer. Were you acquainted with Sam Moore ? 

Mr. Marion. Yes, I was. 

Mr. Ta\'Enxer. Was Sam Moore known to you as a member of the 
Communist Party? 

Mr. Marion. Yes. 

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

Mr. Marion. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenxer. Wliat was his occupation? 

Mr. Martox^. He was a radio writer. 

Mr. Tavenxer. Were you acquainted with a person by the name of 
Art Shapiro? 

Mr. Marion, Yes. I think he was a publicist or a writer. I only 
saw him a few times. 

I was also acquainted with Nina Klowden. 

Mr. Tavex^ner. Was Art Shapiro known to you to be a member of 
the Communist Party? 

Mr. Marion. Yes, he was. 

Mr. Tavenxer. Was he a member of your group ? 

Mr. Marion. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenxt:r. What was the name of the other person you just 
mentioned? 



4102 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

Mr. Marion. That was Nina Klowden, K-1-o-w-d-e-n. She was a 
radio actress, and also she was one, I imagine, of the organizers of 
the A YD, the American Youth for Democracy. 

Mr. Tavennee. Was she a member of your gi'oup ? 

Mr. Marion. Yes, she was. 

Mr. Tavennee. Do you know a person by the name of Annette 
Harper ? 

Mr. Marion. Yes, she was a radio actress, and she, I think, is out 
of the business. 

Mr. Taatenner. Was she a member of your group ? 

Mr. Marion. Yes, she wixs. 

Mr. Tavenner. Of the Communist Party? 

Mr. Marion. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. If you have any knowledge of your own that any 
of the persons mentioned by you liave withdrawn from the Communist 
Party, I would like for you to say so. 

Mr. Marion. No; I am sorry, I have no knowledge at all. There 
was no way of my knowing past the time when I got out, and also 
unless somebody came up to me and said the}^ were no longer members, 
I would not know. 

You can always tell by an attitude, too. If people talk to you, then 
you know tliey are out. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you acquainted witli a person by the name of 
Ben Polin ? 

Mr. Marion. Ben Polin is a photograplier at Columbia Broadcast- 
ing System. 

Mr. Ta\'enner. Will you spell the last name? 

Mr. Marion. P-o-l-i-n. 

Mr. Ta\'enner. What were the circumstances under which you be- 
came acquainted with him ? 

Mr. Marion. Well, I met him at the Conununist Party, and he was 
one of the chairmen, and we had a different chairman all of the time. 

Mr. Velde. Did you become acquainted with Abe Burrows ? 

Mr. Marion. I am not too sure about Abe Burrows, and so I would 
not like to say. I might have seen him and I might not. People came 
once every month or so, and I was not too sure, and therefore I felt 
I had no right to say tliat I knew him as a Communist. 

Mr. Tavenner. You have stated you withdrew from the party in 
1948. 

Mr. Marion. Yes; early in 1948; yes. 

Mr. Ta\^nner. Wliat were the circumstances under which you with- 
drew ? 

Mr. Marion. Well, there were many circumstances, and it is pretty 
difficult to follow, because there are so many complex factors in it. 
But I would give as a number of them, the fact, first, that it was very 
dull, and it was dull because the language that they were trying to 
learn was a language which was pretty foreign to us, the language of 
the philosophy called dialetical materialism. 

We studied Eugene Dennis' pamphlets and they were a re]:)etition 
of warmonger, and warmongerer. Another reason I left Avas because 
of the alienation which I felt with the rest of the people with Avhom 
I was associated. If you were not a Communist you did not know any- 
thing at all, and also I felt the lack of an enrichment which I thought 
I was going to get there, and there was nothing American which was 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 4103 

ever studied in tlie sense of American minds like, for instance, John 
Dewe}', William James, or anybody like that. 

I also got disturbed by the arrogance of ignorance, and when I say 
arrogance of ignorance. I mean the thinking that you know a great 
deal when you do not know very much. If, for instance, Lisinka would 
come out with a theory about genetics and it was published to the 
effect that this was right, we would all accept it and read maybe one 
or two books about it, and I know I did this, and I should speak for 
myself, and I would go around saying or making some remarks about 
this. 

I also had been reading a littl^ stuff on the outside, and I became 
^disturbed by it, the relationship of the Soviet Union with its artists, 
and this is a point which I would like to stress, which I think, for 
me anyway, is the heart and soul of it. I would say the heart, soul, 
and mind. 

Now, since the Communist Party in America is devoted to the 
dogma, and to the principles which are set down by art and every- 
thing else, there is a gi'eat connection, and you know darn well they 
are going to follow it, as well as they possibly can. That is what 
happened Avith Albert Maltz and Budd Schulberg and others, and 
that is what they did to their writers and what they did to their atti- 
tude about Matisse, whom they considered to be bourgeois decadent 
because his painting did not have a message for the working people. 

The fact that he painted for his own needs had nothing to do with 
it. Then there was the throwing out of two writers from the Writers' 
Congress, and Avhen you are thrown out of the Writers' Congress, 
no doubt you cannot make a living in a Soviet Union, because they 
dared to write something which had to do with their own feelings, 
doubts, and so on, and something to do with love, and maybe some- 
thing to do with sex, but something to do with what was going on 
inside of them. 

. I felt, also, that if you took away — and this is in relation to the 
Communist Party in America — the element of Russia and the Ameri- 
can Party was considered alone, it meant absolutely nothing, as a 
subversive or as an organization which followed the Soviet Union. 

Now, Tito, and Yugoslavia, is Communist; that is true. We are 
not here in the United States going after anybody who is a Titoist. 
Tito's Yugoslavia and Tito are not striving to infiltrate into the 
United States through its arm, the Communist Party of America, 

Now, people have also in conversations mentioned the Catholic or- 
ganizations, and the Pope in Rome, and this is also something that 
would be connected with a so-called foreign power. The fact is that 
the Catholic Church, as far as I know, is not seeking to overthrow 
the Government of the United States, and maybe they are trying to 
influence it as well as morals and ethics are concerned, but it has noth- 
ing to do with any kind of boring from within. 

Now, these are some of the reasons why I left : After I left, I will 
say I was more concerned because I had to find out reasons why for 
myself, why we are called here, or rather, what gave me the right to 
cooperate with the committee, and I want to say it is just as difficult 
to find your way out as it would be to find your way out of any very 
difficult position. 



4104 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

As far as I am concerned, what I said before, I am talking now be- 
cause I have been asked to tell who I am and what I am, and I do not 
want to be part of any conspiracy of silence. 

Mr. Tavenner. I have no further questions. 

Mr. Doyle. I think you just said, Mr. Marion, "I felt that if you 
take the element of the Soviet Union out of the Communist Party in 
America, you have nothing left." Do you remember saying that ? 

Mr. Marion. Yes ; I do. 

Mr. Doyle. What do you mean by that ? 

Mr. Marion. What do I mean by that ? Because when I was a mem- 
ber of the Communist Party and with the fellows I was associated 
with — and I believe this to be true with the majority of them — 
the level that they operated on and I operated on gave us absolutely 
no understanding of any world-wide ramifications, and I imagine 
that still is very true, that if you think about them at all, you have 
to think about them on a certain level. 

After I got out I began to think more clearly about it, and since 
there were a lot of things about what we studied, and so on, and 
somebody must have been telling us what to do, if you follow it up 
you finally come to the New York bunch, which is the head, the so- 
called head of the Communist Party, and that is Foster, Dennis, and 
the others. 

We studied these people. Now, I am not naive enough now to be- 
lieve that it ends there. 

Mr. Doyle. Well, I have heard witnesses here for these 2 or 3 
days, and we have been hearing them all over the country, men and 
women, persons that we believe are members of the Communist Party, 
and some of them deny it, but they come in and complain because this 
committee is interfering with the freedom of thought, and they are 
begging and pleading for the freedom of thought. Some of them tell 
you frankly that the Communist Party is where they will have free- 
dom of thought and liberty of thinking as they want. 

Mr. Marion. I think the Soviet Union is one of the narrowest coun- 
tries, as far as any kind of culture is concerned, and anybody, who is an 
artist should be very concerned, and I also think the Soviet Union, 
in order to retain and in order to insure its own safety, must seek 
help in every country it possibly can. 

Mr. Doyle. Now, let me come back to my other question just a mo- 
ment, and I must hasten. 

Do you mean to tell me that the whole foundation or substantially 
the whole foundation is the Soviet Union ? If that is all the founda- 
tion, I want you to tell me that, or if it is less than the total foundation 
of the Communist Party, I would like to have you tell me that. 

You said if you take the element of the Soviet Union out of the Com- 
munist Party in America, that you have nothing left. Do you mean 
to tell me that ? 

Mr. Marion. I say if you take away the element of the Soviet Union, 
if you were to push them aside and say that the Soviet Union is not 
or has no connection or has no existence now as a Communist power 
and therefore the Communist Party in America has no connection 
with it, I say you take away the element of the Communist Party and 
it no longer remains a subversive organization. You bring the ele- 
ment of the Soviet Union in, and you have that. 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 4105 

Mr. DoTLE. Then do I understand that your experience or your 
opinion is that because the Communist Party in America is funda- 
mentally the mouthpiece of the Soviet Union, that it is subversive ? 

Mr. Marion. Well, as far as the subversive part is, I don't know 
about that, but I will say it is the mouthpiece of the Soviet Union, and 
vice versa. During our time or during my sojourn in the Communist 
Party there was never anything said which was detrimental to the 
Soviet Union and they were never wrong, and when a country is never 
wrong there. is something wrong. 

As far as the United States was concerned, there was nothing that 
ever happened here that was of any value at all. 

Mr. Doyle. You mean no good was ever spoken of the country in 
which the Communists that were with you were complimentary ? 

Mr. Marion. How could it be? This is the strongest capitalist 
country in the world, and we seek to dominate and enslave every 
country ; that was the idea. It was that we could not exist unless we 
became a socialist nation, the fact that there would be wars and there 
would be a depression, and we were supposed to have had a depres- 
sion 7 or 8 years ago, according to the information we got. 

Mr. Doyle. You used the term, you said there were pamphlets, and 
I understood you to say that the pamphlets were charging the United 
States with being a warmonger. 

Mr. Marion. That is right. 

Mr. Doyle. You mean distributed in these Communist meetings ? 

Mr. Marion. Well, we studied that, and it was always back to the 
fact that Wall Street — and these are the cliche terms used all the 
time — that Wall Street wanted war and that the United States, in 
order to keep well and healthy economically, must have a war, and that 
is one of the things that gets you into the Communist Party in the 
first place, the fact that you will be working for not having war any 
longer. 

Mr. Doyle. You said that nothing American was ever studied, and 
you studied Lenin's works and the United Front, and you mentioned 
two or three other books. Do you mean to tell me that all of this 
group of American-born citizens that were in that Communist group 
w^ith you of the Hollywood radio people, do you mean to tell me that 
these people never studied the history of the Constitution or the 
Declaration of Independence ? 

Mr. Marion. I am afraid not. I did ask once, "Why don't we study 
American history? We are supposed to be American Communists 
and we are going to influence the Americans." 

Mr. Doyle. You were the literature chairman of this intellectual 
group in Hollywood. Didn't you have in your possession or were you 
not furnished literature by the Communist Party in America edifying 
the freedom of thouj^ht and the liberties and the gi-eater benefits of 
being born in America? Did you not have any such literature as 
that? 

Mr. Marion. No ; absolutely not. 

Mr. Doyle. Why not? 

Mr. Marion. I don't know. I haven't any idea. 

Mr. Doyle. Wliere did you get all of the literature which you did 
distribute or sell ? 

Mr. Marion. I got that from a book store on Highland Avenue, the 
Lincoln Book Shop, and they had the latest pamphlets, latest Com- 



4106 COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 

munist pamphlets. You went around and you chose whatever they 
had, and the selection was not too varied or too large. 

Mr. DoTLE. I want to compliment you, young man, on having the 
guts and the conscience to come here and testify under these condi- 
tions, knowing what this bunch of people, some of them behind you 
-and some of them in other places, will call you, such as "stool pigeon," 
and they have already without a doubt, and I want to compliment you. 

Mr. Marion. Thank you. As far as that is concerned, I have been 
called stool pigeon, and I have been called informer, and it has made 
me stronger than anything else. 

Mr. Doyle. Just in closing, Mr. Chairman, on my behalf, I w\ant to 
invite other people to come to the point where they think more of their 
own Government and their birthrights in this country as American 
citizens than they do of the Soviet Union, and come clean enough to 
come up and cooperate like the young man has. 

Mr. Wood. Are there any further questions ? 

Mr. Velde. Mr. Marion, I too wanted to add to Mr. Doyle's thanks, 
my own thanks for your splendid cooperation in helping this country 
and helping this committee. I was very much interested in your state- 
ment that you started to read at the beginning, and of course I will 
read it when it gets into the record, but of course our distinguished 
chairman and the rest of the members of the committee try to be more 
than fair to these Communist witnesses who refuse to answer questions, 
and in not allowing you to read the statement which you had prepared, 
I am sure that the chairman was only acting in his sense of fairness 
to everybody. 

Mr. Marion. That is right. I realize that. 

Mr. Jackson. Mr. Marion, I want to associate myself with my col- 
league in expressing my appreciation and my respect for your courage. 
"Comes the revolution," I want to be on your side and I am glad that 
you are on our side. 

Do you know of any freedom of speech in the Communist Party, Mr. 
Marion ? 

Mr. Marion. I would say "No." 

Mr. Jackson. We have heard a lot about the Bill of Rights here, and 
we have listened to long perorations going on for hours about a deep 
devotion to constitutional rights. Do you know of any freedom of 
assemblage except the assemblage to listen to a directive which has 
been decided upon already ? 

Mr. Marion. No. I would say that the Soviet Union is pretty much 
of a closed union. 

Mr. Jackson. You certainly know of no freedom of worship ? 

Mr, Marion. I do not know anything about freedom of worship. 
The only thing I was concerned in was the lack of freedom of any 
kind of culture, in writing, and mainly in writing, I suppose. 

Mr. Jackson. Is there any freedom in the Communist Party to 
scream and insult members of the Politburo ? 

Mr. Marion. I imagine not, and also I would say that if the Com- 
munist Party ever took over, I do not thinlc that there would be any 
amendments or any constitution to amend. According to what we read 
and what we studied, it does not seem possible, but people mentioned 
force and violence, and there was no talk of that, and yet we studied the 
principles, the fact that if the Communist Party was in existence, it 



COMMUNISM IN LOS ANGELES PROFESSIONAL GROUPS 4107 

would be impossible for there to be a Democratic Party or a Republican 
Party ; absolutely impossible. 

Mr. Jackson. In that connection, would you have any idea as to 
what would happen to, let us say, a Republican who picketed the 
Kremlin ^ 

Mr. Marion. I am afraid he would find himself in Siberia, wherever 
the Siberia in America would be. 

Mr. Jackson. I Avill hasten to add that I think that 90 percent of 
the witnesses we have had in that witness chair during the course of 
these hearings would be shot the following morning in any of the satel- 
lite countries and that they are very fortunate to be testifying in the 
United States of America before a congressional committee. 

The conunittee will stand in recess until 10 o'clock tomorrow 
morning. 

(AVhereupon at 5 p. m., a recess was taken until 10 a. m., Friday,. 
Octobers, 1952.) 

X 



BOSTON POBU(^JBBARY 





3 QQQft^ QJI 44S a 897 



BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY 

llliilillllllll 

3 9999 05445 3996