(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 methods of infiltration (Government-labor) Hearings"



r£ 



L 



/ft/ i 0» 




Given By 
T7. S. SUPT. TS 










COMMUNIST METHODS OF INFILTRATION 

(GOVERNMENT— LABOR) 



HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES 
U.c>*y HOUSE OE REPRESENTATIVES 

EIGHTY-THIED CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 



APRIL 17, MAY 14, AND JUNE 9, 1953 



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



INCLUDING INDEX 







PUBLIC 

s 4£eRA*> 



UNITED STATES 
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE \ 

35203 WASHINGTON : 1953 



1 



1c o t33 >r^ tin 



Doston Public Library- 
Superintendent of Documents 

Mb* 1 063 



COMMITTEE ON UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES 

United States House of Representatives 

HAROLD H. VELDB, Illinois, Chairman 

BERNARD W. KEARNEY, New York FRANCIS E. WALTER, Pennsylvania 

DONALD L. JACKSON, California MORGAN M. MOULDER, Missouri 

KIT CLARDY, Michigan CLYDE DOYLE, California 

GORDON H. SCHERER, Ohio JAMES B. FRAZIER, Jr., Tennessee 

Robert L. Kunzig, Counsel 

Frank S. Tavenner, Jr., Counsel 

Louis J. Russell, Chief Investigator 

Thomas W. Beale, Si\, Chief Clerk 

Raphael I. Nixon, Director of Research 

II 



CONTENTS 



April 17, 1953: Page 

Testimony of Mary Catherine Grier 1589 

May 14, 1953: 

Testimony of Amos Heacock 1609 

June 9, 1953: 

Testimony of Russell Arthur Nixon 1649 

Index 1685 

ni 



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

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

PART 2— RULES OF THE HOUSE OP REPRESENTATIVES 

Rule X 

SEC. 121. STANDING COMMITTEES 
******* 

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

Rule XI 

POWERS AND DUTIES OF COMMITTEES 



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

(A) Un-American activities. 

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

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

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



RULES ADOPTED BY THE 83d CONGRESS 

House Resolution 5, January 3, 1953 

******* 

Rule X 

STANDING COMMITTEES 

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

******* 

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

Rule XI 

POWERS AND DUTIES OP COMMITTEES 
* ****** 

17. Committee on Un-American Activities. 

(a) Un-American Activities. 

(b) The Committee on Un-American Activities, as a whole or by subcommittee, 
is authorized to make from time to time, investigations of (1) the extent, char- 
acter, and objects of un-American propaganda activities in the United States, 
(2) the diffusion within the United States of subversive and un-American propa- 
ganda that is instigated from foreign countries or of a domestic origin and 
attacks the principle of the form of government as guaranteed by our Constitu- 
tion, and (3) all other questions in relation thereto that would aid Congress in 
any necessary remedial legislation. 

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

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

VI 



COMMUNIST METHODS OF INFILTRATION 
(Government— Labor) 



FBID-AY, APRIL 17, 1953 

United States House of Representatives, 

Subcommittee of the 
Committee on Un-American Activities, 

Washington, D. C. 

PUBLIC HEARING 

The subcommittee of the Committee on Un-American Activities 
met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 : 40 a. m., in the caucus room, 362 
Old House Office Building, Hon. Harold H. Velde (chairman) 
presiding. 

Committee members present: Representatives Harold H. Velde 
(chairman) , Kit Clardy, Gordon H. Scherer, and Morgan M. Moulder. 

Staff members present : Robert L. Kunzig, counsel ; Frank S. Tav- 
enner, Jr., counsel; Louis J. Russell, chief investigator; Raphael I. 
Nixon, director of research; Courtney E. Owens, investigator; and 
Thomas W. Beale, Sr., chief clerk. 

Mr. Velde. The committee will come to order. 

Let the record show the chairman has appointed a subcommittee 
consisting of Mr. Clardy, Mr. Scherer, Mr. Moulder, and Chairman 
Velde for the purposes of the meeting this morning. 

Before proceeding, Mr. Counsel, I would like to read into the record 
at this point a letter addressed to Hon. Donald Jackson, House of 
Representatives, Washington, D. C., from a housewife who watched 
and listened to the hearings recently held in Los Angeles on tele- 
vision. It's my opinion that this letter represents the intelligent — 
keenly intelligent — thinking of the average American woman today 
relative to communism and relative to hearings of this committee. 
The letter is as follows : 

Dear Mr. Jackson : During the month of March we experienced two detona- 
tions within our own living room. The first took place in the form of the atomic 
blast on Yucca Flats in Nevada. Through the medium of television we were 
able to see first hand the physical hell that was produced in a matter of sec- 
onds. To say that we were awed and frightened is putting it in the lightest 
form. We silently thanked God that it was only for experimental purposes, 
and as my young son said, "Not for real." Had it been for real, I feel certain 
that I would not be sitting here now writing this. 

The second detonation started on Monday, March 23, at 10 a. m. Aftershocks 
of this second blast are still hitting me, and hitting hard. These shocks are not 
scientifically controlled, or calculated as those in the atomic detonation, but 
these are felt at the most unpredicted times. They have been felt as my son says 
grace at the dinner table. They have been felt as I watch my husband go to 
work. They have been felt as I have done the homely tasks, such as darning 
socks and washing dishes. I can assure you that these shocks are staggering, 
for they are shocks to my very soul. I have suddenly been awakened out of my 

1587 



1588 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION (GOVERNMENT LABOR) 

lethargy, that communism was a form of government in countries far removed 
from the United States, and that if any of it was in evidence in our country, 
it was simply a talking campaign of a few unstable people who were merely seek- 
ing a cause to work for much as I would work for the cause of the March of 
Dimes. I am now acutely aware that communism is a malignant growth in our 
American form of society, and that it can spread and be a slow and tortuous death 
to all that we as Americans hold dear. 

I have seen a malignancy attack and kill a member of my own family and, 
as a direct result of watching and listening to your committee in action, I now 
know that communism is as insidious and deadly as cancer, and our only defense, 
as in cancer, is an early detection, and then swift actions in the cure. 

At the onset of the hearings here in Los Angeles, I felt as many people have 
felt, that your committee should have the respect of the people since you are an 
acting branch of our Government, but I could not see what possible good could 
come from a simple question and answer session with no one convicted of any 
crime. Now, thanks to the medium of television and newspapers, I am acutely 
aware of the purpose of your committee, and feel that I owe all of the gentlemen 
on the committee my heartfelt thanks for opening my eyes to the things I could 
not see. I feel that each and every American owes all of the gentlemen on the 
committee thanks for sitting day after day, and taking so graciously insults to 
your integrity, your basic honesty, your personal beliefs, and your dignity as a 
Member of the Congress of the United States. Perhaps if you can sit long 
enough and take the abuse, it will mean the awakening of enough of the people 
that communism will be blotted out, and our American way of life will not be 
lost. As an American I felt personally insulted at some of the remarks directed 
at you gentlemen, and I personally want to thank you for the insults you took 
for me, and millions of people like me. 

Along with the personal insult I felt that the unfriendly witnesses degraded 
the very forefathers of this great country. Our forefathers' basic reason for com- 
ing to this then wilderness, was for the chance to worship their God as they 
saw fit. As these unfriendly witnesses were sworn in, they took an oath to a God 
whom they did not believe in, and swore to tell the truth. 

In the course of the investigation, one witness pointed out that she did not 
trust Mr. Tavenner. She also stated that she did not know the gentleman in 
question. It has not been my pleasure to know Mr. Tavenner either, but from 
watching him, and listening to him, I was impressed with his kindness and 
patience. His sincerity was most gratifying. 

At one point in the proceedings when one of those long periods of silence filled 
the room while a witness consulted counsel, the television cameras were playing 
on Mr. Tavenner. It appeared to me that he was looking directly at me as I 
stood ironing. For a moment his gaze seemed to carry an admonishment to me 
to do a good job on the ironing I was doing, and I was suddenly aware of how 
simple my ironing job was compared to the ironing out job your committee has 
been called upon to do. The linen you have to iron is washed in deceit, rinsed 
in confusion, wrung with fear, and dried in hate. A few spots have been damp- 
ened with bitter tears of remorse, but for the most part it is dry and hard, and 
stubbornly resists the iron that would serve to make it once again a smooth 
and useful article. May God grant that all the ironing out I am called upon to 
do will be only the familiar things I love, that have had a chance to be washed 
in His gentle rain, and dried in His cleansing and warming sun. May He also 
grant you speed and comfort in your ironing-out job. 

Another witness pointed out that at one time we had slavery and child labor 
in this country. As honest Americans we all realize that we, as a young nation, 
have made mistakes, and in both of the above-mentioned incidents these mis- 
takes have been rectified in amendments to the Constitution. For the record, 
I would like to point out to all the ill-informed Communists that slavery in this 
country was abolished in 1865. That was 5 years before the birth of Lenin, 
14 years before the birth of Stalin, and 26 years before the birth of Browder. 
We here in America had this problem straightened out before any of the contem- 
porary Communist leaders were born. The child-labor amendment came in 1924, 
29 years ago, and if my information is correct, this was before the Communists 
had actively started to undermine our Government. Let us keep our country 
so free that we can always work out our own problems, and do it in our own way, 
and not in a way recommended by the U. S. S. R. 

Another witness stated that she wanted her children to be polite and would 
hate to have them think that a Congressman would interrupt a lady. I, too, have 
a ch^d, and naturally want his manners to be above reproach, but I can assure 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION (GOVERNMENT — LABOR) 1589 

you that I would much prefer to have him "un-polite", rather than "un-American." 
Both factors are important, but his manners, or lack of them, will affect no one 
but him, but if he is un-American he may help to ruin the most democratic gov- 
ernment the world has ever known. 

The intensity with which I followed the investigations was so great that my 
son, whom I have mentioned before, also became interested. He watched many 
of the unfriendly witnesses, and repeatedly asked me, "Mom, why don't they 
just answer the question the man asked them?" I found it rather difficult to 
put my answers into words that a 10-year-old child could understand. He 
has been taught basic honesty, and he could not understand why a person 
would not give a direct answer to a direct question. My husband and I feel that 
through the television coverage our child saw communism working against, 
not with our Government We think he is a better American for having had 
this experience. 

When the investigations closed, I asked my son to tell me what he thought 
communism was. He said, "It is when the people who rule want to live freely 
among themselves, but don't want the little people to have that freedom." It 
is our intent to so impress him with his own words that he will never forget 
them. It is our prayer that he can always live happily as one of the little 
people. 

I would like to commend the committee for the patience and understanding 
that was extended to the friendly witnesses. Had you not been the sincere 
and kindly personages you are, it is doubtful if you would have been able to 
harvest the wealth of information you gathered here. 

I realize that this is long, and may never be read in its entirety, but I feel 
better for having written it, and hope in some small way expresses my deepest 
appreciation for the freedom we enjoy here, for the able men who run our 
Government, and for the brutal awakening your efforts brought forth in our 
home. 

Inasmuch as we have not had. permission from the writer of this 
letter, the name of the writer of the letter will be withheld, and the 
record will so show. 

I would like for the record to show that the next witness will be 
the first of several witnesses dealing with our continuing investiga- 
tions of individuals alleged to have been members of the Communist 
Party while employed by the Federal Government. 

Mr. Counsel, will you call the witness? 

Mr. Kunzig. Miss Grier. 

Would you stand and be sworn? 

Mr. Velde. In the testimony you are about to give before this sub- 
committee, do you solemnly swear you will tell the truth the whole 
truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Miss Grier. I so swear. 

TESTIMONY OF MISS MARY CATHERINE GRIER, ACCOMPANIED BY 

HER COUNSEL, HARRY I. RAND 

Mr. Kunzig. Are you represented by counsel ? 

Miss Grier. I am. 

Mr. Kunzig. Would counsel please state his name and address for 
the record ? 

Mr. Rand. Harry I. Rand — R-a-n-d — Wyatt Building, Washington 
5, D. C. 

Mr. Kunzig. What is your full name ? 

Miss Grier. Mary Catherine Grier. 

Mr. Kunzig. Could you speak just a little bit louder? 

Miss Grier. G-r-i-e-r. 

Mr. Kunzig. Is that Mrs. or Miss ? 

Miss Grier. Miss Grier. 



1590 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION (GOVERNMENT — LABOR) 

Mr. Kunzig. Miss Grier. Mary Catherine Grier. 

When and where were you born, Miss Grier? 

Miss Grier. In the State of Iowa, in 1907. 

Mr. Kunzig. What is your present address ? 

Miss Grier. 2123 1 Street NW., Washington, D. C. 

Mr. Velde. May we have order, please. 

Mr. Kunzig. Are you here, Miss Grier, in answer to a subpena 
served on you April 10, 1953, in room 1033 of the Department of 
Interior, Washington, D. C? 

Miss Grier. I am, sir. 

Mr. Kunzig. Would you give the committee a resume of your educa- 
tional background ? 

Miss Grier. I attended elementary school in the State of Iowa and 
moved to Seattle when I was a high-school freshman, high-school 
sophomore, and completed my high school and college education there 
at the State university, where I graduated as a bachelor of science 
and as a bachelor of library science in 1930. 

Mr. Kunzig. Does that complete your educational background? 

Miss Grier. Yes. 

Mr. Kunzig. Now, would you give the committee a resume of your 
employment background ? 

Miss Grier. I was employed for 12 years as a librarian. 

Mr. Kunzig. Would you kindly continue? 

Miss Grier. Surely. 

Upon graduation from the library school, University of Washington, 
I worked for 12 years in the University of Washington library. 

In the fall of 1942 I resigned my position there as librarian of the 
Oceanographic Laboratories which had closed for the war, and worked 
for a couple of months as an inspector in the plant 2, 1 believe it was, 
at Boeing Aircraft Co. in the city of Seattle. 

In 1943, early in 1943, an Oceanographic Unit within the then 
Air Force of our Nation asked me to be their research librarian here 
in Washington. So, I came and 5 months did these duties for them, 
and in 5 months' time that unit was transferred to the United States 
Hydrographic Office of the Navy, where I remained employed until 
reduced in force in May — late May of 1947, at which time I took a 
job as a research analyst with the Arctic Institute of North America, 
to be one of the staff to prepare a bibliography on arctic materials 
under the auspices of the Arctic Institute of North America, Inc. 

A year and a half ago, having finished my part of that project, I was 
employed as a bibliographer and indexer for the Geological Society 
of America, upon which job I am now engaged. 

Mr. Kunzig. What kind of work did you do for the Hydrographic 
Office that you mentioned a moment ago ? 

Miss Grier. I was the person who went to libraries throughout the 
city of Washington and throughout the eastern part of the United 
States — or even by not going — for research materials which were used 
for reports submitted to the armed services. 

Mr. Kunzig. You, as I understand it, then, got background materials 
and put together materials which were used as a basis for reports 
furnished to the armed services 

Miss Grier. That is correct. 

Mr. Kunzig. Of the United States of America? 

Miss Grier. Yes. 




COMMUNIST INFILTRATION (GOVERNMENT — tABOR) 1591 



Mr. Kunzig. Well, now, do you know, if it lies within your knowl- 
edge, whether you were cleared as a result of any investigation to 
handle classified matter ? 

Miss Grier. So far as I know, sir. 

Mr. Kunzig. So far as you know, you were ? 

Miss Grier. Yes. 

Mr. Kunzig. Did you handle any classified matter while employed 
in the Hydrographic Office? 

Miss Grier. We had confidential materials in our office; yes. Do 
you mean handle ? I saw them around ; yes. 

Mr. Kunzig. You saw them around ? 

Miss Grier. Yes. 

Mr. Kunzig. I see. 

Miss Grier. The reports were 

Mr. Kunzig. You said you left the employ of the Navy Department 
as a result of reduction of force ? 

Miss Grier. I did. 

Mr. Kunzig. What type of work was it that you did when you were 
working for the Arctic Institute of North America ? 

Miss Grier. Bibliographic work. 

Mr. Moulder. Working where? 

I can't hear the testimony. 

Mr. Velde. I would appreciate it very much- 



Mr. Moulder. Would you speak a little louder 

Mr. Velde. Maybe you can get a little closer to the microphone 

Mr. Moulder. Or else do that. 

Mr. Velde. Because it is very difficult for us to hear. The accous- 
tics in this room are extremely bad. 

Mr. Kunzig. I will repeat the question, Miss Grier. 

With respect to your employment by the Arctic Institute of North 
America, what type of work did you do there ? 

Miss Grier. I was a bibliographer and worked with research mate- 
rials on all branches of science — in fact, all branches of the arctic. 

Mr. Velde. Thank you. That is much better. 

Mr. Kunzig. While you were employed in this particular work, 
where did you physically do your work? 

Miss Grier. Mostly in the collection of libraries of this city, the 
collection of — famous collection of the Library of Congress itself, and 
in other libraries — wholly scientific material, since that is my branch 
of the work 

Mr. Kunzig. I see. 

Miss Grier. Throughout the city, but also in other parts of the east 
coast — New York Public Library, American Museum of Natural 
History 

Mr. Kunzig. Did you have a desk assigned to you at the Library 
of Congress or in the Library of Congress during that period ? 

Miss Grier. Yes ; our unit had study space there. 

Mr. Kunzig. I see. 

If you can state so, would you tell how you obtained your present 
position? 

Miss Grier. By knowledge of the Geological Society of my experi- 
ence as a bibliographer. They had been looking for somebody to fill 
a vacancy on their staff for some number of months. 

Mr. Moulder. What is her present position ? 



1592 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION (GOVERNMENT LABOR) 

I haven't learned that yet. 

Mr. Kunzig. Would you repeat again your present position ? 

Miss Grier. Yes. 

Mr. Kunzig. It is hard to hear. 

Miss Grier. I am now a bibliographer for the Geological Society of 
America. We issue an annual volume on all of abstracts and an in- 
dex volume of literature on geology, exclusive of this North American 
Continent, foreign material and other materials dealing with geology 
not in the North American Continent. An annual volume is pub- 
lished by them, and I am on that staff as a abstractor and biblio- 
grapher. 

Mr. Moulder. Did I understand counsel to ask if a subpena had 
been served upon you here in Washington in room so-and-so of the De- 
partment of Interior? 

Mr. Kunzig. We are coming to that. 

Mr. Moulder. Very well. 

Mr. Kunzig. Would you tell the committee, Miss Grier, whom you 
used as references in applying for this position that you presently 
hold? 

Miss Grier. I believe that they wanted to know the people with 
whom I had been working, but did know them. I am afraid I don't 
know whom I gave as personal references — probably people I worked 
with here in the city. 

Mr. Kunzig. Now, isn't it correct that your office in which you ac- 
tually and physically do this work is located in Room 1033 of the De- 
partment of Interior in the Interior Building here in Washington? 

Miss Grier. That is true. 

Mr. Kunzig. Is it correct you have a Department of Interior phone 
on your desk, Extension 3860 ? 

Miss Grier. The phone for the far end of the reading room in the 
Geological Survey Library is in that part of the room where I am. 

Mr. Kunzig. Well, would you explain to the committee the circum- 
stances under which you have received the use of this desk and the 
phone ? 

Miss Grier. I believe a cooperative arrangement of many years has 
existed between the Geological Society of America, which publishes 
this set of annual volumes, and the Geological Survey whereby the 
staff which abstracts and then compiles a volume may use the incoming 
journals and books received by the Geological Survey Library. That's 
handled in a routine way so that all material coming in can be covered 
by the staff. 

Mr. Kunzig. Well, now, you, working there, have access to the ma- 
terial in the library; is that correct? 

Miss Grier. Yes ; the open material. 

Mr. Kunzig. Oh, is there closed material? 

Miss Grier. Generally so. Within the building, I imagine so. 

Mr. Scherer. I didn't — pardon me, Mr. Kunzig — hear your last 
question that time. 

Mr. Kunzig. I am sorry. 

My question was whether there was closed or confidential material 
in that library. 

Miss Grier. I amagine so. I don't know. I do not know because 
we only handle that which comes in over the truck for the use of the 
people who work and study there. 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION (GOVERNMENT — LABOR) 1593 

Mr. Kunzig. Before you came to Washington, Miss Grier, you 
stated, I believe, you were a resident of Seattle ; is that correct ? 

Miss Grier. That is right. 

Mr. Kunzig. Seattle, Wash.? 

Miss Grier. Yes'. 

Mr. Kunzig. While you were residing at Seattle, Wash., were you 
acquainted with an individual known as Andrew Hemes — R-e-m-e-s? 

1 may not be pronouncing it correctly. Kernes, I believe you pro- 
nounce it. 

Miss Grier. I believe I must decline to answer that question, sir. 

Mr. Kunzig. For what reason? 

Miss Grier. Standing upon my privileges under the Constitution, 
particularly the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kunzig. Isn't it true that Andrew Hemes was a Communist 
Party candidate in Seattle for county commissioner in 1942? 

Miss Grier. I must decline to answer that on the same grounds, 
sir. 

Mr. Kunzig. If I showed you an issue of the Daily Worker of 
October 25, 1942, an article written by Jean Frankfeld — F-r-a-n-k- 
f-e-l-d — special to the Worker, date line Seattle, with the heading 
"Seattle Communists name Hemes for Commissioner" — if I showed 
you that article, marked "Grier Exhibit No. 1" for identification, 
would that refresh your memory as to whether or not you knew Mr. 
Hemes in Seattle ? 

Miss Grier. I must still decline to answer the question, sir, on the 
same grounds. 

Mr. Velde. Miss Grier, you keep saying you must decline to answer 
the question. There certainly is no compulsion that you decline to 
answer the question. You have the right to refuse to answer the ques- 
tion based on the grounds of the fifth amendment ; but if you do re- 
fuse, I wish you would so state, instead of that you must decline to 
answer the question. 

Miss Grier. I refuse to answer that, sir, on the same grounds. 

Mr. Kunzig. Isn't it a fact, Miss Grier, that you were active — 
actually, personally were active — in the campaign of Mr. Hemes for 
office at that time? 

Miss Grier. I refuse to answer that question on the same grounds, 
sir. 

Mr. Kunzig. During your residence in Seattle, Wash., were you 
acquainted with one Louis Weinzirl — W-e-i-n-z-i-r-1? 

Miss Grier. I am, sir. 

Mr. Kunzig. Is Mr. Weinzirl related to you in any way ? 

Miss Grier. He is my brother-in-law. 

Mr. Clardy. Your what? 

Miss Grier. My brother-in-law. 

Mr. Kunzig. Were you acquainted with him when he was employed 
in the Office of Civilian Defense in Seattle? 

Miss Grier. I was. 

Mr. Kunzig. Are you familiar with the reasons for his dismissal 
from this office for Communist Party activities? 

Miss Grier. I must refuse to answer that question, sir. 

Mr. Velde. Now, again, there is no compulsion. 

Miss Grier. I am sorry. I do so refuse. 



1594 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION (GOVERNMENT — LABOR) 

Mr. Clardy. Counsel, may I inquire is not that a matter of public 
record as to why the discharge took place ? 

Mr. Kunzig. I believe it is publicly known in Seattle; yes, sir. 

Mr. Clardy. Well, the reason I inquired — you might address a 
question to her based on the matters that are known to the public at 
large to see whether she will refuse to answer that. 

Mr. Kunzig. Has it come within your general knowledge, then, as 
it has with other folks in the general public at large, that Louis Wein- 
zirl was discharged from the Office of Civilian Defense in Seattle for 
subversive activities or for activities in the Communist Party? 

(At this point Miss Grier conferred with Mr. Rand.) 

Miss Grier. I decline to answer that question, sir 

Mr. Clardy. Counsel, I have 

Miss Grier. On the same grounds. 

Mr. Clardy (continuing). A question there. 

Witness, the last question was addressed to you because I wanted to 
have elicited an answer that could not possibly be based upon any 
Communist connections on your part or anything dealing with the 
Communist Party. We are asking a question — and I am going to 
repeat it in a moment — designed to inquire as to your knowledge which 
you alone, with other members of the public, would glean from matters 
that everyone knew about. 

Now, I am going to ask you again : Did you not know from records 
published at the time as to the reason and the cause for the discharge 
of this person we are talking about ? 

Miss Grier. Will you excuse me, please, sir? 

Mr. Clardy. Yes-; you may consult with your counsel, as you have 
been doing. 

(At this point Miss Grier conferred with Mr. Rand.) 

Miss Grier. I shall still decline, sir, to answer the question. 

Mr. Clardy. Now, Mr. Chairman, I ask that the witness be directed 
to answer the question because it is obvious that the defense she is 
attempting to erect is not a valid one, that the material that I am in- 
quiring about is not something that could possibly incriminate her, 
because it is merely a question as to whether or not anything has come 
to her attention that was common public knowledge ; and I think she 
should be directed and I think she should be told she is being directed 
to answer the question as a prelude to possible further action by this 
committee in the way of contempt action. 

Mr. Velde. Yes. The Chair agrees with the distinguished gentle- 
man from Michigan. The question is very simple and the Chair can 
see no way which an answer of "Yes" or "No," with any explanation 
you want to make after you answer the question "Yes" or "No," could 
possibly incriminate you. So, you are directed to answer the ques- 
tion put to you by Mr. Clardy. 

Mr. Rand. May we have the question read again, please? 

Mr. Clardy. Yes. 

Mr. Velde. Yes. Will the reporter read the question, please. 

(The reporter read the question as follows: "Did you not know 
from records published at the time as to the reason and the cause for 
the discharge of this person we are talking about?") 

(At this point Miss Grier conferred with Mr. Rand.) 

Mr. Velde. And the name of that person again, Mr. Counsel? 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION (GOVERNMENT LABOR) 1595 

Mr. Kunzig. Louis Weinzirl — W-e-i-n-z-i-r-1 — brother-in-law of 
Miss Grier. 

Mr. Clardy. And before you answer, Witness, I want you to under- 
stand I am merely inquiring as to whether or not you had knowledge 
of something that was published and was, therefore, common knowl- 
edge. That is all I am asking. 

Miss Grier. The common knowledge of details about that situation, 
sir, I didn't have and don't have now because I believe I was in the 
city of Washington. I have heard about it from my family. 

Mr. Clardy. And having heard about it from your family, did you 
not learn that, as counsel has indicated in the prior questioning, his 
discharge was connected with Communist activities? 

Mr. Moulder. Of course, what she heard would be hearsay, Mr. 
Clardy. 

Mr. Clardy. Well, that makes no difference. I am inquiring as 
to whether that was not what she heard. 

Mr. Kunzig. Mr. Chairman, I suggest this line of questioning, with 
due respect to Mr. Clardy, is with regard to another person and, there- 
fore, not particularly material in this issue. 

Mr. Clardy. Well, I beg to differ with counsel and point out I am 
attempting to get from this witness a clear and direct answer on the 
subject you were inquiring about, sir. 

Mr. Velde. Well, of course 

Mr. Clardy. I think it is important. 

Mr. Velde. We all realize this is not a court of law and the strict 
rules of evidence, of course, do not apply in hearings before congres- 
sional committees. However, in spite of that fact, we all know, too, 
as I think we are all lawyers here, that certain types of hearsay evi- 
dence are admissible in a court of law. So, I believe the question is 
proper and should be answered. 

Mr. Clardy. She, of course, may decline to answer. 

We are not cutting you off from that on the constitutional grounds, 
if you want to raise it. I am not saying it is valid or you are entitled 
to it, but you have the privilege of at least raising it. 

Now, will you answer the question ? 

Mr. Rand. Do you know what the question is ? 

Miss Grier. I am sorry. I had 

Mr. Velde. Can you 

Mr. Clardy. I can rephrase the question. The question is quite 
simple. It is based upon what you, yourself, mentioned — the knowl- 
edge coming to you from your family. Is it not true that you now 
know the discharge was because of Communist activities or connec- 
tions on the part of the gentleman in question ? 

Miss Grier. No ; I do not know that, sir. 

Mr. Clardy. You do not know that ? 

Miss Grier. No. 

Mr. Clardy. That is all, Counsel. 

Mr. Kunzig. During your residence in Seattle, Miss Grier, were 
you acquainted with Philip Frankfeld — F-r-a-n-k-f-e-1-d? 

Miss Grier. I decline to answer that question, sir, on the previous 
grounds. 

Mr. Kunzig. Wasn't Philip Frankfeld serving as executive secre- 
tary of the northwest district committee of the Communist Party in 
Seattle, and didn't you know him as such ? 



1596 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION (GOVERNMENT LABOR) 

Miss Grier. I decline to answer that question, sir. 

Mr. Kunzig. Are you aware 

Mr. Velde. Mr. Counsel 

Miss Grier. No, sir. 

Mr. Velde. The committee has ample evidence to prove the state- 
ment in } r our last question 

Mr. Kunzig. Yes. 
Mr. Velde. Is that not so ? 

Mr. Kunzig. It is a matter of public record ; yes, sir. 
Mr. Frankfeld was recently convicted under the Smith Act with 
the Baltimore leaders of the Communist Party. 

Mr. Clardy. I couldn't make that out, Counsel. Would you please 
repeat it ? 

Mr. Kunzig. Mr. Frankfeld was recently convicted under the Smith 
Act with the Baltimore leaders of the Communist Party. 
Mr. Scherer. I didn't hear it. Will you read it again ? 

Mr. Kunzig. I said 

Mr. Clardy. Counsel, it isn't your fault. A little noise interrupts 
in the middle of 1 or 2 of j^our words. I got it the second time, but 
he didn't. 

Mr. Kunzig. I said Mr. Frankfeld was recently convicted under 
the Smith Act with the Baltimore leaders of the Communist Party. 
Miss Grier, when you resided in Seattle, were you a. member of the 
Communist Party ? 

Miss Grier. I decline to answer that question, sir, on the same 
grounds. 

Mr. Kunzig. When you left Seattle, Wash., to come to Washington, 
D. C, to accept your position witli the Air Force, were you informed 
by Phil Frankfeld to contact Martin Chancey — C-h-a-n-c-e-y — of the 
Communist Party in the District of Columbia with reference to con- 
tinuing your work and membership in the Communist Party I 

Miss Grier. I decline to answer that question, sir, on the same 
grounds. 

Mr. Kunzig. Did you ever know 

Mr. Clardy. Pardon me, Counsel. 
You are whispering again. Witness. 
Miss Grier. I am sorry. 

Mr. Clardy. If you would keep your voice up a little, it would be 
helpful. 

Mr. Kunzig. Did you ever know Martin Chancey ? 
Miss Grier. I decline to answer that question, sir, on the same 
grounds. 

Mr. Kunzig. Will the chairman let the record show there is sworn 
testimony before this committee that in February 1943, Martin Chancey 
was secretary of the Communist Party of the District of Columbia ( 

That has been testified by Mary Stalcup 1 — S-t-a-1-c-u-p — who 
served as an undercover agent for the FBI for 7 years in Washington, 
D. C. 

Mr. Velde. The record will so indicate. 
Mr. Kunzig. Miss Grier 



Mr. Moulder. At this juncture- 
Mr. Kunzig. Isn't it true 



1 This individual testified under her married name, Mary Staleup Markward, July 11, 
1951. 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION (GOVERNMENT — LABOR) 1597 

Mr. Mouldek. I suggest you repeat the question after you have iden- 
tified the person. 

Mr. Kunzig. Pardon. 

Mr. Moulder. I suggest that you repeat your question after } t ou 
have properly identified the person you are inquiring about 

Mr. Kunzig. Yes. 

Mr. Moulder. As to whether or not she was acquainted with him. 

Mr. Kunzig. That is just what I was going to do, sir. 

Miss Grier, as to this Martin Chancey, to whom we were just refer- 
ring, to whom I have just alluded, isn't it true — I will repeat the 
question — that you knew Martin Chancey and that you reported to 
him when you came here to Washington for "duty" as a member of 
the Communist Party ? 

Miss Grier. I decline to answer that question, sir, on the same 
grounds. 

Mr. Kuxzig. Isn't it true that when you left Seattle, Wash., the 
Communist Party transferred your membership from Seattle to Wash- 
ington, D. C. ? 

Miss Grier. I also decline to answer that question, sir, on the same 
grounds. 

Mr. Kunzig. Now, you came here to work with the Air Force; is 
that correct 

Miss Grier. That is so. 

Mr. Kunzig. First ? 

Miss Grier. That is correct. 

Mr. Kunzig. Now, when you were working for the Air Force, were 
you a member of the Communist Party ? 

Miss Grier. I decline to answer that question, sir, on the same 
grounds. 

Mr. Kunzig. Then, I believe you said the work was transferred 
over to the Navy Department in Hydrographic \ 

Miss Grier. That is correct. 

Mr. Kunzig. Now, when you were working for the Navy Depart- 
ment, would you tell this committee whether you were a member of 
the Communist Party ? 

Miss Grier. I will decline to answer that question on the same 
grounds. 

Mr. Moulder. Does the record show the period of that employment? 

Miss Grier. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kunzig. It is already in the record. 

Mr. Moulder. All right. 

Mr. Scherer. While you were working for the Air Force in the 
Navy Department, Miss Grier, did you have any classified or confi- 
dential information under your control ? 

Miss Grier. Not under my control because I was the library re- 
search person. 

Are you Mr. Jackson ? 

Mr. Scherer. No; I am Scherer. 

Miss Grier. Scherer. 

However, the reports which the people prepared in the unit for 
which I served as librarian were confidential. 

Mr. Scherer. Well, did you have access to those reports, then? 

Miss Grier. In the office ; yes. They were being written there. 

35203—53 2 



1598 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION (GOVERNMENT LABOR) 

Mr. Scherer. Now, did you ever transfer any of that confidential 
information or classified information to any person? 

Miss Grier. I did not, sir. 

Mr. Scherer. Did you ever transfer any of that information to any 
member of the Communist Party or any functionary of the Communist 
Party ? 

Miss Grier. Indeed not, sir. 

Mr. Velde. Well, I might ask, too : Did you ever have any of the 
classified information in your possession? 

Miss Grier. Never outside the office, sir. 

Mr. Velde. Well, did you have inside the office? 

Miss Grier. All of us worked in collating it, getting it together. 
You mean in my hands ? 

Mr. Velde. Yes ; that is right. 

Miss Grier. Oh, yes ; in that it would come in — putting these things 
together, in getting them ready to send — and, obviously, I would 
have helped handle them along with everybody else who was in the 
room at that time. 

Mr. Velde. Then you carried knowledge of the information con- 
tained in this classified material ? 

Miss Grier. I had obtained material from the library to provide 

Mr. Velde. I am sorry. I can't understand you. 

Miss Grier. I had brought the material from libraries to help the 
people who write it provide that information. Of course, I knew to 
some extent what was in — I did not help write it, but I went out and 
got the materials for them. 

Mr. Moulder. You got it. 

Mr. Velde. Well, laying aside the fact you got it, you said you 
had never transferred any information of a classified nature to any- 
one, as I understand it ? 

Miss Grier. That's correct. 

Mr. Velde. But are you speaking now of the physical document 
itself or the knowledge that you gained from this? 

Miss Grier. I am speaking of both, sir, in fact. 

Mr. Velde. And you never talked to anyone regarding the infor- 
mation that you obtained as a result of reading or furnishing this 
classified information? 

Miss Grier. Never, sir. That was very involved. In fact, that is 
what was confidential about most of these thins is the material I 
might have obtained. 

Mr. Velde. Well, I am not trying to catch you but, of course, you 
must have, in preparing this information, talked to somebody about 
it, or 

Miss (trier. We only would discuss it, sir, in the office. I never 
discussed it with anyone outside of the office, nor in any other way 
handled it. 

I wish to reply to you as fully as I can, Mr. Velde, because I feel 
quite — that that is an important thing for people working, not only 
in time of war but in time of peace, with American military matters. 
Not only must one be careful in regard to conversation or otherwise 
about certain aspects of it, but in military campaigns you've got to be 
very careful even in hunting this material not — for people not to 
know what you are hunting about, as you can — as you probably very 
well know. 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION (GOVERNMENT — LABOR) 1599 

Mr. Scherer. It was highly confidential; wasn't it? 

Miss Grier. I think most of the work that was done 

Mr. Scherer. I mean you are familiar 

Miss Greer. By 

Mr. Scherer. The work you were familiar with was highly confi- 
dential, as you just explained? 

Miss Grier. ''Confidential" is a regular term applied in the Navy, 
sir, to certain types of documents and work that one is doing. There 
are classification schedules. That is one of them, and reports which 
my unit prepared were confidential. 

Mr. Scherer. Now, has the question been asked the witness yet — 
I may have missed it — whether she today is a member of the Com- 
munist Party? 

Mr. Kunzig. No. 

Mr. Scherer. Can I ask that question ? 

Miss Grier. Yes. 

Mr. Kunzig. Yes. 

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

Miss Grier. I am not. 

Mr. Kunzig. Have you at any time in the past been a member of the 
Communist Party ? 

Miss Grier. I decline to answer that question, sir, on the grounds 
of my constitutional privileges and the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Clardy. Counsel, I want to go back to the subject we got 
switched off on the last series of questions that was asked. 

As I understand it, you did have in your physical possession and you 
did understand from the mental standpoint the contents of confidential 
documents of various kinds. I am correct in that understanding ; am 
I not? 

Miss Grier. At one time, sir, the work was done by the Oceano- 
graphic Unit. 

Mr. Clardy. There Were what ? 

Miss Grier. At one time, sir, that was handled and prepared by 
the Oceanographic Unit. 

Mr. Clardy. All right, in that category, at least, you did come in 
possession, in an understanding way, of information that could have- 
been transmitted by you or anyone else who came in contact with it, 
whether it was so actually transmitted or not? That is true also; 
isn't it ? 

Miss Grier. That is true. 

Mr. Clardy. Now, do I understand from your testimony that you 
are saying, however, that you at no time made any copy, either in 
whole or in part, of any of the material that came to your attention? 

Miss Greer. Indeed I am, sir. 

Mr. Clardy. And that 

Miss Grier. Excuse me. 

I made no copy, whole or in part, other than is required in the work 
of the office there. 

Mr. Clardy. And you carried with you from the office no copy of 
such material ? 

Miss Grier. I did not, sir. 

Mr. Clardy. Did you ever at any time after leaving the office, how- 
ever, record from memory the substance, if not the exact wording, of 
some information that may have come to your attention while you 
were on the job? 



1600 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION (GOVERNMENT — LABOR) 

Miss Grier. I have not, sir, nor, I am afraid, could I. 

Mr. Clardy. Did you ever transmit without recording it in physical 
form any of the information that came to your attention— and by 
transmit I mean by word of mouth, by sign, or by any other method 
any of the information which came to your attention and to your 
knowledge while you were employed ? 

Miss Grier. I have not, sir, nor would I. 

Mr. Clardy. Were you ever interrogated by anybody concerning 
any of that information? 

Miss Grier. I was not, sir. 

Mr. Clardy. Do you have any recollection of ever having attended 
any Communist meeting, however, during the period of time you were 
so employed ? 

Miss (trier. I decline to answer that question, sir. 

Mr. Clardy. Now, I am talking about the period of time you had 
access to this confidential information. 

I will rephrase my question so it will be understandable: During 
that time that you had access to this confidential information, did you 
attend any Communist meeting or meetings anywhere? 

Miss Grier. I decline to answer that question, sir, on the grounds of 
my constitutional rights under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Clardy. Were you during that same period acquainted with 
anyone who, to your knowledge, was a member of the Communist 
Party ? 

Miss Grier. I decline to answer that question, sir, on the same 
grounds. 

Mr. Scherer. Miss Grier, I asked you before whether or not you 
were a member of the Communist Party at the present time and your 
answer was "No," and in reply to Mr. Kunzig's question you declined 
to answer whether or not you had ever been a member of the Com- 
munist Party. Now, let me ask you this question : Are you a Com- 
munist today, without reference to being a party member? 

Miss Grier. I am not, sir. 

Mr. Scherer. I see. 

Were you a member of the Communist Party Or were you a Com- 
munist in the year 1952? 

Miss Grier. I decline to answer that question, sir, on the same 
grounds. 

Mr. Scherer. Were you a member of the Communist Party or a 
Communist last month? 

Miss Grier. I decline to answer that question, too, sir, on the same 
grounds. 

Mr. Scherer. Were you a Communist or a member of the Commu- 
nist Party yesterday? 

Miss Grier. I will decline to answer that on the same grounds, sir. 

Mr. Scherer. I have no further questions. 

Mr. Kunzig. But today — today you are not a member of the Com- 
munist Party ? 

Miss Grier. I am certainly not, sir. 

Mr. Kunzig. And was to yesterday 

Mr. Velde. What was that? I didn't get the answer. 

Mr. Kunzig. "I am certainly not, sir." 

But as of yesterday you decline to answer; is that not correct? 

Miss Grier. I do so decline. 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION (GOVERNMENT LABOR) 1601 

Mr. Kunzig. Now, Miss Grier- 



Mr. Clardy. Counsel, let's bring it down to a little closer period of 
time. Yesterday could be as far as 24 hours ago or as close a time as 
12 hours ago. Let's see if she was a member 12 hours ago. 

Will you ask that question? 

I am suggesting. 

Mr. Kunzig. All right, sir. 

Were you a member of the Communist Party 12 hours ago? 

Miss Grier. I decline to answer that question. 

Mr. Moulder. Why not say 5 minutes ago, because she is declining 
for reasons that are leading? 

Mr. Kunzig. Prior to coming into this room to testify, were you 
a member of the Communist Party ? 

Miss Grier. I decline to answer that question too, sir. 

Mr. Kunzig. But now you are not a member? 

Miss Grier. I am not. 

Mr. Kunzig. Do you want me to continue, sir ? 

Mr. Velde. I must say for the record the testimony of the record 
is a little bit ridiculous in this matter she refuses to answer. 

Mr. Kunzig. Apparently entering this room has an amazing effect. 

Excuse me, sir. 

Mr. Velde. Did you hear the letter I read into the record from the 
California housewife? 

Miss Grier. I did, Mr. Velde. 

Mr. Velde. Did that in any way impress you as to your recent 
testimony concerning your denial of membership in the Communist 
Party? 

Miss Grier. I have refused to answer such questions, sir, without 
implication. 

Mr. Velde. Well, now, for your benefit — I realize you have counsel 
here — I might tell you that the committee is authorized by the House 
of Representatives to make investigations relative to subversive activ- 
ities, subversive propaganda, in the United States, and to report to 
Congress, and report to the American people as well, for the purposes 
of remedial legislation. 

The committee is out to ascertain facts relative to subversion in 
an objective sort of way. 

As expressed in this letter which I read into the record, members 
of the committee — and I think that is true of the greatest majority 
of the House of Representatives — are very vitally concerned with 
subversive activities in this country, and they are very forgiving, and 
especially in the cases of Communist Party members who have knowl- 
edge of facts relative to subversion. 

In that capacity, while you haven't admitted you were a member 
of the Communist Party at one time, the inference is plain. In that 
capacity as a member, or a former member, of the Communist Party, 
you could do a great service for your country if you would give us the 
information relative to the activities of yourself and others who were 
in the Communist Party with you, if you were in the Communist 
Party. 

In view of that statement, would you care now to say whether you 
have ever been a member of the Communist Party ? 

Miss Grier. I decline, sir, to answer the question. 



1602 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION (GOVERNMENT — LABOR) 

Mr. Kunzig. May I proceed, sir? 

Mr. Velde. Proceed. 

Mr. Kunzig. Miss Grier, you have been identified to this committee 
as a member of the Communist Party assigned to an underground 
Navy Department cell during your employment by the Navy, and 
also by the Air Force. Do you wish to confirm or deny that iden- 
tification at this time ? 

Miss Grier. I decline to answer, sir, on the same grounds. 

Mr. Velde. Let the record show that whenever the witness declines 
to answer — and I think this is agreeable with the witness and with 
counsel — that it is on the grounds of the fifth amendment 

Mr. Clardy. If she 

Mr. Velde. And other constitutional grounds. 

Mr. Clardy. If she should inadvertently fail to mention it, she has 
that protection. 

Mr. Rand. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Kunzig. It has been further stated by an informant and confi- 
dential investigator that you served for a while in 1945 as actually the 
chairman of this underground cell in the Navy Department; is that 
correct ? 

Miss Grier. I decline to answer, sir. 

Mr. Kunzig. Our information reveals that you terminated your 
membership in this underground cell in 1947. Do you care to affirm 
or deny that statement ? 

Miss Grier. I decline to answer, sir. 

Mr. Kunzig. Miss Grier, to go back for just a moment to this 
Oceauographic Unit, and so forth, what type of work did you prepare 
or what type of documents did you prepare which were to be used 
by the Armed Forces of the United States ? 

Miss Grier. I was 

Are you speaking of the unit, sir, or me ? 

Mr. Kunzig. You, yourself, and the unit, too. 

Miss Grier. Because I did not write reports. 

Mr. Kunzig. Well 

Miss Grier. I mention this because 

Mr. Kunzig. Prepared the material. 

Miss Grier. I am a librarian and I found the material. 

Mr. Kunzig. You found the material ? 

Miss Grier. They used the material — other people used the mate- 
rial — and wrote the reports. 

Mr. Kunzig. What type of work was that? What type of reports 
were they — subjects? 

Mr. Velde. Well, now, Mr. Counsel, you are probably getting into 
the realm of classified information which must not be made public. 

I believe we will declare a recess for 5 minutes at this time. 

The committee will be in recess for 5 minutes. 

(Whereupon, at 11 : 30 a. m., the hearing was recessed, to reconvene 
at 11 : 35 a. m.) 

(The hearing reconvened at 11 : 39 a. m.) 

Mr. Velde. The committee will be in order. Do you have any ques- 
tions, Mr. Moulder? 

Mr. Moulder. Miss Grier, my colleague Mr. Scherer has asked a 
number of witnesses this question and I want to direct this question to 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION (GOVERNMENT LABOR) 1603 

you. I think the testimony and your appearance before the committee 
lays a firm foundation and basis for this question. 

Have you at any time ever been employed as an agent for any 
foreign government ? 

Miss Grier. I have not, nor would I. 

Mr. Velde. In line with that question, have you ever paid any 
money to or received any money from the Communist Party of the 
United States? 

Miss Grier. I decline to answer that question, sir. 

Mr. Velde. Have you ever acted as an agent in any capacity or as an 
employee for the Communist Party of the United States? 

Miss Grier. What was the first part of that question, Mr. Chair- 
man? 

Mr. Velde. Did you ever act in any capacity as an agent or other- 
wise for the Communist Party of the United States? 

(At this point Miss Grier conferred with Mr. Rand.) 

Miss Grier. I will decline to answer that, sir. 

Mr. Velde. In other words, Miss Grier, the Communist Party of 
the United States is certainly a part and parcel of Soviet Russia and 
under the direction of Soviet Russia. That fact has been proven time 
and time again. So, while you say you were not an agent and acting 
for Soviet Russia if you were a member of the Communist Party, it 
might well be concluded that you were in that capacity an agent of the 
Soviet Union. 

Mr. Rand. Is there a question, Mr. Velde? I didn't get the ques- 
tion, I am sorry. 

Mr. Moulder. In answer to my question you said you were not ever 
employed as an agent. You denied that and stated you were not em- 
ployed by any foreign government. Wasn't that your answer ? 

Miss Grier. It was indeed, sir. 

Mr. Moulder. In answer to the chairman's question as to whether 
or not you had ever received any compensation or money for any serv- 
ices rendered in that respect, you declined to answer. I cannot under- 
stand the conflict. On the one hand you decline to answer and on the 
other you did answer. 

Miss Grier. Would you care to read the question, because that is 
not the way I remember the question. 

Mr. Velde. Which question are you referring to? 

Miss Grier. Yours, Mr. Velde, because Mr. Moulder has said that 
the question asked had been whether I had ever received any moneys. 
Would you please read it. 

Mr. Velde. I asked you several questions with reference to your 
employment by the Communist Party of the United States and made 
an affirmative statement that it has been proven any number of times 
that the Communist Party is an agent of the Soviet Union. 

With that in mind, will you now say that you are or are not or never 
have been an agent for the Soviet Government ? 

Miss Grier. I would say emphatically that I have never been, nor 
would I be. 

Mr. Velde. Do you believe that the Communist Party, the American 
Communist Party, as I have stated, is a part of the Soviet Government 
and directed by the Soviet Government? Do you believe that? 

(At this point Miss Grier conferred with Mr. Rand.) 

Miss Grier. I decline to answer that question, sir. 



1604 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION (GOVERNMENT LABOR) 

Mr. Kunzig. I want to go back to just one thing that was discussed 
prior to the recess, Miss Grier. Without going into any confidential 
material of any kind whatsoever, I want to get this straight for my- 
self and for the record. As I understand it, Is it correct that you 
compiled material or as a researcher got material together and that 
that material was used officially by the armed services of the United 
States? Is that correct? 

Miss Grier. Should I answer? 

Mr. Kunzig. Would you answer further if you wish? 

Miss Grier. Yes, I will. Intelligence reports, the various small 
portions of certain types of intelligence reports put out, one small sec- 
tion of which was issued by the Oceanography Unit for the people 
who compiled it, who wrote it, who prepared these intelligence re- 
ports, I went to the library to hunt for what they might need and 
what I can find and hunt until I can find anything that can help them. 
In compiling in oceanography they need data and the data has not 
been organized in this country to the point where you do not need 
somebody who knows something about libraries to hunt for it. I went 
and hunted for the material and the people used it and they won the 
war with it. 

Mr. Scherer. You say this material has not been organized in this 
country ? 

Miss Grier. Library materials have not been organized in this 
country around the science of oceanography in such a way that it can 
be easily obtained. Intensive research was required in order to get the 
material together. 

Mr. Scherer. Do you know whether they have had such organiza- 
tion of material in any other country ? 

Miss Grier. I could go on at some length about oceanography in 
other countries. I am only a librarian and not an expert in ocean- 
ography. I only know about the literature on it. 

Mr. Scherer. Do you know whether or not the Soviet Government 
has the material organized as you say we do not have it organized here 
in the United States? 

Miss Grier. I know very little about the present organization be- 
cause their periodicals have not been received in this country in any 
quantity at all since the late 1930's, so that actually I don't know some- 
thing that people would like to know. 

Mr. Kunzig. To continue on with the questioning, in spite of the 
difficulty of the hammering in the background, you made a statement 
at the end of your last comment which I don't know was heard due 
to the difficulty with the public address system and the noise in the 
room. You said you got this material together and then you added 
the phrase at the end of your sentence "and we won the war with it." 
I know you don't mean solely won the war, but I take it you mean the 
material that you gathered was important for use by the armed 
services. 

Miss Grier. Naturally so, sir. 

Mr. Kunzig. Would you repeat that. 

Miss Grier. That contribution in handling material in libraries 
will be a modest one. Please don't misunderstand me, but I only say 
because I feel that librarians are quite important in this world, that 
when we started in fighting this war we had to use them at last because 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION (GOVERNMENT — LABOR) 1605 

« 

we had to dig stuff out of the libraries in order for us to know what 
we were doing in parts of the world before. 

There had not been depth data made by this Government or even 
the British Government since the middle of the 19th century, in cer- 
tain sections of the South Pacific. 

Mr. Kuxzig. And at least some parts of these reports were based 
on data which you compiled, I believe, from your being the librarian 
for the Oceanography Unit? 

Miss Grter. I did not compile them. They were compiled and 
already in print. I brought them from libraries, having found them 
in the libraries without having to go and use the library people, thereby 
letting one more person go. These units needed somebody who could 
go to the library and use the library themselves. That is what we 
did, many librarians I am sure, for the Government during that time. 

Mr. Kuxzig. You testified that you yourself did not prepare the 
actual documents later. But did you see them after they were pre- 
pared, the result? 

Miss Grier. Not in the sense of reading them. However, everyone 
in our unit had to mechanically collate these things. 

Mr. Kunzig. Is it true that you were the subject of a loyalty hearing 
during the period of your Government employment? 

(At this point Miss Grier conferred with Mr. Rand.) 

Miss Grier. I decline to answer that question, sir. 

Mr. Kuxzig. If you were the subject of a loyalty hearing, did you 
testify or comment at that time upon your Communist Party mem- 
bership, yes or no, as to whether or not you were a member ? 

Miss Grier. I decline to answer that question, sir. 

Mr. Kunzig. Did any Government official during your term of em- 
ployment with the United States Navy and Air Force, did anyone 
question you about your Communist Party membership ? 

Miss Grier. I decline to answer that question, sir. 

Mr. Kuxzig. Did you testify at any time under oath with respect 
to Communist Party membership ? 

Miss Grier. I decline to answer that question, sir. 

Mr. Kuxzig. Miss Grier, investigation has shown that you were the 
subject of a loyalty hearing in 1946. 

Mr. Velde. In which department? 

Mr. Kuxzig. Of the United States Navy. And that you were at 
that time cleared, is that a correct statement? Would you care to 
affirm or deny that? 

Miss Grier. I decline to answer that question, sir. 

Mr. Kuxzig. Isn't it a fact that you were for a time suspended from 
duty and then restored to duty again ? 

Miss Grier. I decline to answer that question too, sir. 

Mr. Kuxzig. At the hearing that you had, and the investigation 
has shown that vou had, isn't it a fact that you did not testify under 
oath? " y 

Miss Grier. I decline to answer that question too, sir. 

Mr. Kuxzig. Did you at that time deny or affirm Communist Party 
membership ? 

Miss Grier. I decline to answer that question too. 

Mr. Scherer. Isn't it a fact, Miss Grier, that during that hearing 
when you were not under oath you actually denied at that time mem- 
bership in the party ? 



1606 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION (GOVERNMENT LABOR) 

• 

Miss Grier. I decline to answer the question, Congressman. 
Mr. Scherer. Wasn't your clearing partially the result of your 
denial of membership in the Communist Party at that time? 
Miss Grier. I decline to answer that question. 
Mr. Kunzig. Actually, isn't it a fact that during that period of time 
you were a member of the Communist Party reporting regularly to 
the party while you were working for the United States Armed 
Forces ? 

Miss Grier. I decline to answer the question, sir. 
Mr. Velde. Did you ever discuss any of your difficulties at that time 
when you were being heard by the loyalty board of the Navy with 
any Communist Party member? 

Miss Grier. I decline to answer that, Mr. Velde. 
Mr. Kunzig. Did the Communist Party contribute to your defense 
or to any legal representation that you may have had at that time ? 
(At this point Miss Grier conferred with Mr. Hand.) 
Miss Grier. I decline to answer that question, sir. 
Mr. Kunzig. No further questions, Mr. Chairman. 
Mr. Velde. Mr. Clardy, do you have a question ? 
Mr. Clardy. Witness, I take it that you are at least fairly familiar 
with the nature of the Communist philosophy and theory of Govern- 
ment ; aren't you ? 

(At this point Miss Grier conferred with Mr. Rand.) 
Miss Grier. I decline to answer that, sir. 

Mr. Clardy. Do you have any knowledge whatsoever about com- 
munism as a theory of government or a theory of man's relationship 
with his fellow man? 

(At this point Miss Grier conferred with Mr. Rand.) 
Miss Grier. I would decline to answer that too, sir. 
Mr. Clardy. Do you deny professing any adherence to the philoso- 
phy of communism ? Do you understand my question ? You knit }^our 
brow there, I see. Perhaps that is cloudy. 

Miss Grier. I will decline to answer that too, sir. 
Mr. Clardy. I will put it a little more clearly and bluntly, then ; 
do you believe in communism as a system of government ? 
Miss Grier. I will decline to answer that too, sir. 
Mr. Clardy. That is all I have. 
Mr. Velde. Mr. Scherer, do you have a question ? 
Mr. Scherer. No further questions. 
Mr. Velde. Mr. Moulder? 
Mr. Moulder. No further questions. 

Mr. Velde. I might be able to clear up one point, and that is with 
reference to your refusal to answer questions relative to Communist 
Party membership. 

Up until the time you came into this hearing room you had during 

the course of the hearing denied Communist Party membership at 

the present time. I am very much interested in knowing if you 

intend to join the Communist Party after you leave this hearing room. 

Miss Grier. I certainly do not, sir. 

Mr. Velde. Or rejoin it. 

Miss Grier. I decline to answer such a question, sir. It has impli- 
cations. 

Mr. Velde. It surely does. In other words, you insist that you are 
not a member of the Communist Party at the present time but you 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION (GOVERNMENT LABOR) 1607 

cannot answer to clear up the confusion here in our minds as to why 
you refuse to answer about your Communist Party membership in 
the past from this moment back through the years, and yet you say 
you are not a member of the Communist Party at the present time nor 
intend to be. Could you give your reason for that type of testimony ? 

(At this point Miss Grier conferred with Mr. Rand.) 

Miss Grier. Well, I have understood, sir, from advice of counsel, 
of my rights and privileges and I have tried to consider each question 
you asked me and in my judgment I must decline. I make no infer- 
ences. I seek to leave no impression of any kind. I do decline. I 
would decline to answer why I believe even 

Mr. Velde. Is there anything further, Mr. Counsel ? 

Mr. Kunzig. Nothing further this morning, sir. 

Mr. Clardy. May I ask one or two more questions, Mr. Chairman ? 

Mr. Velde. Yes, Mr. Clardy. 

Mr. Clardy. You say you are not presently or rather you are not a 
member today. What do you or how do you define the word 
"member" ? 

Miss Grier. I decline to answer that. 

Mr. Clardy. What? 

Miss Grier. I would decline to answer that. 

Mr. Clardy. I am asking you about a word that I have heard used 
by you in your own answers, and I think we are entitled to know what 
you mean. By "membership" do you mean a card-carrying factor as 
being necessary, or do you have something else in mind when you 
use the word "member" in saying that you are not today a member ? 

Miss Grier. Mr. Clardy, I am not, in any way that I understand 
membership of the Communist Party, a Communist today. 

Mr. Clardy. My question was as to what you understand by mem- 
bership as you use that word. 

Miss Grier. Somebody who is a member of the Communist Party. 
I haven't used the word, so far as I know. 

Mr. Clardy. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Scherer. Let me ask this question. Your question suggests 
one to me. Are you under Communist dicipline as of today? 

Miss Grier. What do you mean "as of today"? Is there an im- 
plication in this? 

Mr. Scherer. You know what Communist Party discipline is ; under 
the directives and the orders of the party. 

Miss Grier. Sir, I am acting under no one's directions or instruc- 
tions except my employer's. 

Mr. Scherer. Well, were you under Communist Party discipline 
yesterday ? 

Miss Grier. I would decline to answer that question, sir. 

Mr. Moulder. In the beginning of your testimony you mentioned 
the name of your brother-in-law. 

Mr. Rand. I think counsel mentioned it. 

Mr. Kuxzig. Weinzirl was the name. 

Mr. Moulder. That was the brother-in-law ? 

Miss Grier. Yes. Some name was mentioned by Mr. Kunzig. 

Mr. Moulder. Have you ever been married ? 

Miss Grier. I have not. 



1608 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION (GOVERNMENT — LABOR) 

Mr. Moulder. Have you ever gone by any other name than the 
present name you have ? 

Miss Grier. I have not. 

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

Mr. Velde. The witness is excused and the meeting will stand in 
adjournment until Monday morning at 10 : 30. 

(Whereupon, at 12 : 03 p. m., the hearing was recessed until 10 : 30 
a. m. Monday, April 20, 1953.) 



COMMUNIST METHODS OF INFILTRATION 
(Government— Labor) 



THURSDAY, MAY 14, 1953 

United States House of Representatives, 

Committee on Un-American Activities, 

Washington, D. G. 

PUBLIC HEARING 

The Committee on Un-American Actvities met, pursuant to call, 
at 10 :45 a. m., in room 429, Old House Office Building, Hon. Harold 
H. Velde (chairman) presiding. 

Committee members present: Representatives Harold H. Velde 
(chairman), Bernard W. Kearney (appearance noted in transcript), 
Donald L. Jackson, Kit Clardy, Gordon H. Scherer, Francis E. 
Walter, and Clyde Doyle (appearance noted in transcript). 

Staff members present : Robert L. Kunzig, counsel ; Frank S. Taven- 
ner, Jr., counsel; Courtney E. Owens, investigator; Leslie C. Scott, 
research analyst; and Thomas W. Beale, Sr., chief clerk. 

Mr. Velde. The committee will come to order. 

Let the record show present are Mr. Jackson, Mr. Clardy, Mr. 
Scherer, Mr. Walter, and the chairman, Mr. Velde, a quorum of the 
full committee. 

Proced, Mr. Counsel. 

Do you have a witness ? 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Amos Heacock. 

Will you be sworn, please ? 

Mr. Velde. In the testimony you are about to give before this com- 
mittee, do you solemnly swear you will tell the truth, the whole truth 
and nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Heacock. I do. 

Mr. Tavenner. Be seated. 

Mr. Velde. Be seated. 

TESTIMONY OF AMOS HEACOCK 

Mr. Tavenner. What is your name, please? 

Mr. Heacock. Amos Heacock. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you spell Heacock? 

Mr. Heacock. H-e-a-c-o-c-k. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you accompanied by counsel ? 

Mr. Heacock. No ; I am not. I don't— don't need counsel, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. It is the practice of this committee to permit and 
to encourage every witness to be accompanied by counsel if the wit- 
ness desires it, and you will be free at all times to consult with counsel 
if you desire to do so. 

1609 



1610 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION (GOVERNMENT LABOR) 

Mr. He acock. I understand that. The committee has been very 
fair to me. 

Mr. Tavenner. Where do you now reside, Mr. Heacock ? 

Mr. Heacock. I reside at 2774 70th SE., Seattle, Wash. 

Mr. Tavenner. Where and when were you born ? 

Mr. Heacock. I was born in Los Angeles, Calif., on November 18, 
1914. 

Mr. Tavenner. What is your present occupation? 

Mr. Heacock. The present occupation is executive of Air Line 
Services, a maintenance firm. 

Mr. Tavenner. Before asking you what your record of employment 
has been, I would like for you to tell the committee in a general way 
what your educational training has been, both your general educa- 
tional training and specific training for your occupation. 

Mr. Heacock. My general educational background is this: I 
have 

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

Mr. Heacock. I went to high school in Los Angeles and, although I 
wanted to go to college, I had to go to work in 1932, and I found my- 
self originally in construction work; in 1940 applied to get into the 
United States Air Force as an aviation cadet. 

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

Mr. Heacock. Without the 2 years of training, 2 years of college, 
I had to pass an examination covering an equivalent, which I did, and 
was called to duty in March of 1941. 

I graduated from aviation cadet training the week of Pearl Harbor, 
and I spent 6 years in the Army Air Force, or in the Air Force, 
before, during, and after World War II. 

That's ' 

Mr. Tavenner. Now, you were in the armed services between March 
1941, and some date in 1947? 

Mr. Heacock. January 1947. 

Mr. Tavenner. January 1947. 

I have before me your military record, which was a distinguished 
one. I believe you served in the Air Force in a number of different 
theaters. 

Mr. Heacock. That is correct. I served in the North African, 
Middle East, Sicily, Italy — in the campaigns; Pacific theater — Saipan, 
Guam, Philippines, into Japan, China. 

Mr. Tavenner. And I note that you were awarded the air medal 
with oak-leaf cluster. 

Mr. Heacock. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Now, will you tell the committee, please, what your 
record of employment has been and describe your employment from 
1935 until the time you went into military service in March 1941 ? 

Mr. Heacock. Well, I'll try to get the dates as close as I can from 
recollection. It's some 17 years ago. 

I believe it was sometime in 1935 that — that I managed a laundry 
business, small laundry business, which went — went out of existence. 
It was a small Government contract, and thereafter I was unemployed 
for a period of time ; and, finally, located a job on the Colorado River 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION (GOVERNMENT LABOR) 1611 

aqueduct, which was being built by the Metropolitan Water District of 
Los Angeles at that time. 

Mr. Tavenner. Now, let me interrupt at that point. 

Can you state when your unemployment began and when it ter- 
minated ? 

Mr. Heacock. I'm afraid 

Mr. Tavenner. With respect to dates. 

Mr. Heacock. I'm afraid — afraid I can't tie it down that closely. 

Mr. Tavenner. Can you approximate the time? 

Mr. Heacock. Well, I think I must have been unemployed for at 
least a 6 months' period, from the time I wound up this small laundry 
venture, until I was able to go to work on the aqueduct some time in 
1936, I believe. As I say, these dates are a little hazy after a period 
of time. 

Mr. Tavenner. Then you became employed during the year 1936 
by the city of Los Angeles ? 

Mr. Heacock. By the Metropolitan Water District. 

Mr. Tavenner. Oh, yes. 

Mr. Heacock. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long did you remain employed in that 
position? 

Mr. Heacock. I can't recall. It continued through a great deal 
of 1936, until — until I was elected a traveling financial secretary by 
the union that was organized at Banning on the aqueduct. 

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

Mr. Heacock. The Tunnel, Subwav, and Aqueduct Workers' Union. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was it an affiliate of the CIO? 

Mr. Heacock. Yes ; it was affiliated with the CIO. 

Mr. Tavenner. What was the nature of your emploj^ment by the 
union? 

Mr. Heacock. The nature of my employment was to be a traveling 
financial secretary, to collect dues and establish sort of sublocals along 
the rest of the aqueduct at certain camps from Banning, out the 
aqueduct toward the terminus at Parker Dam. In connection with 
that, why, I organized these camps into the local union that was based 
at Banning. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long did you remain so employed? 

Mr. Heacock.. The best way I can tie down that date is that I 
believe it was some time after the first of the year, into 1937. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you an organizer for the Mine, Mill, and 
Smelter Workers' Union ? 

Mr. Heacock. No, sir; I was not. I was an organizer for the local 
at Banning, and the local was affiliated with the Mine, Mill, and 
Smelter Workers' Union. 

Mr. Tavenner. Then, as I understand it, this position that you had 
as an organizer of local unions was actually for an affiliate of the 
Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers' Union 

Mr. Heacock. Yes. That is the local of the Mine, Mill, and 
Smelter Workers' Union ; yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. And you remained employed then in that capacity 
from a date in 1936 on up into 1937. 

Now, can you tell us how late in 1937 you were so employed ? 

Mr. Heacock. I find it difficult to tie down the time exactly. What 
I am referring to in my own mind is the fact that in leaving Parker 



1612 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION (GOVERNMENT LABOR) 

Dam one time — about the time I left employment with the union — I 
was picked up for having out-of-date license plates. So, I recall that 
as being right after the first of the year sometime. 

Mr. Tavenner. Well, what was your next employment ? 

Mr. Heacook. There were small jobs that I can't recall, and most 
important of which was working with the American Can Co. in Los 
Angeles. 

Mr. Tavenner. When were you employed by the American Can Co. ? 

Mr. Heacock. Sometime in 1937 or 1938. I can't place it any closer 
than that in my own mind. 

Mr. Tavenner. And how long were you employed by the American 
Can Co.? 

Mr. Heacock. I'd have to estimate it. I estimate it about a year. 
1 could be very wrong on that, but it's just my recollection. 

Mr. Tavenner. Well, where did you reside during the period from 
the early part of 1937 until your work with the American Can Co. 
was terminated ? 

Mr. Heacock. Well, my family resided at — at various addresses in 
Los Angeles. I believe I can recall that the earliest period — I think 
I lived at 3636 8th Avenue, I believe, and later on I lived at a 17th 
Street address, and still later — I can't recall the address — in south- 
west Los Angeles. 

Mr. Tavenner. Can you recall the nature, general nature, of your 
employment between the time you left Parker Dam and acceptance of 
the job with American Can Co., or were you employed in that interval ? 

Mr. Heacock. I was mostly unemployed during that interval. I 
tried to get certain construction work that — wasn't able to — to get 
certain jobs around Los Angeles, including work on the Los Angeles 
River paving job. I believe I worked for a short period for the 
Borden's Dairy, and I guess the longest period of employment during 
that period was with the American Can Co. 

Mr. Tavenner. Well, at the time — during this period of unemploy- 
ment, of which you have just spoken, and during the time you were 
with the American Can Co. — were you still affiliated with your local 
union as an organizer ? 

Mr. Heacock. No, sir; I was not. Actually, my job wasn't sup- 
posedly an organizer, but that's exactly what it turned out to be when 
I started to take union dues, and so forth, along the aqueduct ; but 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you work in an effort to organize a union with 
American Can Co. ? 

Mr. Heacock. No, sir; I did not. The union was already there 
when I came to American Can Co. 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes ; but prior to your coming to American Can Co., 
did you do any work of any character with reference to the organiza- 
tion of the union there? 

Mr. Heacock. No, sir. In fact, I never did any union organization 
work at any time after Parker Dam. 

Mr. Tavenner. Well, what was your employment after leaving 
American Can Co. in 1938? 

Mr. Heacock. Until leaving American Can Co. in 1938, or there- 
abouts, as closely as I can recall, it was sometime in 1939, probably 
early in 1939, that my parents moved to Washington State after 
the death of my brother, and I took my mother to Washington State. 
Then I went to work on some construction jobs in the Central Valley 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION (GOVERNMENT — LABOR) 1613 

project of California, tunnel work, and one job in Utah, and worked 
a little at the Grand Coulee Dam project in Washington, a little 
reinforcing iron work out of Seattle and, finally, 1 believe it was in 
1940 — I believe there was a great deal of unemployment during that 
period — it was in 1940 that I couldn't find work in Seattle, and also 
for personal reasons I wanted to leave Seattle, and I went down to 
California to look for a job. 

Mr. Tavenner. What part of California? 

Mr. Heacock. Los Angeles. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you find employment there? 

Mr. Heacock. I did a few da}'s' work in reinforcing iron work, 
and finally I went to work for Lockheed Aircraft Co. 

Mr. Tavenner. When did you go to work for Lockheed Aircraft 
Co.? 

Mr. Heacock. I can't recall exactly, but it was in the latter half 
of 1940, somewhere. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long did you remain employed there? 

Mr. Heacock. About 3 weeks. 

Mr. Tavenner. What was your next employment? 

Mr. Heacock. My next employment was working for the State of 
Washington. 

I had earlier taken examinations as a junior accountant for the 
State of Washington, and while I was in California I was notified 
to come to work; and, after December 1940, when I finished a CPA 
training course at the Metropolitan Airport, Van Nuys, I went to 
Seattle and took a job with the Division of Unemployment Compensa- 
tion and Placement, State of Washington, at Olympia. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you remain there in that work until you went 
into the armed services? 

Mr. Heacock. Yes, sir ; I did. 

Mr. Tavenner. You've told us about the period of time you were 
in the armed services. So, will you tell us what the nature of your 
occupation has been since your discharge in January 1947 from the 
Armed Forces? 

Mr. Heacock. Yes. While still with the Air Transport Command — 
the first part of the war I spent with Troop Carrier Command — while 
I was still operating across the Pacific on the routes of the Air Trans- 
port Command to Tokyo, after VJ-day, I began to look around for 
an opportunity to go into business for myself in the field of air trans- 
portation; located some aircraft at Guam that had been declared 
surplus because of tornado damage. I was able to gather a group of 
fellows together that were also operating on these trans-Pacific routes 
of the Air Transport Command to buy these aircraft ; also purchased 
a PB Y at Honolulu. 

So, while I was on terminal leave, which was during December and 
the early part of January, I proceeded to Honolulu with a couple of 
other boys associated with me. There I obtained housing for the boys 
and their families. 

I had some 10 partners in this enterprise. 

Mr. Tavenner. May I suggest you not go quite as much in detail 
as to matters relating to your associates merely in the interest of sav- 
ing time. 

Mr. Heacock. I see. 

35203—53 -3 



1614 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION (GOVERNMENT LABOR) 

I organized this 



Mr. Velde. Mr. Counsel, is this a. convenient breaking-off place ? 

Mr. Tavenner. I believe if you could go just a little further it 
would be to our 

Mr. Clardy. Well, the rollcall x can't wait. 

Mr. Tavenner. All right. 

Mr. Velde. So, we will recess, I think, for 20 minutes. I think we 
should be able to be back here in 20 minutes. 

The committee will be in recess for 20 minutes. 

(Whereupon, at 11 : 15 a. m., the hearing was recessed, to reconvene 
at 11 : 35 a.m.) 

(The hearing reconvened at 11 : 43 a. m., the following committee 
members being present : Representatives Harold H. Velde (chairman) , 
Donald L. Jackson, Kit Clardy, Gordon H. Scherer, and Francis E. 
Walter.) 

Mr. Velde. The committee will be in order. 

Proceed, Mr. Counsel. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Heacock, how long were you engaged in the 
business of air transportation in Hawaii? 

Mr. Heacock. I never engaged in the business of air transportation 
in Hawaii. My partners and I repaired the aircraft at Guam, using 
Hawaii as a base, and also repaired PBY's at Honolulu and sold these 
aircraft, with which we raised some more money to enter into the air- 
transportation business later on. 

Mr. Tavenner. All right ; then, when did you enter into air-trans- 
portation business in this country ? 

Mr. Heacock. Well, early in 1948— March of 1948—1 liquidated 
the partnership at Honolulu — a very profitable venture — and we took 
the proceeds, and about four of my previous associates in the partner- 
ship went with me into an air-transportation venture at Seattle, 
operating to Alaska. This I organized or incorporated in May of 
1948. We began our first operations in July. 

Mr. Tavenner. And what was the name of the company ? 

Mr. Heacock. The name of the company was Air Transport Asso- 
ciates. 

Mr. Tavenner. And how long did you engage in that business? 

Mr. Heacock. I engaged in that business as operating head until 
the 24th of last month, when the carrier had its letter of registration 
removed by the Civil Aeronautics Board, and it went out of business 
in common-carrier operations to Alaska. 

Mr. Tavenner. During that period of time, did you hold any posi- 
tion in any air transportation association, other than the corporation 
of which you were the head ? 

Mr. Heacock. Yes ; I became president of an association. Do you 
mind if I tell you the circumstances surrounding that? 

Mr. Tavenner. Well, I don't know as the committee would be 
interested in your going into too much detail. 

Mr. Velde. Briefly, I think. 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes. 

Mr. Velde. I think briefly. 

Mr. Tavenner. If you just state briefly what the organization was, 
and over what period of time you were connected with it. 



1 Rollcall vote on floor of the House of Representatives. 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION (GOVERNMENT LABOR) 1615 

Mr. Heacock. The Aircoach Transport Association was organized 
in Miami by a group of Miami carriers. I heard about it in Alaska, 
where I had moved my family. I proceeded to New York. The first 
national meeting that they had occurred on the very same day as the 
invasion of Korea, and immediately thereafter I went to Washington 
where I, knowing airlift from the last war and how important it 
was — I got in touch with the Pentagon and started coordinating the 
shipment of bazooka ammunition and bazookas and tank parts, so 
forth, by my own and other nonscheduled lines to the west coast for 
transhipment on the four-engine airplanes to Korea. 

I was tremendously concerned with the outbreak of the 

Mr. Tavenner. Well, now, excuse me; rather than to go so much 
into detail, if you will, just outline briefly, please, what you have to say 
with regard to your organization, because I am afraid in the interest 
of time we cannot go so much into detail. 

Mr. Heacock. When I was in Washington coordinating these move- 
ments, a couple members of the board of directors of Aircoach came 
to me in Washington and asked me if I would run for president of the 
association, believing that I had the time and ability to put it over, 
and I told them that the first thing any such association would have to 
do would be to get a contract with the military and go fully into the 
expansion of an airlift reserve for the national defense to meet such 
emergencies as this Korean one. 

Of course, when I did take over, one of the first things I did was 
to proceed to the Pentagon, negotiate an agreement in November of 
1950, sent the first letter which developed into a contract for these 
carriers which they are operating under at the present time. 

Mr. Tavenner. And your company was one of those that operated 
in that regard? 

Mr. Heacock. Yes, sir. In fact, I'm proud to say just as soon as the 
call came from Korea — you will recall that the first man that was killed 
was a man that had been shot from a Russian-type tank as he peeped 
from his foxhole to see what good his bazooka had done. Of course, 
they were using 2i/o-inch bazookas, and they needed the 3y 2 -inch 
bazookas to stop the tanks. Of course, when we first heard of the need 
of getting that ammunition over there, CAA said we couldn't land on 
airports because of the explosive difficulty, and I called up the CAA 
and said, "Look, this has got to be done, and my airplane is on the way 
to Fort Dix right now. You can get a CAA man there immediately 
and we'll get this ammunition under way." 

My own company and one other, I believe, were the first ones into 
the movement. I am proud to say none of my pilots objected to car- 
rying enough ammunition to blow up an airport, much less an airplane. 

Mr. Tavenner. Well, now, after you negotiated your contract which 
your company and other similar companies operated under, it was 
necessary in the performance of your work under those contracts to 
have rights of entry and departure through military installations in 
this country as well as abroad. 

Mr. Heacock. That is correct. 

Mr. Tavenner. Isn't that true? 

Mr. Heacock. You see, the right to secure traffic on military installa- 
tions was already in the hands of the railroads, the bus association, and 
the scheduled airline association. We requested it for the nonsched- 



1616 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION (GOVERNMENT LABOR) 

uled association and received it. It now amounts to over 50 percent of 
the business of the independent carriers. 

Mr. Tavenner. Therefore, the work of these particular independent 
carriers was integrated with that of the military craft and used mili- 
tary installations? 

Mr. Heacock. It was — it is primarily the movement of troops be- 
tween military installations in the United States, and especially to 
ports of embarkation at Seattle and San Francisco and returning these 
men from the ports of embarkation to their homes. 

Mr. Tavenner. Now, let us go back to an earlier period in your 
experience in Los Angeles. You have advised the committee that 
there was a period of time when you were a labor organizer at Parker 
Dam, and prior to your becoming employed by the American Can Co. 
During that period of time, when you were an organizer, did you 
become acquainted with a person by the name of Frank Carlson? 

Mr. Heacock. No, sir. 

Mr. Velde. Mr. Counsel— — 

Mr. Heacock. I don't recall that name, sir. 

Mr. Velde. Mr. Counsel, was the witness an organizer for the 
Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers? 

Mr. Tavenner. He was organizer, according to his testimony, for a 
local which was affiliated with the Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers, 
if I understood his testimony correctly. 

Mr. Heacock. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Scherer. That is what he said. 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes, sir. 

Were you acquainted with a person by the name of Jack Olson? 

Mr. Heacock. I don't recall the name, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. In the course of your work as an organizer, or other- 
wise, did you become acquainted with a person by the name of Roy 
McCoy— M-c-C-o-y? 

Mr. Heacock. No, sir; I did not, not in connection with this or- 
ganization on the aqueduct. I later became acquainted with Mr. 
McCoy. 

Incidentally, I didn't recall the name to my mind, but the investi- 
gator showed me a photograph and I — I said I did recognize the 
photograph as one that I had met. 

Mr. Tavenner. Where did you meet Mr. McCoy? 

Mr. Heacock. This was after my organizational activity at — along 
the aqueduct. In fact, people like Mr. McCoy were evidently attracted 
to me because of my organizational work. 

As I understood it, at the time Mr. McCoy was the — a member of 
the Young Communist League. 

Mr. Tavenner. I will hand you at this point a photograph and 
ask you whether or not you can identify it as the person referred 
to by you as Roy McCoy. 

Mr. Heacock. Yes; I can. Apparently this is a later photograph, 
but it is certainly the same individual. 

Mr. Tavenner. Now, what was the nature of your association with 
Mr. McCoy? 

Mr. Heacock. Certain people that also worked at American Can 
Co. when I was there introduced me to Mr. McCoy in the course of 
social affairs and union affairs, and so on. 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION (GOVERNMENT LABOR) 1617 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you have any association with him in any 
work other than union affairs? 

Mr. Heacock. I never engaged in any other activity. I met these 
people because they were members of the union and, of course, at that 
time in 1937 and 1938 there wasn't a question of loyalty or anything 
of that nature in my mind, because at that time the conditions were 
so different that it wasn't apparent to the average person that these 
people should be avoided. 

Mr. Tavenner. You spoke of Mr. McCoy as having been a member 
of the Young Communist League. 

Mr. Heacock. I said that I assumed he was because he apparently — 
apparently was ; yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. Well, what was the basis of your knowledge of his 
membership in the Young Communist League ? 

Mr. Heacock. Well, his statements and his attempt to have me come 
to social functions, and so forth, which were attended by other people 
that — that freely admitted they were members of the YCL. 

Mr. Tavenner. Well, did you attend any meeting of the Young 
Communist League with him or others of the group that you referred 
to? 

Mr. Heacock. I have met with members of these groups at their 
homes, and usually in connection with the union with which I was 
affiliated at the time — the Steelworkers' Union — at the American Can 
Co. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you become acquainted with Mat Pelman? 

Mr. Heacock. Yes ; I recognize that name. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was he one of this same group to which you have 
referred ? 

Mr. Heacock. Yes, sir ; he was. — 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you know him as a member of the Young Com- 
munuist League or the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Heacock. I knew him as an official of the Young Communist 
League. 

Mr. Tavenner. On what do you base your information? 

Mr. Heacock. Well, principally that he seemed to be giving in- 
formation and directions to other YCL people. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you become acquainted with a person by the 
name of Lou Rosser — L-o-u R-o-s-s-e-r ? 

Mr. Heacock. Yes, sir ; I did. I couldn't recall the name until the 
investigator advised me that Mr. Rosser was a Negro, and then I re- 
membered — readily recalled and tied the name and the man together. 

Mr. Tavenner. Well, what was the nature of your acquaintance- 
ship with him ? 

Mr. Heacock. He appeared at certain social affiairs — what may bB 
called house meetings — that sort of thing — as — and was known as a 
member of the Young Communist League. 

Mr. Tavenner. Now, he was not a member of your union, was he? 

Mr. Heacock. No ; he was not. 

Mr. Tavenner. He was not employed by American Can Co., was 
he? 

Mr. Heacock. No. 

Mr. Tavenner. Actually, he was the educational director of the 
Young Communist League, was he not? 

Mr. Heacock. I didn't know that, sir. 



1618 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION (GOVERNMENT LABOR) 

Mr. Tavenner. Were these meetings of the Young Communist 
League at which you said he appeared ? 

Mr. Heacock. Principally a social affair. 

Now, there was a man in the same plant who would have me go out 
to a social affair, and there was Mr. Rosser, and certain of these 
others that you have mentioned. 

Mr. Tavenner. Well, how did you know that Mr. Rosser was a mem- 
ber of the Young Communist League unless you, yourself, were a 
member of the group 

Mr. Heacock. Well, I didn't. 

Mr. Tavenner. Or a member of the Young Communist League? 

Mr. Heacock. I didn't, but there were very many that I knew who 
were also non-Communists that went to these groups. In fact, they 
represented themselves as a youth group, or youth organization, rather 
than as an out-and-out Communist group, and in that way attracted 
certainly many outside of their own membership to their functions. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you acquainted with Margaret Campbell — 
C-a-m-p-b-e-1-1? 

Mr. Heacock. I don't recall the name, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Ed Harris ? 

Mr. Heacock. I don't recall that name, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you acquainted with Virginia Kibre — 
K-i-b-r-e — the wife of Jeff Kibre ? 

Mr. Heacock. I don't recall that name either, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Jack Starr? 

Mr. Heacock. No, sir ; I can't recall that. 

Mr. Tavenner. Roy Spector? 

Mr. Heacock. Yes ; I recall Roy Spector very well. 

Mr. Tavenner. How was Roy Spector employed ? 

Mr. Heacock. He was also employed at the American Can Co. and 
frequently — in fact, most often — was the person that would get me to 
go to these other functions. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know whether he was an organizer for the 
local union in the steelworkers' group? 

Mr. Heacock. I don't know that he was. He was active in union 
affairs. I can't recall whether he was an official or not. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you know him as a member of the Young Com- 
munist League? 

Mr. Heacock. Yes ; I assumed that he was. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jackson. Upon what was your assumption based ? 

Mr. Heacock. Well, he would take me to meetings at which there 
were other of these YCL'ers present, and he would admit to interest 
in this organization. 

Mr. Walter. What took place at these meetings? 

Mr. Heacock. Well, principally, sir, Congressman Walter, they 
were mostly social — were educational — what they called educational 
material thrown in. Usually, you might have a social affair at 
somebody's home and there would be literature available on the table 
and — urging that you take it home — and also a lot of social activity 
with members of both sexes present; parties, dancing — that sort of 
thing. 

Mr. Walter. Combining business with pleasure, I take it ? 

Mr. Heacock. That is correct, sir. 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION (GOVERNMENT — LABOR) 1619 

Mr. Walter. What was the business or what was the literature that 
was under discussion ? The literature that was under discussion was 
Communist literature, wasn't it ? 

Mr. Heacock. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Walter. Do you remember any of the things that were dis- 
cussed — any of the works ; pamphlets ? 

Mr. Heacock. Well, I recall that there was an effort or an attempt 
to present this as a broad youth group or organization that would like 
to function as, what they called, a mass organization ; and there was 
discussions of purposes of unions and discussions of 

Mr. Walter. Methods of infiltration into unions — how Communists 
could take over the particular unions functioning in that community? 

Mr. Heacock. Well, there was not that I can recall. There was 
more discussion of that in connection with your union activity. That 
is, if anything like that might come up as to stronger control over 
a union, why, it would come up in caucus meetings in connection with 
the unions, themselves. 

Mr. Scherer. Stronger control 

Mr. Walter. What occurred at those caucus meetings? 

Mr. Heacock. Well, there was — usually it had to do with internal 
union affairs, such as who was going to be elected. In fact, I believe 
that the American Can Co. — why, they would agree to support, you 
know, a non-Communist president of the union, or something of that 
nature, or would discuss union affairs 

Mr. Walter. Then 

Mr. Heacock. Organizational work. 

Mr. Walter. When you learned that the company was going to 
endeavor to elect a non- Communist at these caucuses, you decided who 
would oppose that man, didn't you? 

Mr. Heacock. No, sir; at — at that particular place, the American 
Can Co., they were supporting a non-Communist. 

Mr. Walter. A non-Communist ? 

Mr. Heacock. Yes; as far as I knew, he was a non-Communist. 

Mr. Walter. And then your group at the caucus selected somebody 
to oppose that candidate ; isn't that correct ? 

Mr. Heacock. No, sir ; they were supporting that candidate. 

I am trying to — I would like to make it clear that this is just an 
informal group. I mean, I might go out after work and stop out at 
somebody's house and talk these union matters over, but I don't want 
to give the committee an impression that I didn't know that these 
people were YCL people. At that time, why, we just accepted that 
fact. 

Mr. Jackson. May I ask a question, Mr. Chairman ? 

Mr. Velde. Mr. Jackson. 

Mr. Jackson. Mr. Heacock, on several occasions you have said — at 
least one occasion, as I recall — that there were non-Communists also 
attending these social affairs at which the literature was displayed. 
How do you arrive at the conclusion that they were indeed non- 
Communists ? 

You told us how you know that some of the people were Com- 
munists. On what do you base your statement that others there were 
non-Communists ? 

Mr. Heacock. Well, I've already said that I just assumed that 
certain people were YCL people and also others were not, because, for 



1620 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION (GOVERNMENT — LABOR) 

example, after work Mr. Spector might pick me up and say, "Well, 
I want to go over here and pick up this Mexican fellow here that 
hasn't been involved in union activity and see if he wants to come 
along and go to this affair," and the discussions were all on the level 
of trying to promote a — what they called a mass organization of them- 
selves and others, which would be what we would know as non- 
Communists. 

I am trying to help the committee by pointing out in 1937 or 1938 
that they apparently believed that they should join with all other 
groups — sort of a united-front idea. 

Mr. Sciierer. Who should join with all other groups? Whom do 
you mean ? 

Mr. Heacock. Well, their own membership. 

Mr. Clardy. Communist membership ? 

Mr. Heacock. Yes ; YCL membership. 

Mr. Clardy. May I ask a question ? 

Mr. Velde. Mr. Clardy. 

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

Mr. Clardy. How many members were in this outfit you called 
YCL? 

Mr. Heacock. I'm sure I don't know, Congressman Clardy. 

Mr. Clardy. Well, you have told us that you knew roughly who 
were and who were not. So, you know the sum total. Now, on what 
basis can you divide it to help the committee get some idea how deep 
the infiltration was ? 

Mr. Heacock. Well, I will say in the American Can Co. there were 
only two that indicated to me, as I recall it, that they were members 
of the YCL. 

Mr. Clardy. Well, you must have had a pretty small social group 
if you only had two and had a party with both sexes present. 

Mr. Heacock. No, sir. 

Mr. Clardy. Haven't you kind of forgotten 

Mr. Heacock. No, sir. 

Mr. Clardy. What you said a moment ago ? 

Mr. Heacock. No, sir, Mr. Clardy. I pointed out there were cer- 
tain union functions, and then I differentiated them from these 
broad 

Mr. Clardy. Well, it wasn't at the union 

Mr. Heacock. Social groups 

Mr. Clardy. That the literature — the Communist literature — was 
distributed ? 

Mr. Heacock. No, sir. 

Mr. Clardy. All right; let's get to these meetings, then. How many 
people attended those meetings? 

Mr. Velde. Now, you are referring to the meetings where Com- 
munist Party literature was distributed. 

Mr. Clardy. As he has described it. 

Mr. Heacock. Oh, there might be from 7 to 15 people at a house 
party, or there might be a social affair thrown at which there was 25 
or 30 people present. 

Mr. Clardy. All right, now, how many meetings of that kind at 
which Communist literature was present and distributed did you 
attend % 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION (GOVERNMENT LABOR) 1621 

Mr. Heacock. I think I attended 3 or 4 such meetings. 

Mr. Clardy. Was it the same crowd at each of those meetings ? 

Mr. Heacock. No, sir; it was not. 

Mr. Clardy. But at each of the meetings Communist literature was 
made available to all who attended, if I understand your testimony 
correctly ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Heacock. What I assumed to be Communist literature ; yes. 

Mr. Clardy. Well, you inspected it ; didn't you ? 

Mr. Heacock. Yes. 

Mr. Clardy. You took some of it home ? 

Mr. Heacock. Yes, but none of this literature — this literature didn't 
seem to be so labeled. I am just using my 

Mr. Clardy. Well, would you describe it, then, so we can determine 
whether your identification is correct? 

Mr. Heacock. Well, Congressman Clardy, to be exact, 15 or 17 years 
ago I am sure I couldn't 

Mr. Clardy. I don't want the title, just the general idea. 

Mr. Heacock. The general idea was to extoll the virtues of the 
Soviet Union. 

Mr. Clardy. As against our Government? 

That was the general idea, wasn't it? 

Mr. Heacock. Well, I believe that's the general idea. 

Mr. Clardy. And wasn't there also mixed in with that literature 
some of the things Congressman Walter suggested a moment ago — 
some explanations as to how the Communist Party could best infiltrate 
and take over control of the unions? 

Mr. Heacock. No ; no, sir — not so much — not so much of that 

Mr. Clardy. I didn't 

Mr. Heacock. In a YCL 

Mr. Clardy. Ask you how much; I just asked you: Wasn't there 
some of that in the literature? 

Now, your answer indicates there was. Suppose you tell me how 
much of that there was passed around. 

Mr. Heacock. Well, I couldn't say, sir. 

Mr. Clardy. Well, you took some of it home, didn't you? 

Mr. Heacock. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Clardy. And you read it? 

Mr. Heacock. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Clardy. Were these meetings held at different homes ? 

Mr. Heacock. Yes. 

Mr. Clardy. The ones you attended? 

Mr. Heacock. Yes, sir; they were. 

Mr. Clardy. And each one of the hosts supplied this same kind of 
literature at each of those homes? 

Mr. Heacock. Well, it doesn't follow any certain pattern because, 
after all, I was only to about four of these meetings ; but I would notice 
that what was supposedly a social affair — there was always some type 
of literature available for the people that had come to — to dance and 
have a party, and that sort of thing. 

Mr. Clardy. Are you right sure you didn't take some of it to the 
meetings ? 

Mr. Heacock. No, sir; I never did. 

Mr. Clardy. Never at any time? 

Mr. Heacock. Never at any time. 



1622 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION (GOVERNMENT — LABOR) 

Mr. Clardy. You didn't distribute any of it? 

Mr. Heacock. No, sir. 

Mr. Clardy. That is all I have. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you become acquainted with a person by the 
name of Jack Starr ? 

Mr. Heacock. I don't recall that name, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Lil Chernin — L-i-1 C-h-e-r-n-i-n? 

Mr. Heacock. I don't recall that name, sir. These names that 
you've given me — I find it very difficult to remember somebody I met 
yesterday, and this has been 15 to 17 years ago ; but those that I can 
remember I certainly will identify. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you recall meeting a person by the name of Andy 
Chase — C-h-a-s-e ? 

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

Mr. Tavenner. W. B. Holther— Ho-1-t-h-e-r. 

Mr. Heacock. No ; I don't recall Mr. Holther. 

Mr. Tavenner. W. Simpson ? 

Mr. Heacock. No, sir ; I can't recall that name. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you recall having met, in connection with Com- 
munist Party matters or Young Communist League matters, any 
person by the name of Simpson? 

Mr. Heacock. No, sir ; I've talked to the investigator on that sub- 
ject and didn't recall the name at all. He told me, further, that such 
a person was from Long Beach, and I said I might have known him 
then because I recalled somebody from Long Beach on certain oc- 
casions. 

Mr. Velde. Mr. Counsel, at this point I think it might be well to 
put in a statement for the record and for the press that the names of 
the people you have been mentioning in questioning the witness have 
been previously identified as having some connection with the Com- 
munist Party through the YCL or otherwise. 

Is that correct? 

Mr. Tavenner. I am just about to read into the record testimony 
regarding that. 

Mr. W. B. Holther gave an affidavit to this committee in 1939, and 
in it he described his own activities in the Young Communist League 
and other matters relating to Communist Party activities. He was 
asked this question : 

Can you now state, for the record, the names of the members on the County 
Councii of the Young Communist League at the time you were affiliated with 
it? 

to which he gave this answer : 

At this time — that is to say in the summer of 1937 — the County Council of 
the Young Communist League held regular fortnightly meetinas at 224 South 
Spring Street. This address was also the address of the Communist Party. 

The county council was a large organization of delegates from the different 
branches. Its leaders, however, I can remember. They included, in the period 
of which I am speaking, Frank Carlson, who was the State executive secretary ; 
Jack Olson, head for Los Angeles County : Roy McCoy ; Mat Pelman, who has 
since been transferred to trade-union work for the Communist Party ; Lou 
Rosser, Negro leader soon to become one of the chief YCL organizers in the 
whole country; Margaret Campbell, at that time in charge of cultural activities; 
Ed Harris; Virginia Kibre, wife of Jeff Kibre ; Jack Starr; Lil Chernin, a 
leader in student work; Andy Chase and Amos Heacock, presidents of leading 
branches. 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION (GOVERNMENT LABOR) 1623 

Mr. Heacock. I would like to say, sir, I was never a president of 
any YCL group. That there is no question, and I am absolutely 
positive. 

Now, I have discussed this matter with the investigator, and I do 
recall that during this period my brother told me at one time that he 
had been elected the chairman or the president of a YCL group 
somewhere on the south side. I 

Mr. Tavenner. What was your brother's name ? 

Mr. Heacock. Joe Heacock. 

Mr. Tavenner. All right, proceed. 

Mr. Heacock. He didn't usually — he didn't confide in me very 
much, but he told me that one day. 

I had noticed he had been going around with a — with a young blonde 
girl that was — I don't recall her name, but she was at that time be- 
lieved to be a YCL girl, and I believe that Mr. Holther — that's his 
name — may be referring to him. 

I have never at any time had any official office with the YCL or any 
official activity, nor took any instructions whatsoever from any Com- 
munist group; and as far as union organizing, at which I was very, 
very successful, I did that entirely on my own previously and refused 
to undertake any union activity thereafter, although I was urged to 
do so. 

Mr. Jackson. Then, your contention is that this is very likely a 
case of mistaken identity in which your name has been confused with 
that of your brother ? 

Mr. Heacock. Yes, sir ; in this case I believe it is a case of mistaken 
identity, because I was not a president of a YCL branch or any official 
of any branch, and I do recall that my brother did mention that he 
had been. 

Mr. Jackson. Well, if it develops that is the case, then, this hearing, 
from your standpoint, is a very good thing ; if such a case of mistaken 
identity has occurred, don't you feel that that is the case ? 

Mr. Heacock. Yes, sir. 

I don't want to give the committee an impression that I didn't 
openly associate with these people, because I did; but I'd like the com- 
mittee to give consideration to the fact that I was somewhat — these 
people were somewhat attracted to me, rather than I to them, because 
I had come off the aqueduct a successful labor organizer, a young fel- 
low, and my name was much better known than my brother's, and I 
assume if Mr. Holther knew a Mr. Heacock he would assume it was 
Mr. Amos Heacock because I was much better known than my brother. 

Mr. Velde. Are you sure you haven't made a mistake there in your 
testimony ? 

I just want to make it clear in my own mind. Did you say you were 
more attracted to them, the men in the YCL ? 

Mr. Heacock. Xo; they were more attracted to me. In fact, I 
never 

Mr. Velde. In other words, they were the ones interested in getting 
you into it instead of you being interested in them ? 

Mr. Heacock. That's right. In other words, I was well under way 
with a very successful labor-organizing work before I met the first 
person that assumed or admitted to being a Communist. 

Mr. Velde. I had the opposite understanding from your testimony. 
I am glad you cleared it up for me. 



1624 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION (GOVERNMENT LABOR) 

Mr. Clardy. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question ? 

Mr. Velde. Mr. Clardy. 

Mr. Clardy. Can you give us a better identification of the Young 
Communist League fraction or unit to which your brother belonged? 

You said it was south Los Angeles, but that is a little bit vague. 
Los Angeles, as Mr. Jackson knows, is a very large community. 

Mr. Jackson. A very fine community. 

Mr. Clardy. Oh, yes ; I agree with you, sir. I like its climate very 
much. 

Mr. Heacock. You will have to bear with me, Congressman Clardy. 
That's a long time ago, but I do believe it had something to do with 
the southwestern or southern, or something of that nature, as I recall 
it, referring to the southwestern part of the city, where evidently 
was — they had their meetings. 

Mr. Clardy. Now, you are very sure of that and sure it was not one 
known as the downtown unit? 

Mr. Heacock. That is — that is correct, sir. 

Mr. Jackson. Would it have been the southwest section? 

Mr. Heacock. Yes. Yes; it would be the southwest section. The 
girl friend that my brother was going around with was from the 
southwest section of the town there, and I understand that that's 
where he was seeing these people. 

Mr. Scherer. Were you and your brother living in the same home 
at that time ? 

Mr. Heacock. Yes, sir, Mr. Scherer; I — we were living in the 
same home. 

Mr. Scherer. I mean it was before either of you were married and 
you were living at home ? 

Mr. Heacock. That is correct. 

Mr. Scherer. And what was his first name ? 

Mr. Heacock. Joe, or Joseph. 

Mr. Scherer. And how old a man is he now ? 

Mr. Heacock. He was killed in an accident, sir. 

Mr. Scherer. He was killed? 

Mr. Heacock. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Scherer. And how old would he have been? How much 
younger is he than you? 

Mr. Heacock. Well, he was 2 or 3 years younger than I was. 

Mr. Jackson. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Heacock. I believe he was about 19 at the time. 

Mr. Jackson. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Velde. Mr. Jackson. 

Mr. Jackson. I would suggest, in light of the death of the brother 
of the witness, that references to him in the record be stricken. 

Mr. Clardy. Wouldn't it be well, Mr. Jackson, if we wait until the 
record is completed ? 

Mr. Jackson. Very well. I won't press the point. 

Mr. Velde. Yes ; offhand, I agree with you. 

Mr. Clardy. I do, too. 

Mr. Jackson. I am willing to wait until the record has been made, 
and at that time see what steps should be taken. 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION (GOVERNMENT — LABOR) 1625 

Mi*. Scherer. But I think it is to this man's advantage, if there is 
a case of mistaken identity, that we determine that. 

Mr. Scherer. And the only way you can determine that is to deter- 
mine who this brother was and how this mistaken identity took place, 
if it did take place. 

Mr. Jackson. That part of witness' testimony, I believe — the initial 
statement he made with respect to the identity of his brother — can very 
well remain in; but I think the subsequent material which follows 
on that is not essential to the making of the proper record. 

Mr. Scherer. Of course, when I asked the question I didn't know 
his brother was dead. 

Mr. Clardy. Well, of course, none of us did; but until the record 
is completed I think we might as well reserve that, Mr. Chairman, 
because some other unexpected development may come along. 

Mr. Velde. Yes. 

I would like to say, too, membership in the YCL back in 1937, 1938 
and 1939 — while the plans to use the YCL by the American part 01 
the Communist Party and by Soviet Russia were probably pretty 
well organized and under way, there were a great many good American 
citizens at that time who didn't realize that membership in the YCL 
was in any way anti- American. 

Mr. Scherer. I understand that. I just thought this was prelim- 
inary to something else counsel was going to develop. 

Mr. Velde. Well, if 

Mr. Heacock. Chairman Velde, if it had been as clear that the — 
as it is today — that the YCL was engaged in such activities and it — 
and that there was a question of loyalty to my own country involved, 
I would never have touched them with a. 10-foot pole. 

I've got a record that I'm proud of in serving my country; and, 
in fact, I've felt that after I came out of the Air Force and ran into 
a situation where I could be of aid to my country in organizing and 
developing an airlift reserve — I thought that was the thing that 
I should do, even at the considerable expense to my own family and to 
my own company. 

There were — the record shows as of today, right now, there are a 
great number of airplanes organized into a reserve which is controlled 
out of Washington here, which I personalty organized and developed 
and brought to its state now where it is available for any military 
emergency, available in case of an atomic bomb attack, or anything 
of that nature. 

That is action that I have conducted in contrast to a very regretta- 
ble, very foolish and a very embarrassing association that I've had 
in the past, which I regret exceedingly. 

Mr. Velde. Yes. Well, I think we ought to say, too, that the in- 
vestigation of YCL activities during the time the organization was 
functioning here in the United States is a legitimate duty of the 
committee in order to determine just what Soviet Russia has in the 
past done through its political and subversive organizations operat- 
ing here in this country to destroy our constitutional processes ; and I 
do say, in view of the law under which this committee operates— that 
is the law or the resolution providing that we should investigate sub- 
versive propaganda and activities and report to Congress for remedial 
legislation — that we are engaged in a legitimate function in making 
this particular inquiry. 



1626 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION (GOVERNMENT LABOR) 

Mr. Heacock. Chairman Velde, I entirely agree with you. I've 
suffered considerably from the undercurrent that has occurred for 
the past year and a half which hurt me. It reflected upon my loyalty 
since I became a member of Armed Forces of the United States, 
and — but I say that if I were in your position and had been in the 
field of antisabotage 

Mr. Velde. I'm sure you wouldn't like to be in my position. 

Mr. Heacock. I mean your position in the Armed Forces — anti- 
sabotage and counterintelligence — and found myself after the war — 
I would probably be engaged in somewhat similar activity; but it so 
happens that my experience throughout the war was in airlift — 6 
years of it — and when I got out and got into air transportation it 
seemed to me that the best function that I could perform, a patriotic 
function, for my country, was to try to build, against obstacles, an 
airlift that I know that we've got to have to fight communism through- 
out the world. 

Mr. Jackson. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that I believe the 
YCL is certainly a proper area for investigation by this committee, 
in spite of the fact that it goes back quite a number of years, because 
perhaps no organization connected in any way with the Communist 
Party spawned quite the crop of espionage agents and current Com- 
munist leaders as did the YCL. 

I think by finding out what went on in the YCL, who comprised 
its membership, how it was financed, how recruitment was carried on, 
we are in a much better position and the Congress will be in a much 
better position to know and appreciate the nature and extent of the 
present Communist Party which drew its leadership or which has 
drawn its leadership in large part from the ranks of the YCL. 

Mr. Velde. Yes ; I concur with the gentleman* in that statement, 
and I might make a little additional statement now. 

The truth of the matter is the YCL, in a changed form, is presently 
in existence, as has been determined by this committee. It was first 
succeeded by the American Youth for Democracy and now has been 
succeeded by the Labor Youth League. That is, the group that now 
operates as the Labor Youth League is largely composed of member- 
ship that it got from the A YD when it was abandoned; and, simi- 
larly, when the YCL was abandoned, the AYD took over an over- 
whelming majority of its membership. So, actually when we go back 
to the YCL organization, we are actually investigating the founding 
of the present Labor Youth League. 

Mr. Clardy. I think I ought to point out, Mr. Chairman, something 
more. Most of us were not kidded or fooled into believing that it 
was a straightforward, upright, patriotic kind of an organization. 
I, for one, certainly was never taken in. I knew from the beginning 
that anything that had the name "Communist" tied in with it, as 
that outfit did, was just exactly what subsequent investigations have 
disclosed ; and I think I am getting just a little weary of hearing the 
explanation given that at that time people didn't know, because they 
did. Most of us knew, commencing in 1917, when the Communists 
took over in Russia, exactly what they were. We lost a lot of boys, 
if you will remember, in the northern part of Russia as a result of 
the activities that took place then. No; I don't think I 

Mr. Velde. Well, I am inclined to concur with you in this, Mr. 
Clardy : I think a great number of people — I hope a great majority of 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION (GOVERNMENT — LABOR) 1627 

the American people — never got mixed up with the Soviet subversive 
organizations; but I still insist a good many American citizens did not 
realize the subversive nature 

Mr. Clardy. Well, most of them did. 

Mr. Velde. Or the intent of Soviet Russia in those years. 

Mr. Clardy. Most of those in recent years who have used that ex- 
cuse had a pretty soft head, in my opinion. 

Mr. Scherer. It seems to me we are missing the point. The issue, 
it appears, is the fact that a witness some time in the past named this 
man here, this witness, as a president of a Young Communist League 
in the city of Los Angeles. He now indicates that that man was 
his brother. I think it is the duty of this committee to determine if 
there is a mistaken identity of this man — whether that is a fact— and if 
what this man says is true, he should be cleared as far as we are able 
to clear him. 

Mr. Jackson. Perhaps counsel has something further. 

Mr. Scherer. Well, perhaps he has. 

On the other hand, I think it would help the situation in determin- 
ing if there was a mistaken identity, or a mistake in identity, if we or 
the staff could pursue further the question as to the brother's activities 
and determine whether or not it was the brother. 

Mr. Clardy. Oh, yes ; in fairness to this witness 

Mr. Scherer. That is what I meant. 

Mr. Clardy. As well as to the brother. 

I think we are all agreed on that. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Heacock, it is true, is it not, that you attended 
meetings of the Young Communist League at 224 South Spring Street, 
Los Angeles ? 

Mr. Heacock. I have been to that address, which was the address of 
the Young Communist League at the time; but I don't recall ever 
having attended any meeting at that address. 

Mr. Tavenner. Well, what was the occasion of your appearing at 
that address? 

Mr. Heacock. Well, the YCL man would pick me up on the street 
there, unemployed, usually looking around for employment in the 
employment agencies uptown, and they had their bookstore out in 
front, and I knew a girl there in the office ; and several occasions — but 
I don't believe I went into the office as far as — any further than the 
counter there, where I talked to these people. 

Mr. Tavenner. Now, Mr. Lou Rosser testified in executive session 
before this committee 

Mr. Scherer. What was that? I didn't hear your question. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Lou Rosser testified in executive session before 
this committee on April 7, 1953, in Los Angeles. At that time Mr. 
Rosser advised 

Mr. Jackson. Will you identify Mr. Rosser, please? 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Lou Rosser is the same person referred to in 
the affidavit of Mr. Holther and was described in that affidavit as a 
Negro leader soon to become one of the chief YCL organizers in the 
whole country; and Mr. Rosser admitted his activity in the Young 
Communist League up to 1944, when he then left the Communist 
Party. In the course of his testimony Mr. Rosser identified the per- 
sons named by William Holther in the testimony which I read a few 
moments ago, and he likewise identified Mr. Holther, himself, as hav- 



1628 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION (GOVERNMENT LABOR) 

ing been a member of that group. He also identified Amos Heacock 
as a member of the Communist Party and the YCL. He was then 
asked to elaborate on his testimony concerning Amos Heacock, where 
he met him, and the number of times, and what he remembered about 
him and Mr. Kosser's testimony was as follows : 

Well, during 1936-37, when the CIO started to organize, the Communist Party — 
they urged its members, especially members of the Young Communist League and 
members of the Communist Party, to get jobs in factories and volunteer for 
organizers for the Communist Party, and they would become known. 

I met Amos Heacock in the office of the Young Communist League. He was 
brought there by a member by the name of Roy Spector, who was a volunteer 
organizer for the steel organizing committee of the CIO, and at that time they 
were attempting to organize the American Can Co. Heacock was working in the 
American Can Co. Roy Spector had a job in the American Can Co. 

Amos Heacock became a member of the downtown group of the Young Commu- 
nist League and the youth unit of the Communist Party. I met him because 
of my job, because of the educational director of the Young Communist League 
and the faction — 

f-a-c-t-i-o-n — Mr. Chairman, the word "faction" is used in this testi- 
mony, where it is my recollection that the word "fraction" is actually 
used, and I think that is a typographical error. So, I will read it both 
ways as we come to it. 

and the faction [or fraction] to organize the union and, therefore, carry the 
Communist line into the unions ; and I met with him as a person in the youth 
branch of the Communist Party downtown and the YCL branch. 

Question. How many occasions would you say you met Mr. Heacock in the 
youth group of the Communist Party — the downtown youth group? 

Mr. Rosser. Several. I knew him from 1936 to 1938, and then in 1938 — the 
last of 1938 — I went to New York to the national training school of the Com- 
munist Party, and then when I came back I didn't see much of him, I don't 
think, until around 1941 or 1942. I saw him for a while. I think he went into 
the Army. I saw him when he came out of the Army. 

Question. Do you recall what rank he had in the Army? 

Mr. Rosser. He was an officer in the Army. 

Mr. Jackson. These meetings you attended, however, were closed meetings? 

Mr. Rosser. Oh, yes. 

Mr. Jackson. And only those who were members of the Young Communist 
League of the Communist Party were admitted to meetings? 

Mr. Rosser. Well, some of the meetings, like it was a faction [or fraction] 
discussing the organizing drive of the American Can Co. — only those that worked 
in the American Can or the staff of the Communist Party or the Young Com- 
munist League could get into the meetings — not anti-Communists. 

Mr. Jackson. These were meetings confined solely to members? There were 
no non-Communists in attendance at the meetings? 

Mr. Rosser. No. 

Then, the questioning related to other individuals, and Mr. Rosser 
was then asked this question : 

I would like to have you briefly review, to the best of your recollection, all 
the times that you met Amos Heacock as a member of the Communist Party or 
as a member of the YCL, and give approximate dates, if possible, and the loca- 
tion of the meetings as near as possible. I realize it is a long time ago. 

Mr. Rosser. Just a minute. When you start fooling with dates, you see, you 
get yourself all — I can't remember, but I will say from 1936 up to 1938 I met 
and worked with Amos Heacock ; and I met with him many times in the down- 
town group of the Young Communist League and in the downtown youth branch 
of the Communist Party. 

I also met with him in faction [or fraction] meetings, discussing the work of 
organizing American Can. 

The job of organizing the union in the American Can was the concentration 
point of the Young Communist League. That was one of our concentrations. 

The American Can was over in the Negro community, and it was a concen- 
tration point of that group of Communists in the Young Communist League in 
that community. 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION (GOVERNMENT — LABOR) 1629 

I met with him on, I would say, 20 times. That is a small thing to say, but I 
would say 20 times in official capacity, as meetings in the Communist Party 
factions (or fractions) and the Young Communist League, although I met with 
him many times. 

Question. Amos Heacock had some brothers. Can you recall them? 

Mr. Kosser. I can't recall them, but I knew them. 

Question. You are not confusing Amos Heacock with any of the brothers? 

Mr. Kosser. No. 

Question. Do you recognize this picture of anybody that you met as a member 
of the Communist Party? 

Mr. Kosser. This is Amos on the right. 

Question. I would like to introduce that in the record as Kosser Exhibit No. 1. 

Mr. Jackson. It will be received. 

(The document referred to was marked "Rosser Exhibit No. 1" and was re- 
ceived in evidence.) 

Now, having refreshed your recollection, Mr. Heacock, by reading 
the testimony of Mr. Rosser, will you now tell the committee whether 
or not you were a member of the Young Communist League 

Mr. Heacock. I want to say 

Mr. Tavenner. During the period between 1936 and 1938 ? 

Mr. Heacock. I was not a member of the Young Communist League. 
I am quite familiar with the fact, before I came up here, that Mr. 
Rosser has charged me with being a member of the Communist Party, 
and very detailed statements that you have there ; but I would like to 
point out some inconsistencies in that story. 

First 

Mr. Clardy. Well, may I interrupt for one question first, Mr. Chair- 
man ? 

Mr. Velde. Yes; go ahead. 

Mr. Clardy. Was your brother working at the American Can Co. 
along with you? 

Mr. Heacock. No; he was not. 

Mr. Clakdy. That is all I wanted to ask. 

Mr. Heacock. I don't refer to this as a case of mistaken identity, 
because I knew Mr. Rosser. This is a different situation. 

Mr. Scherer. Well, before we get into this — I started to ask about 
the brother before, and I think it is important now. The witness 
indicated, on the basis of the testimony of the other witness before 
this committee, that it was his brother who was the member of the 
Young Communist League. 

How old was your brother at that time? 

Mr. Heacock. Around 19. 

Mr. Scherer. 1937? 

( No response. ) 

Mr. Scherer. In 1937 

Mr. Heacock. I think it was — — 

Mr. Scherer. He was 19 ? 

Mr. Heacock. I think it was 1937, or 1936 ; around there. 

Mr. Scherer. And he would have been 19 years of age ? 

Mr. Heacock. Yes. 

Mr. Scherer. What was he doing at that time ? 

Mr. Heacock. I believe he was working at Western Electric at the 
time. 

Mr. Set ierer. And had he gone through high school ? 

Mr. Heacock. No, sir ; he hadn't finished high school. 

35203— 53 4 



1630 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION (GOVERNMENT LABOR) 

Mr. Scherer. He hadn't finished high school ? 

Mr. Heacock. No. 

Mr. Scherer. How long had he been out of high school ? 

Mr. Heacock. I don't recall exactly. 

Mr. Scherer. And you were how old at that time, Mr. Heacock ? 

Mr. Heacock. I was 

Mr. Scherer. In 1937? 

Mr. Heacock. In 1937 1 was about 22. 

Mr. Scherer. No. How old were you in 1937 ? 

Take time to figure it out. 

Mr. Heacock. Well, I was born in 1914. I guess that would be 
about 22 or 23, wouldn't it ? 

Mr. Scherer. And he was 4 years younger than you, then ? 

Mr. Heacock. Well, in 1938 he was about 20; in 1937, about 19, as 
I recall it. He was killed when he wa s 20. 

Mr. Scherer. He was killed just about that time, then ? 

Mr. Heacock. I believe about — it was in 1938 that he was killed. 

Mr. Scherer. 1938. 

Mr. Heacock. He suddenly quit his job without any explanation 
at Western Electric and went to Texas, and — without saying what his 
purpose was in going there. He tried to catch a freight train in San 
Antonio, going about 30-35 miles an hour, was thrown under the 
wheels ; died in the hospital. 

Mr. Velde. Did you attend any YCL meetings after your brother 
died? 

Mr. Heacock. I believe so. 

I'd like to point out 

Mr. Velde. Well, it seems to me, then, if we are to believe Mr. 
Rosser's testimony that there is no case of mistaken identity. He 
testified that the witness did attend Communist Party meetings after 
1938 when he died. 

Mr. Heacock. Mr. Chairman, I'd like 

Mr. Velde. I can see no ease of mistaken identity, but what worries 
me, Mr. Heacock, is that you are substantially calling the witness, Lou 
Rosser, a perjurer when he says that you belonged to the YCL and the 
Communist Party and you deny it. 

I trust you realize that, of course. 

Mr. Heacock. Well, sir 

Mr. Scherer. Also the previous witness. 

Mr. Heacock. Sir, I — I'd like to 

Mr. Scherer. Pardon me. 

What was the name of that first witness you mentioned ? 

Mr. Tavenner. His name was W. 13. Holther — H-o-l-t-h-e-r. 

Mr. Clardy. May I ask him another question, Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. Velde. Mr. "Clardy. 

Mr. Heacock. Could I — — 

Mr. Clardy. Witness, the detailed testimony of Mr. Rosser makes 
it very apparent that the man he was talking about was employed at 
the American Can Co., was involved in union activity and that there 
are a great many other details that are going to be awfully trouble- 
some to explain away if you are still insistent 

Mr. Heacock. Mr. Clard}^ 

Mr. Clardy. Now, pardon me, if you are still insistent upon the 
mistaken identity theory. 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION (GOVERNMENT LABOR) 1631 

Mr. Heacock. Mister 



Mr. Clardy. Now, is it your position here today that everything 
Mr. Rosser has said about you is absolutely false and untrue? 
Mr. Heacock. No, sir, Mr. Clardy. I have- 



Mr. Clardy. How much of it do you admit that he- 



Mr. Velde. Let the witness answer, Mr. Clardy, your first question. 

Mr. Clardy. Yes. 

Mr. Heacock. Y es, sir. I have already answered on the record here 
t hat I didn't consider that this was a case of mistaken identity. I knew 
Mr. Rosser, and I — I assumed that he was a member of the YCL, and 
he had good reason to assume that I was a member of the YCL also 
because I appeared at these functions. However, he was incorrect. 

In recalling the man, the investigator pointed out the name, and I 
said, "That sounds familiar, but I can't recall it." 

And he mentioned that the man was a Negro, and I said, "Well, I 
recall that very well. I recall an incident in which Mr. Roy Spector 
came to me one day and he said, 'Mr. Heacock,' he says — he says, 'you 
are apparently chauvinistic' " 

Mr. Clardy. Apparently what? 

Mr. Heacock. Chauvinistic. [Continuing:] 

"I said, 'What do you mean by chauvinistic?' 

"He says, Well } T ou don't give consideration to the Negro people." 

"I said, 'What are } r ou referring to?' 

" 'Well,' he says, 'Mr. Rosser complains that you don't — you didn't — 
you tried to avoid him and didn't treat him right,' referring to a time 
when he put his arm around me on the street and — in Los Angeles. 
I objected to it, and I thought it was undue familiarity, and I told 
Mr. Spector, whether he was a Negro or white man, I didn't like 
it — and that is how I recall Mr. Rosser." 

I had met Mr. Rosser on occasion in the social affair where I found 
Negroes dancing with white women, and I guess I made it a little 
apparent that I didn't like it. 

Mr. Clardy. But you kept on going to the meetings; didn't you? 

Mr. Heacock. Yes, sir. I went to certain functions and affairs at 
the time. 

Mr. Clardy. Now, do I understand, to come back to my original 
question, you are flatly denying the truth of the allegations or state- 
ments made by the other witness that you were an official in or took 
part in the activities of the Communist Party or the Young Com- 
munist group, however you may want to define it ? 

Mr. Heacock. I was not an official of the Young Communist 
League. 

Mr. Clardy. Well, were you 

Mr. Heacock. I would 

Mr. Clardy. An official of any organization? 

Mr. Heacock. No. 

Mr. Velde. Let's let the witness answer. 

Mr. Heacock. I would like to point out the reason why I should 
be so closely associated here and yet not go into organizing for or 
taking any active part for any Communist group. 

It occurred out on the aqueduct, and I had got to the point of Parker 
Dam, and at Parker Dam, where I was the financial secretary and 
organizer, there was trouble developed because the company had — 
their Mr. Frank Crowe went to Los Angeles and got A. F. of L. union 



1632 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION (GOVERNMENT LABOR) 

organizers and came back there and had angered the union men, and 
there was a strike. 

Well, I had found that the couple of Communists and "Wobblies" 
that I knew there immediately deserted the area just as soon as the 
strike occurred, and the good American working men stayed on, 
manned the picket lines and ran their — ran their strike 

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

Mr. Heacock (continuing). And I realized then I couldn't be in- 
volved in organizing in such a way that I would be accused of or- 
ganizing for the Communists : and, although I was very successful up 
to that point, from that moment on I never performed any organiza- 
tional function for any union or any Communist group, or anything 
of that nature. 

I did hold myself open to — to learning more about this, because 

Mr. Clakdy. What do you mean by "this"'? communism, you 
mean ? 

Mr. Heacock. Yes. 

I did hold myself out to learning more about it. 

What led me away from it was that— that disregard for the indi- 
vidual and the apparent happiness or the apparent satisfaction they 
got out of that struggle there at Parker Dam, where the only thing 
I had been proud of was the occasions previously where we had gone 
in and negotiated a dollar-a-day wage increase without any strike; 
and then to — to see such people having satisfaction with that as a— 
because of it being sort of a class struggle — and I didn't get any satis- 
faction at all — considered it a complete failure — I would thereafter — 
because I'll throw myself wholeheartedly, and fully and completely, 
into anything that I thoroughly believe in —  — 

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

Mr. Heacock (Continuing). As can be shown by my activities for 
this trade association, or for organizing a business, or anything else. 
I'm all out, and yet these people came to me and tried to get me in- 
volved a little more because they figured I would go out and organize 
again, organize a union, and I was capable of doing it— — 

Mr. Jackson. Mr. Chairman 

Mr. Heacock. And I refused to 

Mr. Jackson. I would like to go to the point 

Mr. Velde. Yes; I think — — 

Mr. Jackson. A couple of specific points — in the testimony. 

Mr. Velde. Yes. 

Mr. Jackson. In other words, we have the affirmative statement of 
an acknowledged functionary of the Communist Party that you sat 
in Communist Party meetings with him, meetings which were 
closed to all except members of the Communist Party, or of the Young 
Communist League. Is that statement true or false, Mr. Heacock? 

Mr. Heacock. That's false, as far as I know it. I didn't recognize 
any such meetings as closed meetings. 

Mr. Jackson. Did you at any time ever use the name of John Hay- 
den, or a name other than your own? 

Mr. Heacock. No, sir; I didn't. 

Mi-. .Jackson. Did you ever hold a Communist Party card or book? 

Mr. Heacock. No, sir. 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION (GOVERNMENT — LABOR) 1633 

Mr. Jackson. Did you ever pay any dues to any person as member- 
ship dues in the Communist Party 

Mr. Heacock. No, sir. 

Mr. Jackson. Or of the Young Communist League? 

Mr. Heacock. No, sir. 

Mr. Jackson. Did you attend in June of 1937 a summer planning 
conference of the Young Communist League in Workers' Alliance 
Hall, 1859 Filmore Street, San Francisco, Calif. ? 

Mr. Heacock. I attended such a meeting. 

Mr. Jackson. The summer planning conference 

Mr. Heacock. I didn't 

Mr. Jackson. Of the Young Communist League? 

Mr. Heacock. I didn't recognize it as such. 

Mr. Jackson. What did you think you were attending? 

Mr. Heacock. Well, a convention of the YCL. 

Mr. Jackson. But you have never paid dues; you have never held 
a Communist Party card or membership card, or card in the Young 
Communist League, and you have never been in a closed session of the 
Communist Party or of the Young Communist League? How could 
3^011 attend a convention? 

Mr. Heacock. Well, I — not to my knowledge they were closed. 

I would like to present at this time, a copy of which I have pre- 
viously turned over to the investigator, something that has been circu- 
lating for a long time. It was circulated by Mr. John Mark, formerly 
with the Aircoach Transport Association, who was discharged by him- 
self. He is affiliated with an influence-peddling organization in the 
Woodward Building, and I have the originals of what 

Mr. Velde. Well, Mr. Heacock 

Mr. Heacock. He 

Mr. Velde. May I remind you that you were called here today to 
give testimony 

Mr. Heacock. That's correct 



Mr. Velde. Relative to your knowledge of subversive activities, and 
it has been the rule and custom of the committee to narrow our work 
down to that point as much as possible ; and I would suggest, before 
going further, you allow the committee or me to examine it to see if 
there is anything in there relative to the work we are doing. If there 
is, I am certain we will be most happy to place that material in the file. 

Now, we have other witnesses to hear, and I was hoping we could 
get through with this hearing before 1 o'clock. 

Mr. Counsel, do you have any further questions to ask? 

Mr. Tavenner. Not a great many. 

Mr. Clardy. Counsel, are you familiar with this document he is 
talking about? 

Mr. Heacock. Chairman Velde 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes; I am. 

Mr. Clardy. Does it have any relevancy to what we are getting at ? 

Mr. Tavenner. Well, it relates to the very matter that a committee 
member was just questioning him about — the use of, a possession of a 
Communist Partv card and the use of a name. 

Mr. Clardy. Was it some affidavit? 

Mr. Tavenner. No ; it is not. It is information apparently that was 
circulated relating to him by someone. 

Mr. Heacock. I'd like to say 



1634 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION (GOVERNMENT — LABOR) 

Mr. Clardt. Circulated publicly? 

Mr. Tavennee. Well, I wouldn't say publicly but rather widely 
among certain people, if I understand the situation correctly. 

.Mr. Heacock. I'd like to say, Mr. Chairman, it has been circulated 
to every scheduled airline in the country, and there is a man in this 
room, Mr. Robert Eeeves, who has been spreading this information 
throughout Alaska, and — and he has had the — it's been in the hands 
of most everyone. 

I'd like to say that 

Mr. Velde. Well, the question is, though: Is this information we 
should have in our records ? Is it information concerning subversive 
activities ? 

If the gentleman who mentioned this has some information, I am 
sure if he would consult with our counsel or our investigators we would 
be glad to take that and, if it is felt advisable, have a separate hearing. 

Mr. Tavenner. We are quite familiar with the information, and 
have gone into it. 

Mr. Jackson. It has been considered by the staff in working up 
the case ? 

Mr. Tavenner. The staff; yes. 

Mr. Doyle. Well, Mr. Chairman, may I ask this : As long as our 
counsel says it is related to the very questions that Committee Member 
Jackson was asking it might be, it seems to me very pertinent that it 
be introduced in the record in the nature of an explanation, or what- 
ever it is, at this point, in our printed record. 

Certainly if this man is being falsely accused, this is the time for him 
to have an opportunity to put in his defense — not 6 months from now 
in a separate hearing, or 30 days from now. 

I am strongly for this man if he has some explanation of the back- 
ground of some question that Committeeman Jackson has asked him 
to get it in the record here. 

That is what we have advocated — that a man come in and give an 
explanation of whatever the facts are. 

Isn't that true ? 

Now, this man, I think, is entitled to that. We print this record, 
and he might be irreparably damaged before we can get around to 
this, after we print the record of this hearing. 

Mr. Velde. In all due respect, I suggest the gentleman hasn't been 
in the hearing room to hear the previous testimony 

Mr. Doyle. That is true. I was on the floor of Congress. 

Mr. Velde. But I do feel the material should be examined, and we 
certainly should take advantage of anything Mr. Heacock has to 
offer relative to our work. However, at this point, I, personally, can- 
not see why we shouldn't proceed with the questions and get the 
answers from the witness relative to the purpose for which he was 
called here. 

Mr. Doyle. Well, I don't either, Mr. Chairman. The reason I 
wasn't here was because I was on the floor of Congress. Congress is 
in session this very minute, and I just left the floor. 

Mr. Clardy. Mr. Doyle, let me say 

Mr. Heacock. Mr. Velde, may I 

Mr. Clardy. Pardon me, Mr. Witness. I have just examined the 
material, and it is more or less a repetition in writing of the things 
upon which the witness has been examined by counsel and by the 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION (GOVERNMENT LABOR) 1635 

committee. It is put out by others, but it is substantially the same 
material ; and I would see no reason, Mr. Chairman, why it should not 
be made an exhibit and then if the witness has some explanation, coun- 
sel can probably help him on it. 

Mr. Velde. Certainly. 

Mr. Heacock. Mr. Velde. 

Mr. Velde. In the meantime, I suggest proceeding with the hearing 
and eliciting the answers to the questions that committee members or 
counsel have to put. 

Mr. Heacock. All I would like to point out to the chairman is this : 
I have been engaged, since I became a president of the Aircoach 
Transport Association, in a very outstanding campaign against the 
scheduled lines, and in many respects against the CAB, and I'd like 
to point out that I have known for something like a year — at least 
since February of 1951 — of these statements which you are — of the 
charges which you are questioning me on now. They don't come to 
me as any surprise at this particular moment. I have information 
here on most of what you have asked. 

I would like to 

Mr. Tavenner. Well, does what you are referring to include the 
testimony of Mr. Lou Rosser? 

Mr. Heacock. I was aware that Mr. Lou Rosser had made charges ; 

Mr. Tavenner. But he only testified before the committee in April 
of 1953, not prior to February. 

Mr. Heacock. Well, I am 

Mr. Clardy. This is the first time the committee had any knowledge 
of that, Witness. 

Mr. Heacock. I have been engaged in a campaign since 1949 to- 
present the case of the independent air carriers against what I con- 
sider to be a monopoly of the large scheduled airlines. 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes. 

Mr. Velde. Well, Mr. Heacock, may I point out that we are not in- 
terested in this hearing — nor I hope we are not interested in any 
other hearing — in the competitive efforts that you have made to estab- 
lish this airline, or anything relating to your own personal business. 
This committee is interested in determining facts relative to subver- 
sive activities, and I still cannot see why we should proceed along this 
line any further at this particular point. 

It has been suggested that the matter there be marked as an ex- 
hibit before the committee and certainly, without objection, it will be. 

Mr. Jackson. I would like to speak to the point of the exhibit. 

After all, that material is material which was circulated by a third 
party, not addressed to the Committee on Un-American Activities^ 
nor to any official body of the Congress. It has been circulated abroad 
elsewhere. I don't know whether or not charges which are made — 
whether they be made in good faith or out of maliciousness, anywhere 
in the country — should be incorporated into the official record of 
the House Committee on Un-American Activities, or any other com-, 
mittee. 

Mr. Scherer. Not unless 

Mr. Jackson. I had never seen this doucment. My questions were 
not based on these letters. 



1636 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION (GOVERNMENT LABOR) 

But I question the wisdom of inserting material of general circula- 
tion, which has no official foundation, into the record of the committee. 

Mr. Velde. Well, I had intended — and I think the gentleman from 
Michigan intended — that it be introduced as an exhibit without going 
into the record. 

Mr. Clardy. Oh. yes; but the only reason I suggested it was be- 
cause the witness, himself, brought it to my attention, to the commit- 
tee's attention, for the first time and he seemed to attach some im- 
portance to it; and if, in any way, he conceives that it will help the 
committee to get the correct facts, I, for one, would like to have it. 

Now, looking it over carefully, as I told Mr. Doyle, all I see is it is 
a reiteration of the very things upon which we have been questioning. 

I don't know anything about this. In fact, I didn't know it was in 
existence. I didn't know anything about the row he may have had 
with some others in his business, and I am not concerned with that. 

I agree with you — the committee should not — but if he thinks there 
is some value to this in presenting his side of the controversy now be- 
fore us, involving him, I, for one, will be willing to receive it, although 
I am inclined to agree with Mr. Jackson. If it is merely some spurious 
document circulated by a third party, maybe we ought not con- 
sider it. 

Mr. Schrerer. As long as the record shows it went into the record 
at the witness' request, I agree. It is derogatory to the witness and 
we shouldn't put it in unless he requests it be made part of his testi- 
mony. 

Mr. Clardy. That is right. 

Mr. Scherer. Now, if he requests it be put in the record, I think 
we should put it in the record; but the record should indicate that 
it gets into the record not by any affirmative action of this committee, 
but by a request on the part of the witness. 

Mr. Clardy. I think the record ought to show, Mr. Chairman, too, 
while a copy of this was given to counsel, counsel never callod it to the 
attention of any member of the committee. 

Until you produced it, yourself, witness, none of us up here had the 
slightest knowledge of it whatsoever, and it hasn't had anything to do 
with our questioning of you. 

Mr. Heacock. I am confident, Mr. Clardy, that it hasn't. 

I am aware that the committee here has been very fair to me. I'll 
say that. 

Mi-. Clardy. We have been trying to be. 

Mr. Heacock. The committee postponed this hearing at my request, 
so that it would ^iet past the general industry hearing before the 
Senate. 

Mr. Clardy. Let me interrupt you 1 minute. 

You have been good enough to agree we have been fair. Wouldn't 
you agree and wouldn't you stale, on the basis of the testimony which 
lias been taken in executive session, which has not been published to 
the public at all, and the other evidence that is in our hands that 
has been called to your attention, the committee has reasonable grounds 
to c;ill you in and to ask you the questions we have? 

Mi-. Heacock. They certainly do. They certainly have. 

I would like to point out, as additional facts bearing on your con- 
sideration here, the fact that something that w T as limited in scope has 
been built up in the last year and a half to an extremely tight case — 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION (GOVERNMENT LABOR) 1637 

too tight, from my point of view — and I have been so concerned about 
it that sometimes I can't even — can't even sleep ; but I would like to 
point out to you that when this was circulated — and the date is March 
4, 1952, it was circulated prior to that 

Mr. Velde. I believe, Mr. Heacock, we had better go ahead with the 
questioning relative to the facts of 

Mr. Doyle. May I ask a question? 

Mr. Velde. Just a minute ; relative to the facts of subversion. The 
facts will be considered bv the committee later in executive session that 
you have to submit. 

Mr. Doyle. Mr. Chairman, I want to urge 

Mr. Velde. Yes. 

Mr. Doyle. I think I should be privileged to ask a question. 

This is the first time I have seen this photostat, and it seems to me 
one part of the photostat very definitely relates to whether or not this 
man was a member of the Communist Party. 

Mr. Velde. Well, now, Mr. Doyle, that is exactly what we have 
been questioning him on 

Mr. Doyle. I notice that 

Mr. Velde. For at least an hour and a half now. 

Now, if your questions relate to membership in the Communist 
Party, the YCL, or any other subversive activities, certainly I will 
allow the distinguished gentleman 

Mr. Doyle. Well, my question 

Mr. Velde. From California to ask those questions. 

Mr. Doyle. My questions are going to lead to this premise : That 
this witness now claims that this record should go in as part of his 
testimony. In view of the fact he has been questioned on the very 
premises that are set forth in this photostat, according to the agree- 
ment of you gentlemen who have had time to read it all, I insist that 
this witness should have the right to put this photostat in the testimony 
as part of his statement. 

Mr. Scherer. That is what we agreed on. 

Mr. Velde. Now, Mr. Doyle 

Mr. Scherer. That was my suggestion. 

Mr. Doyle. If that is the agreement and that is understood, all 
right, because this apparently identifiies the source — at least part of 
the source — on which we are basing our questions. 

Mr. Jackson. No. 

Mr. Heacock. No. 

Mr. Jackson. I object to that, and I should like to have the record 
show that the investigation by this committee today is based upon 
identification received in committee sessions under oath which places 
the witness in closed meetings of the Communist Party or of the YCL. 

Mr. Doyle. Well, this 

Mr. Jackson. I had no previous knowledge of that document. 

Mr. Doyle. All right. 

Mr. Velde. Certainly the gentleman from California 

Mr. Clardy. Mr. Chairman, I think 

Mr. Velde. Who has always pointed out the committee's area of 
investigation 

Mr. Clardy. Mr. Doyle and Mr. Jackson are the ones who heard it. 

Mr. Velde. Should agree this extraneous information that has been 
circulated around has nothing to do with the hearings, with these 



1638 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION (GOVERNMENT — LABOR) 

hearings, or with the questions that have been put by counsel or the 
members of the committee. 

Mr. Tavenner. And, Mr. Chairman, I should say with the investi- 
gation that has been made. 

Mr. He acock. I have been. 

Mr. Tavenner. There has not been a single question which I have 
asked which has been based on that document. 

Air. Heacock. I can agree on that wholeheartedly. 

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

Mr. Heacock. I agree 

Mr. Scherer. "Wait a minute. I want to hear this. 

What was that? 

Mr. Heacock. I agree with that wholeheartedly. 

I merely want to point out — I just want to get into this record — 
that certain interested parties have been pushing this matter for a 
year and a half, and I am sure the committee is not aware of it. 

The committee has been fair to me, and I expect to continue to 
get a fair hearing out of this, but 

Mr. Scherer. Before you go on, let me ask you one question : Are 
you requesting this correspondence, of which we have photostatic 
copies, be placed in the record ? 

Mr. Heacock. Yes. 

Mr. Scherer. All right. 

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

(The document referred to was received in evidence as Heacock 
exhibit No. 1.) 

Heacock Exhibit No. 1 

U. S. AIRCOACH 
The Starlight Flight 

Executive Offices: Room 1010, Chester Wliliams Bldg., 215 W. Fifth St., 

Los Angeles 13, Calif. 

March 7, 1952. 
Mr. Amos Heathcox [sic] 

Air Coach Transport Association, 

lltOlf Neiv York Avenue JY'Tl 7 ., Washington 5, D. C. 

Dear Amos : Today I received a letter from John Mark, which I believe you 
should have investigated. I am enclosing a cony of this letter and the list he 
included. His letter was written in long hand, in his own writing. 

Amos, I hope you can get to the bottom of this as I believe it is a very serious 
charge for someone like Mark to be making. 

I know the boys in the Association are behind you. 

Please let me hear from you as to what I might be able to do out here to help 
you in this matter. 

Cordially yours, 

Fritz Hutcheson. 



[Duplicate copy] 

EXECUTIVE AIR SERVICES 
Exclusive Air Tours 

32S Woodward Bldg., Washington 5, D. C. 

March 4, 1952. 
Dear Fritz : Very sorry not to have seen you while you were in Washington. 
I had several things to discuss with you of vital importance. Most important 
was the present crisis concerning a serious question about the history of one of 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION (GOVERNMENT — LABOR) 1639 

your members of ACTA. On a separate sheet I will give you some names and 
questions which you can work on and get the answers. 

This situation is going to affect the entire industry, and will be a blow hard 
to recover from if you don't do something about it, and do it quick. 

We are planning some tours for this summer. One of them is a trip to Hawaii. 
If you are still running out there. I would like to know your rates, schedule, 
commission, etc. I would also like an agency agreement with your company, as 
I am sure we can give you business from here to the coast. Also from other 
locations in the East. 

If you are planning a trip east in the near future, and I hope you are, I would 
like to discuss the immediate formation of a new group to hop right into the 
military when this thing blows. This among other things. 

Let me hear from you by return mail. Best regards. 
Sincerely, 

John Mark. 



[Duplicate copy] 
CONFIDENTIAL 

Why was Amos Evens Heacock discharged from Lockheed Aircraft Sept. 30-40 
(Social Security #554-14-3299) ? 

Who was John Hayden (an alias) whose card number on Communist Party 
Book was 56454? 

Did this man join the Downdown Youth Unit of the Communist Party in 1938? 

Was he acquainted with one Roy Spector, said to be the same as Frank Spector 
now on trial in Los Angeles for Communist Activities? 

Was he acquainted with the following, one of whom lived at 1307 West 40th 
St., Los Angeles, in 1940 : a — Clifford Westly Stiess, b — John Raymond Powell, 
c — Roy Spector? 

Did the landlady of the one, above, attend any Communist Party meetings with 
any or all of the above, and was John Hayden #56454 (alias) in this group? 

Did Amos Evens Heacock reside at 115 E. 70th St., Los Angeles, California, 
in 1936? 

Did he join the Communist Party at that time? 

Consult your State Subversive Activities Committee. 



Air. Clardt. Mr. Doyle, may I suggest- 



Mr. Scheeer. Just so we can't be accused of circulating 

Mr. Claedy. May I address a remark to my brother committee 
member ? 

Mr. Velde. Mr. Clardy. 

Mr. Clardy. Mr. Doyle, I think I just discovered a few moments 
ago that you and Mr. Jackson were the members of the subcommittee 
that remained behind in Los Angeles and elicited the testimony upon 
which the interrogation was based before you came in. 

Mr. Doyle. Well, this gentlemen is before this committee without 
the benefit of legal counsel! 

Mr. Clardy. That is 

Mr. Doyle. And I think it is fundamental, therefore, that we bend 
over backward to make sure he is not losing any of his rights; and 
unless he is a lawyer 

Mr. Heacock. Well, I- 



Mr. Doyle. The other thing is this : In that photostat I notice some 

of those questions date way back to 1936 and 1937 

Mr. Clardy. That is right. 



Mr. Doyle. And, in my book, that is a long, long way back- 
Mr. Scherer. Mr. Doyle, I was concerned about that, too, until- 



Mr. Doyle. To admit testimony about a man before us without 
counsel. 



1640 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION (GOVERNMENT LABOR) 

Mr. Scherer. Mr. Chairman, I was saying I was concerned about 
that, too, until I heard some of the sworn testimony that was taken 
out in Los Angeles, I think, before you and 

Mr. Clardt. Mr. Doyle, some of them have been Communists longer 
than that. 

Mr. Doyle. I know. 

Mr. Velde. Let us proceed in regular order, and 

Mr. Jackson. I think the record should show again that the witness 
was advised of his right to counsel and stated he did not desire 
counsel at the opening of the hearing, so that his constitutional rights 
were fully observed in every respect by the committee. 

Mr. Doyle. I know, Committee Member Jackson, but that doesn't 
relieve us from the fact he is here without counsel. 

Mr. Clardy. We have bent over pretty far backward. 

Mr. Velde. Regular order. 

Proceed, Mr. Counsel. 

Mr. Doyle. I hope we always do. 

Mr. Heacock. May I read one sentence of this to point out the 
reason I wanted it in the record ? 

Mr. Velde. The Chair will allow you to do it. although it is in the 
record at the present time. 

Mr. Heacock. This gentleman is writing to a member of the asso- 
ciation I represent — I represented at that time, and he is circularizing 
this information. The one sentence is: 

I would like to discuss the immediate formation of a new group to hop right 
into the military when this thing blows. 

Now, the gentleman is an interested party, and some of these things 
have come up, I think — some of the testimony, I believe — Mr. Ros- 
ser — 

When was his testimony taken, could you tell me ? 

Mr. Tavenner. April 7, 1953. 

Mr. Heacock. In other words, his testimony was taken since I spoke 
to the committee investigator and indicated that I challenged the state- 
ment of Mr. Rosser. 

Mr. Scherer. Obviously some of the material contained in the cor- 
respondence which you handed us is libelous insofar as you are con- 
cerned. Have you sued this man for libel? 

Mr. Heacock. No, sir. 

Mr. Velde. I can see no further use in going into this extraneous 
matter. It isn't a matter that is in the committee's jurisdiction as far 
as I can see. 

Mr. Heacock. Mr. Velde 

Mr. Velde. So, I would ask the counsel proceed with any further 
questions he may have to ask in regular order. 

Mr. Tavenner. You stated that you were employed by Lockheed 
Aircraft for a period of 3 weeks. What was the reason for the termi- 
nation of your employment with Lockheed? 

Mr. Heacock. I was — my employment was terminated at Lockheed 
because they said these reports of Communist associations 

Mr. Tavenner. And those reports were correct ; weren't they ? 

Mr. Heacock. Yes; I had associated with these people that I have 
talked to you about. 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION (GOVERNMENT — LABOR) 1641 

Mr. Tavenner. Had you engaged in any Communist Party activities 
at Lockheed 

Mr. Heacock. No, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. In the sense of attending fraction meetings of the 
Communist Party ? 

Mr. Heacock. No, sir; absolutely not. In fact, I had not met any- 
body at Lockheed; didn't know anybody there; didn't meet with any- 
body after work. In fact, the reason why I couldn't possibly have 
done so was that I was going every evening to a CPT ground training 
course, which was held in North Hollywood at that time, and was the 
primary reason for my seeking a job at Lockheed, because I had won 
this training course in flying, which was my deepest interest, to learn 
to fly ; and when I was successful, among a hundred, I took this ground 
school, successfully passed, among the five highest, and got my flight 
training. So, I went to work at Lockheed so as to be near this school, 
which was at North Hollywood, a few miles away. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you have presently employed an individual by 
the name of Theodore Vosk — V-o-s-k ? 

Mr. Heacock. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. Where is Mr. Vosk employed ? 

Mr. Heacock. Seattle. 

Mr. Tavenner. Seattle? 

Mr. Heacock. In the maintenance operation. 

Mr. Tavenner. Is this the field where the Boeing Aircraft Co. has 
its large plant? 

Mr. Heacock. Yes, sir ; they are across the field. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long has Mr. Vosk worked for you ? 

Mr. Heacock. He's worked for us since the inception of operations, 
and I believe it was June of 1948. 

Mr. Tavenner. What were the circumstances under which you 
employed him? 

Mr. Heacock. The circumstances were this : That he had done con- 
siderable work in our predecessor organization out in Honolulu, done 
considerable work for us, and we were — speaking of the officials of 
our company — we were confident he had rare ability in maintenance. 
He had bsen in charge of the Philippine line there, operating out of 
Honolulu. Whenever we wanted to get any maintenance done that 
stumped our own mechanics, we would call upon him. As a result, 
when we went into an operation at Seattle, he was called to come 
with us. 

Mr. Tavenner. At the time of your employment of him, did you 
know that his employment with the United States Army had been 
terminated as a result of an unfavorable loyalty investigation? 

Mr. Heacock. Yes, sir; I did. I got that information through 
another member of our company who came to me one day — you see, 
we operated a housing project there at Honolulu, and he came to me 
and said, "There's been an FBI man around to — here to check up on 
Mr. Vosk," and he came around to him as the head of the department, 
or the head of the apartment house that we ran, operated, and said 
that Mr. Vosk had been terminated under the loyalty program and 
inferred that he should be put out of the apartment. 

So, this official of my company came to me, asked me what I thought 
about it. He said he had already decided that if the man was mind- 
ing his own business, why, he would be allowed to stay. 



1642 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION (GOVERNMENT LABOR) 

And that's how I came to know that he had been discharged in 
connection with the loyalty program. He had worked at Hickam 
Field, which was adjoining the field where we had our housing project. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you consider that a person who has been dis- 
charged from Army employment as a result of a loyalty investigation 
should be employed in work of the character that your company was 
engaged in, where you necessarily had to exercise rights of entry and 
departure through military installations throughout the country? 

Mr. Heacock. Well, sir, he didn't leave Seattle in the course of his 
duties. 

Mr. Scherer. Would that make any difference ? 

Mr. Heacock. Well, I should take the position — I should take the 
position also that I shouldn't be involved in military movements my- 
self ; and, of course, I do know that Mr. Vosk has been under sur- 
veillance, and he has apparently minded his own business ever since 
he came into our emplo}^ and there has been no question as to any 
subversive activity since he's been in our employ. So, we just took the 
position that we didn't think we should discharge him. 

Have you any information that Mr. Vosk has been engaged in sub- 
versive activities since he joined our company? 

Mr. Tavenner. No ; the committee does not, but the committee has 
no way of determining what his present situation is, having known of 
what his activities were in the past. 

Mr. Heacock. Well, the 

Mr. Scherer. Well, do you know whether Vosk is a member of the 
Communist Party today yet ? 

Mr. Heacock. I don't think he is, sir. If he was, I certainly wouldn't 
put up with him a single day. 

Mr. Scherer. Do you know if he ever was a member of the party ? 

Mr. Heacock. I don't know. 

Mr. Tavenner. Have you endeavored to inquire in any way as to 
whether or not he is ? 

Mr. Heacock. I know that the FBI has been in touch with his case, 
and they're very — if there had been something, why, the FBI would 
have gotten in touch with his employers. 

Mr. Scherer. Are you sure ? 

Mr.VELDE. Well, I 

Mr. Scherer. I just want to know if the witness is sure. 

Mr. Heacock. Oh, no. 

Mr. Velde. Must say, speaking for myself 

Mr. Heacock. I am just assuming 

Mr. Velde. I rather disagree with the witness on that statement. 
I doubt very much whether the FBI would get in touch with this 
man's employer regarding his membership in the Communist Party. 

Mr. Heacock. They 

Mr. Scherer. Under the circumstances in this case 

Mr. Heacock. I take that point of view because they got in touch 
with his landlord at Honolulu. 

Mr. Scherer. Well, maybe his landlord has never been identified as 
a member of the party. 

Mr. Jackson. Did you discuss the loyalty investigation with Mr. 
Vosk? 

Mr. Heacock. I have asked him about it, and — and he said that he 
had — had not been a member of the party ; but he had been — had some 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION (GOVERNMENT LABOR) 1643 

associations that they were checking into because of a previous 
employment. 

Mr. Velde. By "party" 

Mr. Jackson. By "associations" — you mean the party ? 

Mr. Velde. You mean the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Heacock. I never went that far into it with them. 

Mr. Velde. Well, when you said you discussed the matter with him, 
and you said he was not a member, or hadn't been a member, of the 
party, do you mean the Communist Party of the United States? 

Mr. Heacock. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Chairman, I may say our investigation dis- 
closes on November 13, 1947, the Employees' Loyalty Keview Board, 
Department of the Army, upheld the decision to discharge Mr. Vosk 
from his then position. 

Mr. Velde. Thank you. 

Mr. Tavenner. I have no further questions. 

Mr. Velde. Mr. Jackson. 

Mr. Jackson. No questions. 

Mr. Velde. Mr. Clardy. 

Mr. Clardy. No questions. 

Mr. Velde. Mr. Scherer. 

Mr. Scherer. No questions. 

Mr. Velde. Mr. Kearney. 

(No response.) 

Mr. Velde. I am sorry I didn't recognize you first, Mr. Kearney. 

Mr. Doyle. 

Mr. Doyle. No questions. 

Mr. Velde. Is there any reason why this witness should be any 
longer retained under subpena, Mr. Counsel ? 

Mr. Tavenner. No, sir. 

Mr. Velde. If not, the witness 

Mr. Heacock. May I 

Mr. Velde. You have something ? 

Mr. Heacock. May I make a very short statement ? 

Mr. Velde. I would appreciate it if it would be rather short 

Mr. Heacock. Very short. 

Mr. Velde. Because we have other meetings this afternoon to at- 
tend, and some of us haven't had lunch yet. 

Mr. Clardy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Heacock. Of course, I have been exceedingly worried about an 
evident campaign for about a year and a half to bring this to the 
attention of your committee in full-scale hearings. 

Also like to point out that the committee offered me the opportunity, 
which I very much appreciate, of presenting my testimony in execu- 
tive session, and I — I said I'd just as soon have it in public session. 

Also, I would like to read from the Wrangell Alaska Sentinel, 
May 1, 1953, a column saying — "Through the Sentinel Periscope" — 
one paragraph : 

Along about the middle of this spring month of May, there is expected to 
come out of the House Un-American and Subversive Activities Committee a re- 
port that promises to shake Alaska to its political roots. Our advance informa- 
tion is that a man widely known in Alaskan affairs is being tabbed by the 
committee as a seasoned Communist for subversive conspiracy and that the 
ramifications are almost beyond conception politically as well as otherwise. 



1644 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION (GOVERNMENT LABOR) 

Now, I can say, because I have talked to the committee here, that the 
committee is, I am confident — is not engaged in any such campaign; 
but there are other parties that are and, when you see a case tied 
down so closely that has been in preparation for some time, I wish you 
would please keep that in mind. 

I have — you might say I have been the biggest thorn in the side of 
the scheduled airline lobby that we have here in Washington. 

My own company offered to transport the mails to Alaska for a 
dollar a year. They put us and every other irregular carrier — about 
13 of them — out of business in this operation, and 

Mr. Velde. Well, Mr. Heacock, may I say this is getting into 
extraneous material again. I do not believe we are interested in that 
particular- 



Mr. Heacock. Well, that 

Mr. Velde. Subject. 

I want you to know — and I think the committee members will all 
agree with me on that — that none of us are out to destroy anybody's 
livelihood, or in any way interfere with the ordinary course of a per- 
son's life. 

We are out to make investigations relative to subversive activities 
throughout this country, with a view in mind of reporting it to the 
Congress and to the American people, so that we might do something 
about the menace that threatens our country by subversive activities. 

This matter is something that should be dealt with, in my opinion, 
privately and possibly, as one of the gentlemen suggested, in the 
courts. If there is slander or libel in any way, there is an opportunity 
to bring the matter before the courts of the land. 

You understand this is a congressional investigative legislative com- 
mittee, set up to investigate subversive activities. We have nothing 
to do with these quarrels 

Mr. Heacock. Yes. 

Mr. Velde. Of a private nature. 

Mr. Heacock. Chairman Velde, I will discontinue that line of pres- 
entation. 

I would just like to make a statement as to my own loyalty. 

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

Mr. Heacock. Contrary to the feeling of Mr. Clardy, I did — I never 
did feel that my activity in — in being associated with these people 
at that time, in 1937, and 1938, involved any question of loyalty to 
my own country 

Mr. Clardy. I wasn't talking of mere association. 



Mr. Heacock. And I swear- 



& 



Mr. Clardy. I was talking of membership. 

Mr. Heacock. That's right; and I swear in the period that I have 
served in the Armed Forces I have tried to not only do my duty, but a 
little more, if possible. I volunteered for every assignment that was 
dangerous: every assignment that was asked for. 

I have, since that time, tried to take what I had learned during the 
war about the importance of airlift and tried to project it into my 
civilian work, which I felt was the — the backing of the independent 
air carriers to throw a competition into this air transportation picture, 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION (GOVERNMENT LABOR) 1645 

which would enable us to build the type of airlift reserve that we've 
got to have. 

Russia and — and the Communist countries — I would, tomorrow, 
fight them. I would — if vou want to put the $64 question to me — 
"Would I fight these people?"— I would say, "Till the last breath of 
life I have." 

And I feel very strongly about it. I didn't at that time, but since 
that time blood has been shed, and I certainly would consider — I 
would offer in the service of my country everything that I have. 

And as I pointed out to you previously your background enables 
you to fight this thing in one way, and my background, which is airlift, 
enabled me to fight it in another way ; and I am concerned about the 
international Communist conspiracy as well as any member of this 
committee, and I believe very strongly 

Mr. Doyle. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Velde. Mr. Doyle. 

Mr. Doyle. I think this is the first case since I have been on the 
committee these years that I have heard a witness indicate that pos- 
sibly, as a result of competition between his activities and someone 
else, some complaint will be made to this committee about activities, 
alleged activities, of the witness. 

Now, I have never met the witness before. I don't know anything 
about him. As I say, I was on the floor of the House before I came 
to this committee from the Capitol just now, but it seems to me, in 
view of the very definite inference at least — possibly stronger than 
that — that this witness has made to this committee that possibly, and 
probably, I take it from his testimony, that he is involved in this hear- 
ing, directly or indirectly, as a result of competition that he has offered 
to some other interests in this country, that this committee ought to 
make it crystal clear to this witness, if it hasn't already been done —  — 

Mr. Velde. Mr. Doyle, I would like to call to your mind that you and 
I both are defendants in a $52 million judgment suit for allegedly 
blacklisting people and— — 

Mr. Doyle. I know, Mr. Chairman, and unjustly so. 

Mr. Velde. And no inferences should be drawn from the witness' 
statements, or in producing this document for the record. 

Mr. Doyle. That is one reason I want to make this statement, if the 
chairman hasn't already done it before I came into this committee 
room. 

I want this definitely understood. I do not believe this committee, 
nor any member thereof, nor any member of the staff, deliberately, 
directly or indirectly, would be a party, knowingly, — knowingly, sir — 
to have you injured by reason of any hearing before this committee 
as a result of any of your own private business or affairs. 

Mr. Heacock. I am sure of that, sir. 

Mr. Doyle. Now, I want to make that crystal clear to you, and I 
wish to say this further to you : If, in the course of your experience, 
you find evidence that is the case, I invite you right now to get to our 
counsel at the earliest possible moment and produce it, because cer- 
tainly this committee, nor any member of it, is not going to be a party 
to ruining the reputation or standing of any American citizen grow- 
ing out of his business activities. 

35203—53 5 



1646 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION (GOVERNMENT — LABOR) 

It is only, as our distinguished chairman has said, the extent to 
which a person has been or is being actively interesed in subversive 
activities, either past or present, that we are interested in. 

Does that make it clear to you ? 

Mr. Heacock. Yes, sir ; that does, sir, and I thoroughly agree with 
you. 

I've had the fairest treatment possible from this committee. I've 
had fair treatment from the investigator, and I certainly don't com- 
plain of the attitude of this committee. 

But I would like to call to your attention there are severe under- 
currents here and that, if I may point out one more fact — one import- 
ant fact — that I believe this information was first brought to you by 
myself 

Mr. Clardt. The information in this exhibit, you mean ? 

Mr. Heacock. Some of this information — because there was the 
Prototype Aircraft Advisory Committee, to which I was appointed 
because I was representing the nonscheduled industry— I attended 
some meetings, and then resigned from it because I was in disagree- 
ment that they weren't going into cargo-type airplanes so essential 
for the national defense; and after resigning I found on my desk 
one morning a questionnaire from the FBI, saying that, "You are a 
member of the Prototype Aircraft Advisory Committee; this is a 
routine questionnaire," and I knew, as I sat there, that I had been 
associated with these people and that if I should send this informa- 
tion in, fill out this questionnaire, that sooner or later I'd appear 
before this committee, or some other action taken 

Mr. Clardy. As I understand it, witness, though, you have tried, as 
I get it very clear, to say you are not charging this committee with any 
collusion with those groups, or that they have anything to do with 
the institution of this investigation ? 

Mr. Heacock. Absolutely not. 

But the first party that became aware of this information was within 
the CAA and CAB. When I signed this questionnaire, knowing what 
it would involve — but I have never evaded anything like this in my 
life — turned it in, a report evidently went to the CAB, and this item 
came out in American Aviation Daily. 

Mr. Velde. Well, now, I think we have gone far enough into 
that 

Mr. Clardt. May I say one thing more, Mr. Chairman ? 

Mr. Velde. And with regard to the witness' rights, and everything 
else. 

We have another witness in executive session, and unless there is— — 

Mr. Clardt. May I just say one thing? 

I have been a pilot and an airplane owner for better than a quarter 
century, and I have some private quarrels with the governing body 
regulating those things. So, in one respect, I may be in your corner. 

Mr. Heacock. Let me thank you at this time — thank the com- 
mittee — and I would like to say also that I voluntarily have placed 
myself under military jurisdiction so I could further pursue this 
matter. 

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



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION (GOVERNMENT — LABOR) 1647 

Mr. Heacock. My commission in the Air Force Reserve would have 
expired April 1. Since this matter was before your committee — if 
I hadn't sworn in again and turned my application in — I did it for 
this purpose — so that the — I could appear before the Air Force and, 
in a trial, if necessary, go to the very root of this matter — and that 
necessarily will come up in the future. 

And I thank you very, very much for your consideration. 

Mr. Velde. You are very welcome, Mr. Heacock. 

The committee will stand in recess, and the witness is excused at the 
present time. 

(Whereupon, at 1:55 p. m., the hearing was recessed, subject to 
call.) 



COMMUNIST METHODS OF INFILTKATION 
(Government— Labor) 



TUESDAY, JUNE 9, 1953 

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

Washington, D. 0. 

public hearing 

The Subcommittee of the Committee on Un-American Activities 
met, pursuant to call, at 10 : 40 a. m., in the caucus room, room 362, Old 
House Office Building, Hon. Bernard W. Kearney presiding. 

Committee members present : Representatives Bernard W. Kearney 
(presiding), Gordon H. Scherer, Francis E. Walter, Clyde Doyle 
(appearance noted in transcript), and James B. Frazier, Jr. (appear- 
ance noted in transcript). 

Staff members present : Robert L. Kunzig, counsel ; Frank S. Taven- 
ner, Jr., counsel; Thomas W. Beale, Sr., chief clerk; and Courtney E. 
Owens, investigator. 

Mr. Kearney (presiding). The committee will be in order. 

Let the record show that a subcommittee has been appointed by the 
chairman, Mr. Velde, consisting of Mr. Kearney, Mr. Scherer, and 
Mr. Walter. 

Do you have a witness ? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes, sir. 

Will Mr. Russell Nixon come forward, please ? 

Mr. Kearney. Mr. Nixon, do you swear that the testimony you are 
about to give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 
truth, so help you God? 

Mr. Nixon. I do, sir. 

TESTIMONY OF RUSSELL ARTHUR NIXON, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS 

COUNSEL, DAVID SCRIBNER 

Mr. Tavenner. What is your name, please, sir ? 
Mr. Nixon. My full name is Russell Arthur Nixon. 
Mr. Tavenner. Are you accompanied by counsel? 
Mr. Nixon. Yes, sir ; I am, by Mr. David Scribner. 
Mr. Tavenner. What is your address, Mr. Scribner? 
Mr. Scribner. Eleven East 51st Street, New York City. 
Mr. Tavenner. When and where were you born, Mr. Nixon? 
Mr. Nixon. I was born in St. Paul, Minn., July 27, 1913. 
Mr. Tavenner. What is your present occupation ? 

1649 



1650 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION (GOVERNMENT — LABOR) 

Mr. Nixon. Well, I'm the Washington representative, legislative 
representative, of the United Electrical, Kadio and Machine Workers 
of America. 

I would like to request, Mr. Chairman, inasmuch as there is legis- 
lation pending before this committee, an opportunity to make a state- 
ment on the legislation that is pending to the committee and to make 
certain legislative proposals to the committee at this time. 

(Kepresentative Clyde Doyle entered the hearing room at this 
point.) 

Mr. Kearney. You understand there is legislation before this com- 
mittee? 

Mr. Nixon. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kearney. Let me see your statement. 

Mr. Nixon. Yes, sir ; I will. 

I am specifically addressing myself to legislation before this com- 
mittee, and in addition I have certain legislative proposals which I 
would like to propose to this committee. 

I make this request because obviously the purpose of this commit- 
tee must be the consideration of legislation, and it seems to me to be 
an appropriate request to make under the circumstances. 

In case you are not aware of the bill that is pending before the 
committee, I can 

Mr. Kearney. Just a minute, please. 

I will say to the witness, as far as the statement is concerned, that 
if the witness has any testimony to offer on any proposed legislation 
that might come before this committee he is welcome to offer that 
"testimony at the time any hearings are held. 

Mr. Nixon. Does that mean, Mr. Chairman, I cannot make this 
statement at this time ? 

Mr. Kearney. That means we will proceed with the testimony at 
present. 

Mr. Nixon. Would it be possible to put this in the record? 

Mr. Kearney. It certainly would. 

Mr. Nixon. Very well. I offer then this statement for the record, 
and I emphasize it deals with H. R. 4548, which is pending before 
this particular committee, as well as containing legislative proposals 
which I would want to make before the committee. 

(The statement of Mr. Nixon is as follows :) 

Government Licensing of Trade Unions (H. R. 4548) 

H. R. 4548, introduced by Congressman Miller of Maryland and referred to 
the Committee on Un-American Activities, would amend the Internal Security 
Act of 1950 to require that every labor organization and every member of a 
labor organization should submit to the Subversive Activities Control Board 
for its approval as the price of existence as a union or participation in a union. 
This bill in general involves proposals such as have been advanced by Senators 
McCarran of Nevada, Butler of Maryland, and Goldwater of Arizona, and Con- 
gressman Rhodes of Arizona, all of which propose to destroy the free right of 
workers to choose their own union and their own union officers and to substitute 
therefore the dictatorial censorship and control of a Government board. 

Mr. Kearney. Proceed, Mr. Counsel. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Nixon, will you outline, please, for the commit- 
tee what your formal educational training has been? 

Mr. Nixon. What level do you want me to start, Mr. Tavenner? 
Mr. Tavenner. With college. 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION (GOVERNMENT — LABOR) 1651 

Mr. Nixon. Very well. 

I went to Glendale Junior College in Glendale, Calif., from 1930 to 
1932. 

I graduated from the University of Southern California, Los Ange- 
les, 1934. 

I spent an additional year of graduate work at the University of 
Southern California in the year 1934—35. 

I entered the graduate school of Harvard University in 1935, re- 
ceived my master's degree in economics in 1938 and my doctor's de- 
gree in economics from Harvard University in 1940. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee, please, what your 
record of employment has been since 1938 when you received your 
master's degree, or 

Mr. Nixon. That's all right. 

Mr. Tavenner. Let me preface that by this question: Were you 
in attendance at Harvard University between 1938 and 1940 ? 

Mr. Nixon. Yes, sir. I was in the process of completing my doc- 
toral dissertation and taking my examinations. 

Mr. Tavenner. Then, will you tell the committee, please, what your 
record of employment has been since 1940 ? 

Mr. Nixon. Since 1940? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes, sir. 

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

Mr. Nixon. Well, during 1940 I was still at Harvard University. 

Mr. Kearney. Pardon me just a minute. 

Let the record show that Mr. Doyle and Mr. Frazier are present. 

Mr. Nixon. And the completion of that service on the faculty of 
Harvard University technically occurred — I think it was the end of 
January 1941. 

In 1941, January, I came to Washington, and for a period of 2 or 3 
months I was 

Mr. Tavenner. Let me interrupt you a moment there, please. I am 
not certain I understood what your situation was at Harvard prior to 
January, 1941. 

Mr. Nixon. Well, you didn't ask me. 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes. 

Mr. Nixon. You asked me what my occupational history was after 
1940. 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes, and in view of your answer 

Mr. Nixon. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. I am asking you now to tell us what your situation 
was at Harvard. 

Mr. Nixon. I was a member of the Economics Department, tutor and 
instructor in economics, teaching general economic courses and labor 
courses, in conjunction with others, and I also taught the same courses 
and had the same status at Radcliffe College for several years. 

Mr. Tavenner. When did your employment at Radcliffe College 
begin ? 

Mr. Nixon. To the best of my recollection — and that's a rather 
shared relationship — a teacher at Harvard frequently goes across 
the street and teaches classes at Radcliffe College. If my recollection 
serves me correctly, I was there in the years of 1939^0. and 1940-41. 

I think that's approximately correct on the Radcliffe part of it. 



1652 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION (GOVERNMENT — LABOR) 

Mr. Tavenner. And were you teaching at Harvard during that 
same period of time ? 

Mr. Nixon. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you a teacher at any time at Massachusetts 
Institute of Technology? 

Mr. Nixon. Yes, in the period which you didn't inquire about. I 
taught for one year at MIT — also economics — from 1936 to 1937. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you teach at any other institutions? 

Mr. Nixon. At the same year, 1936 to 1937, I taught in conjunction 
with Professor Edward Chamberlin an economics course at the exten- 
sion school at Harvard. It was an adult education extension arrange- 
ment, which was a single course, which I shared in the instuction with 
Professor Chamberlin — 1-year period. 

Mr. Tavenner. Have you had any other teaching experience? 

Mr. Nixon. Outside of my work on the trade union? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes. 

Mr. Nixon. No, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. What was your teaching experience in the trade 
union ? 

Mr. Nixon. Well, in the course of our activities in the union we 
carry on education of our membership in regard to economics, political 
affairs, trade union matters, and from time to time we have schools and 
courses and classes, and in that connection I participated in that, never 
in any formal teaching arrangement outside of the normal functions 
in my work in the union. 

Mr. Tavenner. During that period of time, when you were teaching 
as you have described in the trade-union field, did } 7 ou teach at any 
school ? 

Mr. Nixon. No ; I don't think so. It's possible some of our summer 
classes in the trade unions might have been called the district school. 
I don't think so, though. We had some summer education seminars, 
but I don't think they were called schools. 

Mr. Tavenner. Now, will you begin with January 1941, please, and 
tell us what the nature of your employment has been? 

Mr. Nixon. After I resigned, Harvard University, I came to Wash- 
ington and, for a period of 2 or 3 months, something like February, 
March, and April, I was employed in the Economic Research Division 
of the WPA, doing special studies in research on manpower problems, 
in which I was specially prepared at Harvard. 

Following that very brief period, I became a national legislative 
representative of Labor's Non-Partisan League, which at that time 
was the political and legislative arm of the Congress of Industrial 
Organizations. I served in that position until toward the end of 1941 ; 
and in November of 1941 I resigned that position in Labor's Non- 
Partisan League and entered the employ of the United Electrical, 
Eadio & Machine Workers of America, in charge of the Washington 
office, which was first being opened. 

I have been in their employ since that time and in the same capacity 
with two exceptions. The first exception occurred in 1944, when I was 
drafted into the armed services and took basic infantry training and 
went overseas. In that capacity, I was eventually assigned to the 
Allied Control Council, the Office of Military Government of the 
United States, and I served initially in the Finance Division of the 
Council. 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION (GOVERNMENT — LABOR) 1653 

I was at first the Chief of the Denazification Section of the Finance 
Division, having charge of the denazification of the German finan- 
cial system in the American Zone of Occupation. Subsequently, I be- 
came Chief of the Branch of Financial Intelligence of the same Divi- 
sion. Subsequently, I became Deputy Director of the Division of In- 
vestigation of Cartels and External Assets of the Allied Control Coun- 
cil in Berlin; and after a very brief period — matter of a few days in 
that capacity — I became the Director of that Division, and I was 
also the American member appointed by General Eisenhower and 
General Clay of the Quadripartite German External Property Com- 
mission established in the Potsdam agreement in Berlin in the sum- 
mer of 1945. I served in that capacity till the beginning of 1946, at 
which time I resigned these positions and returned to my position 
with the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America. 

That's the first exception. 

The other exception occurred in 1948, for a period of some 6 or 7 
months, which time I shared my time between the UE and the Pro- 
gressive Party or, more correctly, I think at that time the National 
Committee for the Election of Wallace and Taylor; and I was in 
charge of the trade-union aspects of that campaign, working ap- 
proximately half time in that area and approximately half time in 
the regular functions of my job in the Washington office of the United 
Electrical Workers, and my pay was half by the United Electrical 
Workers and half by the Wallace campaign organization. 

Those ar<3 the only two exceptions in my occupational history since 
1941. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Nixon, where did you live prior to your coming 
to Washington in January 1941 ? 

Mr. Nixon. I lived in Cambridge, Mass. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you live in New York City at any time? 

Mr. Nixon. No; I never lived in New York City prior to coming 
to Washington. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Nixon, from time to time the committee has 
received information and testimony which, if true, indicates that you 
are in possession of vast information regarding the activities of the 
Communist Party in the United States in a number of fields, and it 
is the desire of the committee that you be questioned regarding your 
knowledge of such matters and your alleged participation in such ac- 
tivities. 

Now, you have testified that you were an instructor at a number of 
schools — Radcliffe College, at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 
and at Harvard University. During the period that you were in the 
teaching field, were you a member of the American Federation of 
Teachers ? 

Mr. Nixon. Well, I don't like the practice of a congressional com- 
mittee asking a person whether he belonged to a union or not. I think 
that's a very questionable question, Mr. Tavenner, to ask a witness 
under subpena whether he belonged to an A. F. of L. union or not. 

If you insist, I would answer that question; but I think it's an 
improper question. 

Mr. Tavenner. Well, Mr. Nixon, of course, the purpose in asking 
that question is not to cast any reflection upon unions as such, but we 
are involved here in the question of ascertaining certain facts regard- 
ing the Communist Party and it is impossible to do that without 



1654 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION (GOVERNMENT — LABOR) 

mentioning groups in which they were attempting to function. That 
is the only purpose of it. It is not to in any way interfere with a 
union organization as such or to embarrass it in any way. 

Mr. Nixon. Well, I object to it because 

Mr. Tavenner. So, I will have to insist on your answering the 
question. 

Mr. Nixon. All right. 

Well, I think it is an improper question for this committee, but I 
shall answer it. 

I was a member of the American Federation of Teachers local at 
Harvard, part of the American Federation of Labor. 

Mr. Tavenner. There has been testimony presented to the com- 
mittee that there existed at Massachusetts Institute of Technology 
and at Harvard over a period of years — certainly between 1938 and 
1940 — an organized group of the Communist Party composed ex- 
clusively of members of the faculty or teachers at those two institutions. 

It has been testified that one of the main purposes — that is, one of 
the main immediate purposes — of that organization of the Communist 
Party was to infiltrate the American Federation of Teachers. 

In view of your having been a member of that union, I want to ask 
you whether or not you were aware that an effort was being made by 
the Communist Party to infiltrate that union. 

Mr. Nixon. Well, Mr. Tavenner, I am going to decline to answer 
that question for several reasons, which I would like to state to the 
committee, with the understanding that each reason stands by itself, 
is not limited or qualified in any degree by the fact that I also have 
other reasons for declining to answer such questions. 

First, I decline to answer a question of this — any question of this 
committee regarding my political views, associations, or affiliations 
because I believe such questions violate my rights under the first 
amendment of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution, by which all 
citizens are guaranteed freedom of speech and peaceful association. 

I secondly decline to answer such questions because I would refuse 
to be a party to the Un-American Committee's repressive actions 
against the spirit and practice of political freedom in any country. 

Mr. Kearney. Let me interrupt the witness, please. 

Regardless of the witness' thoughts on whether he believes the com- 
mittee is called the Un-American Committee, it is the Committee on 
Un-American Activities of the House of Representatives. It is a 
standing committee of the House of Representatives, and we will so 
designate it in the future. 

Mr. Nixon. Continuing my reason for declining to answer your 
question — and because I refuse to be an instrument for this committee 
in its offensive on behalf of greedy employers against militant and 
uncorruptible unions and leaders, and against those in our country 
who fight for peace against national policies they believe are leading 
toward the disaster of World War III. 

And, third, I decline to answer such questions on the grounds of the 
protection afforded me by the fifth amendment in the Bill of Rights, 
which extends for all citizens the privilege not to be a witness against 
himself. 

I assert this privilege in view of the jeopardy which I believe con- 
fronts me and every other unfriendly witness before this committee 
when confronted by such a question. 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION (GOVERNMENT — LABOR) 1655 

I assert this fifth amendment privilege because I fear for myself, as 
well as others, the invasion upon my liberty, threatened by the com- 
bination of the repressive thought-control legislation now in effect, the 
allegations of perjurious witnesses and unequal justice and unconsti- 
tutional court actions so characteristic of these days of 

Mr. Kearney. Well 

Mr. Nixon. Fear and hysteria. 

Mr. Kearney. May I interrupt the witness at that point ? 

According to your statement, that portion of your statement you just 
read then, in other words, as I take it, the only witnesses who come 
before this committee, as you state, are the so-called unfriendly 
witnesses? 

Mr. Nixon. Well, I am happy to repeat that section of my statement. 

Mr. Kearney. I understand the section. You don't have to repeat it. 

Mr. Nixon. Well, I say the jeopardy which confronts me and everv 
other unfriendly witness. 

Mr. Kearney. That is right. 

Mr. Nixon. I am referring to the jeopardy 

Mr. Kearney. That is right. In other words, the only witnesses 
who tell the truth here, according to your statement, are the unfriendly 
witnesses? 

Mr. Nixon. What I said is 

Mr. Kearney. I know what you said. 

Mr. Nixon. What I meant 

Mr. Kearney. Do you 

Mr. Nixon. That the ones in jeopardy 

Mr. Kearney. Want to explain what you meant ? 

Mr. Nixon. I meant to say that I think there is jeopardy confronting 
me and every other unfriendly witness before this commitee. That 
is what I meant to say. 

Mr. Kearney. Proceed, Mr. Counsel. 

Mr. Nixon. I'll complete this very quickly. There is not much 
more. 

I fear that I and no other person not conforming to the views of 
McCarthy, Jenner, and Velde can feel safe from this jeopardy. 

I utilize this value and, I believe, very necessary constitutional pro- 
tection, emphasizing that it was written into our Bill of Rights to pro- 
tect the innocent persons and that its invocation is not evidence of gu ilt 
of crime or wrongdoing. 

For these reasons, Mr. Ta vernier, and Mr. Chairman, I decline to 
answer the question you have just asked me, and I will, for the same 
reason, refuse to answer other questions I deem to be of the same 
character. 

I should like to say now that when and if further such questions are 
asked and I say I decline to answer for reasons already stated I have 
reference to the statement I have just now completed. 

Mr. Kearney. On the grounds of the first and fifth amendments? 

Mr. Nixon. On all three grounds which I stated to the committee. 

Mr. Kearney. Well, without reference to your lengthy explanation 
there, you mean that you refuse to answer on the grounds of the first 
and fifth amendments ? 

Mr. Nixon. The answer took less than 3 minutes, Mr. Kearney, a*id 
I mean that I decline to answer for all of the words which I said to 
you in those less than 3 minutes. 



1656 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION (GOVERNMENT — LABOR) 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Nixon, were you aware during the time you 
were at Harvard University, either as a student or as a member of 
the faculty, that there existed on the campus at Harvard a group or 
cell of the Communist Party composed of members of the faculty ? 

Mr. Nixon. Isn't that the same question you just asked me, Mr. 
Tavenner ? 

Mr. Tavenner. No. 

Mr. Nixon. Isn't it? 

Mr. Tavenner. No. 

Mr. Nixon. Well, no matter, I decline to answer it for the reasons 
ilready stated. 

Mr. Tavenner. While a student at Harvard University, were you 
aware of the existence among the student body of an organization of 
the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Nixon. I decline for the reasons I've stated to the committee. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you aware of the existence in the student body 
at Harvard of an organization or group of the Young Communist 
League ? 

Mr. Nixon. I decline to answer that question for the reason stated. 

Mr. Tavenner. While at Harvard University, did you become ac- 
quainted with Harry Bridges ? 

Mr. Nixon. I decline to answer that statement — same grounds. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did Harry Bridges engage in a series of lectures 
at Harvard University during the year 1939 or 1940 ? 

Mr. Nixon. I decline to answer that question for the grounds I 
have already stated to you, Mr. Tavenner. 

Mr. Kearney. Well, isn't that a matter of public knowledge ? 

Mr. Nixon. Well, if it is, why are you asking it, Mr. Kearney ? 

Mr. Kearney. I didn't ask you the question. 

Mr. Nixon. Why is your counsel asking it? 

Mr. Kearney. I am asking you another question. 

Mr. Nixon. If you are seeking information 

Mr. Kearney. I am asking you whether 

Mr. Nixon. Why are you asking me 

Mr. Kearney. That isn't a matter of public knowledge. 

Mr. Nixon. For something is a matter of public knowledge. 

Mr. Scherer. How can it incriminate you to answer it ? 

Mr. Nixon. I am not going to answer questions about perjurors be- 
fore this committee for the reasons that I have already stated to the 
committee and which I am sure is quite apparent to everyone of you. 

Mr. Kearney. It certainly is. 

Mr. Nixon. I have tried to make it quite apparent. 

Mr. Kearney. Did you play any part in the making of arrangements 
with Harry Bridges to lecture at Harvard University ? 

Mr. Scherer. That isn't common knowledge, Mr. Witness. So, 
maybe you can answer that one. 

Mr. Nixon. I decline to answer that question for the reason I have 
already stated. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee a little more fully, 
please, what period of time it was that you were at Massachusetts 
Institute of Technology ? 

Mr. Nixon. Yes. I'll repeat what I've already said to you. Per- 
haps I can give you the months, Mr. Tavenner. I taught at MIT from 
September 1936 until June 1937 — 1 school session, 1 year. 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION (GOVERNMENT — LABOR) 1657 

Mr. Tavenner. What were the circumstances under which you left 
teaching at Massachusetts Institute of Technology? 

Mr. Nixon. Circumstances were that I was offered a job at Harvard. 

Mr. Tavenner. I believe you stated that you were the legislative 
representative of Labor's Non-Partisan League, with duties here in 
Washington. 

Mr. Nixon. That's correct. 

Mr. Tavenner. And that was during the year 1941 ? 

Mr. Nixon. Yes. I don't recall the month. It was in the spring 
of 19-41 that I completed — or didn't complete — I left the Works Prog- 
ress Administration, and I went with the Labor's Non-Partisan 
League, and it was in November that I left that employment. 

Mr. Tavenner. And then you went to the United Electrical, Radio, 
and Machine Workers of America? 

Mr. Nixon. Yes, as I've already stated. 

Mr. Tavenner. Now, who was instrumental in your appointment 
to this new position? 

Mr. Nixon. Well, I had had extensive association with the leader- 
ship of United Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers of America, 
and they had need for someone and, on the basis of contact with me, 
they asked me to take the position. I don't think there's anything 
more than that. 

Mr. Tavenner. Who asked you ? 

Mr. Nixon. Well, as I remember it, it was actually — I talked with 
all three of the general officers of the United Electrical, Radio, and 
Machine Workers, Mr. Fitzgerald, 1 Mr. Matles, 2 and Mr. Emspak 3 — 
all three of them. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you also talk to Mr. Lee Pressman? 

Mr. Nixon. Well, I am going to decline to answer any questions 
about Mr. Lee Pressman for the reasons I have already stated to you. 

Mr. Tavenner. What was Mr. Lee Pressman's position at that time 
with the UE? 

Mr. Nixon. There was no person named Lee Pressman w T ho had any 
position in the UE at that time. 

Mr. Tavenner. What position did Mr. Pressman hold at that time 
in the CIO? 

Mr. Nixon. I think it is a matter of common knowledge, which you 
don't need to elicit from me, that he was general counsel of the 
United— of the CIO. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you confer with him with regard to the trans- 
fer of your work from Labor's Non-Partisan League to the UE? 

Mr. Nixon. That question I will refuse to answer for the reasons 
I have stated to you. 

Mr. Tavenner. Now, what were your duties with the UE when 
you began your work with that organization in 1941 ? 

Mr. Nixon. Well, I guess we had a lot of foresight in the UE. We 
opened our Washington office 7 days before Pearl Harbor and, as you 
know, we represented the bulk of the workers in the electrical, radio, 
and machine durable consumer goods industries, and initially we were 
occupied almost exclusively with the manifold problems of the con- 
version from peacetime production to wartime production, manpower 



1 Albert J. Fitzgerald. 
1 James J. Matles. 
8 Julius Emspak. 

35203—53 6 



1658 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION (GOVERNMENT LABOR) 

problems, production problems, associated economic problems, and 
we were extremely busily engaged with that. 

In addition to that, I carried on, and have in the entire period I 
have been with the union, the function of representing the union 
before Congress, congressional committees, contact with the Congress- 
men and Senators; and, in addition to that, I've carried on sort of a 
miscellaneous role in the union, speaking at meetings, carrying on 
activity in connection with our political-action program. 

Over a period of 12 years, now, Mr. Tavenner, the duties have been 
manifold, but always along the same general line. 

Mr. Tavenner. During that long period of experience in that posi- 
tion, did you observe whether or not the Communist Party was active 
in its effort to control the policies of the UE ? 

Mr. Nixon. I decline to answer that question for the reasons I have 
stated to you. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Victor Decavitch testified before this com- 
mittee on July 11, 1950, during the committee's hearings regarding 
Communist activities in the Cincinnati, Ohio, area. Mr. Decavitch 
was a former district president and general vice president of the 
United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America and was 
instrumental in organizing for UE the Sunlight Electric Co., a divi- 
sion of General Motors Corp. 

(At this point Mr. Nixon conferred with Mr. Scribner.) 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Decavitch testified that he went into the Com- 
munist Party at the instance of one Henry Fiering — F-i-e-r-i-n-g — 
in 1941. He remained under Communist Party discipline until De- 
cember 1945. In the course of his testimony he described an incident 
which, if true, has a bearing, an important bearing, on the matter 
of influence, Communist Party influence, in that labor union 

(At this point Mr. Nixon conferred with Mr. Scribner.) 

Mr. Tavenner (continuing). And I want to read it to you. 

Mr. Decavitch — D-e-c-a-v-i-t-c-h — testified as follows: 

The next gentleman I am going to name is a Washington representative of 
the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, and I think at one 
time he was one of the most effective, most influential persons in the city of 
Washington as far as the labor movement was concerned. This man could 
get to see Secretary of War Patterson, Forrestal, Secretary of the Treasury, 
any section of the Government practically upon picking up the phone and 
saying that he is "coming over and I would like to talk to him." His name is 
Russell Nixon. 

I do not know if Mr. Nixon is present in here today or not. 

(At this point Mr. Nixon conferred with Mr. Scribner.) 
Mr. Tavenner (continuing to read) : 

I know that Mr. Nixon was present in a couple of the sessions here previous 
to me coming up here. 

May I stop at that point and ask you whether you were present dur- 
ing Mr. Decavitch's testimony on Jub 7 14, 1950? 

(At this point Mr. Nixon conferred with Mr. Scribner.) 

Mr. Kearney. Where is this? 

Mr. Tavenner. In room 226, Old House Office Building, Washing- 
ton, D. C. 

Mr. Nixon. Yes; I was there, Mr. Tavenner. 

Mr. Tavenner (continuing to read) : 

How do I know that Mr. Nixon belonged to the party? 

Two ways: One was we had a big mass rally in Cleveland, Ohio, and Mr. 
Nixon made many trips out there to attend those rallies and speak. He was 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION (GOVERNMENT — LABOR) 1659 

quite an influential speaker and a good leader. He could lead people — some- 
thing I got to say for the majority of them. They are very well qualified for 
leading. They are well schooled in that, and we had a big mass meeting out in 
Gordon Park, I think, Cleveland, Ohio, where one of the national CIO repre- 
sentatives spoke and we had our general president there who happened to be 
the man who defeated Carey at the election, whose name is Albert J. Fitzgerald. 

Well, after the meeting — after the speeches were made — we had quite a good 
audience out in Gordon Park, out there — me and Nixon somehow became sep- 
arated from Mr. Fitzgerald, and I had occasion to go with him up to his hotel 
room, and naturally he probably had already been tipped off that I was consid- 
ered as one of the members of the Communist Party, and being president of the 
district, he mentioned to me — he said, "Vic, do you think we will ever be able 
to convince Fitzy" — the way we used to call him — Fitzy is Albert Fitzgerald — 
"Do you think we will ever be able to convince Fitzy to think as we do?" 

I said, "What do you mean?" 

He said, "You know what I mean. Along the line we advocate and think of." 

Tliat is the first time Mr. Nixon made any break along that line that I know 
of. 

He pulls out of his shirt, mind you — he had a clean shirt. You know the way 
they come back from the laundry. Stuffed in that shirt he had some book on the 
latest positions of Communists in this country, and he said, "Have you read 
this book yet?" 

I said, "No ; I haven't." 

And I asked, "Why do you carry it in your suitcase like that?" 

And lie said, "Well, I do not want anyone like a maid to find it if she went 
through my stuff." 

And he did have the book tucked away. 

And upon the saying of Henry Fiering, who was very proud of the fact of 
having such a representative as Mr. Nixon in Washington who was a member 
of the Communist Party. I do not know how he knew it, but we did talk about 
it many times and he was proud of the fact that the UE was able to have such 
a capable representative as Mr. Nixon. 

At a later time Mr. Nixon entered the armed services. He, himself, was sent 
across. It was pretty close to the end of the war. He was put through his 
training and he was sent to Europe, and his last talk was at our national con- 
vention at New York City. He gave a very stirring speech which was received 
by the whole convention very enthusiastically and he was given a good send- 
off. 

Now, did you and Mr. Decavitch go to your hotel room as he de- 
scribed in this testimony? 

Mr. Nixon. In describing Mr. Decavitch, you neglected to point out 
out he is a traitor to the labor movement that left its employ and over- 
night became an employee representing 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you 

Mr. Nixon. Representing the plant with which we were bargaining. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you answer the question ? 

Mr. Nixon. And I am not going to answer your questions— your 
question about his statement for the reason which I have already stated 
to this committee. 

Mr. Tavenner. Is there any fact mentioned in his statement which 
is untrue? 

Mr. Nixon. You know me well enough to know that you're not 
going to, by any devious way, get me to answer on something that I 
deem — — 

Mt.Tavenner. There is nothing devious about that. 

Mr. Nixon. It's perfectly  

Mr. Tavenner. It is a plain, straightforward question, Mr. Nixon. 

Mr. Nixon. I just said to you I am not going to discuss this matter 
and this statement with you for the reasons I have stated; and I 
meant what I said. 



1660 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION (GOVERNMENT — LABOR) 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Decavitch mentioned the fact you entered the 
armed services and I believe you have already testified that was in 
1944. Had you had any experience, military experience, prior to your 
entry into the Army at that time ? 

Mr. Nixon. No, sir; I hadn't. I had no military experience prior 
to being drafted. 

Mr. Tavenner. Had you been out of the United States prior to 
1944 when you went abroad as a member of the Armed Forces ? 

Mr. Nixon. Yes; I had. When I was married in 1938, my wife and 
I drove to California and we drove through Canada, one little section, 
from Niagara Falls to Detroit; and on one occasion, or maybe two 
occasions — I don't want to be caught in a misstatement here — we went 
down to Tia Juana and Agua Caliente from Los Angeles. Other than 
that, I had never been out of the United States. 

Mr. Tavenner. When were you discharged from the United States 
Army ? 

Mr. Nixon. I can't be absolutely precise about dates, although I 
guess I have my discharge in my pocket, but I was discharged as an 
enlisted man in — it must have been June of 1945, and for about 30 days 
I was a second lieutenant, or less than 30 days, and thereafter I was 
demobilized in the demobilization setup just being created outside 
of Paris at Etampes. That would have been probably July — oh, 
yes, I know because I recall it was on the weekend of Bastille Day — 
July 14. So, on that weekend I was demobilized entirely from the 
Army. 

Mr. Tavenner. Immediately prior to your discharge you were en- 
gaged, I believe, according to your testimony, in work with the Allied 
Control Council, in the Finance Division of it; is that correct? 

Mr. Nixon. That's correct, as well as 

Did you ask me just before my discharge? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes. 

Mr. Nixon. Yes; before my discharge I was with the Finance Di- 
vision of the Allied Control Council. Later I had an additional 
position. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long had you been at work with the Finance 
Division of the Allied Control Council prior to your discharge? 

Mr. Nixon. It was immediately after the' cessation of the Bulge 
Battle that I received orders to report to the Allied Control Council. 
That would have been probably in — some time in February 1945. I 
was up in Givet, which is a small town on the Meuse River of the 
French -Belgian border. 

Mr. Tavenner. And you served continuously in that work from 
February, then, of 1945 until the time of your discharge in approxi- 
mately July 

Mr. Nixon. That's correct. 

Mr. Tavenner. Of the same year? 

Mr. Nixon. That's correct. 

Mr. Tavenner. Now, what was the general character of the work 
being performed by you ? 

Mr. Nixon. In my first position, as chief of the de-Nazification 
Section of the Finance Division, I was in charge of the— — 

Mr. Tavenner. Now, this is prior to your discharge? 

Mr. Nixon. Yes, sir. 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION (GOVERNMENT LABOR) 1661 

I was in charge of the removal of Nazis, active Nazis, in accordance 
with JCS-1067 — removal of active Nazis from the German banks, in- 
surance companies and related financial institutions. 

Mr. Walter. What Avas your rank at that time? 

Mr. Nixon. I was a private first class. 

In addition to that 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you have the rank of T-5 

Mr. Nixon. I never 

Mr. Tavenner. Or grade? 

Mr. Nixon. I never achieved that rank, Mr. Tavenner. I always 
hoped to be a T-5, but I never got there. I was a buck — well, a private 
first class. 

In addition, I was carrying on certain functions with relationship 
to the decartelization program, which was under the general jurisdic- 
tion of the Finance Department, particularly with regard to I. G. Far- 
ben, and I served a period of time before the war ended on an intelli- 
gence team headed by a British colonel charged with the intelligence 
task of locating the German poison gas installations and demobilizing 
them. We were successful in this effort, and I received the Bronze 
Star for that activity. 

That period covered activity of 3 or 4 weeks, to some degree inter- 
twined with other activity in the general operation which we were 
engaged in Frankfurt, Germany, at that time, and also other parts of 
Germany. 

Mr. Tavenner. In what work did you engage after being dis- 
charged? 

Mr. Nixon. After I was discharged from the Army 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes. 

Mr. Nixon. In Paris? 

Subject to a check on dates, I would say at the time I was discharged 
as a second lieutenant I was Chief of the Financial Intelligence Sec- 
tion, branch of the Finance Division. In that regard, I had overall 
supervision of the de-Nazification program. I was also in charge 
of the — direct charge of our efforts to locate the hidden assets of Nazi 
leaders outside of the boundaries of Germany, in a project that we 
called Safe Haven, and we were also generally directing attention to- 
ward Germany's external assets, although this program had not been 
crystallized in the Potsdam agreement. It was being crystallized. It 
hadn't been organizationally crystallized. 

And I also served I would say in that period as a member of the 
Joint Intelligence Committee, headed by, I think it was, Colonel 
Kruger, operating on a general intelligence problems in Berlin. Al- 
len Dulles was a member of the committee. Professor Hoover of 
Duke University, and three or four others. We were engaged in var- 
ious projects — one, for example, a problem of how do you immobilize 
the German General Staff, and 

Mr. Tavenner. Now, my question was: What work did you en- 
gage in after being discharged from the Army? 

Mr. Nixon. That is what I am talking about, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes. 

Mr. Nixon. Yes, sir. That is what I am speaking of. 

Mr. Tavenner. Now, you were apparently assigned to that work 
as a civilian 



1662 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION (GOVERNMENT — LABOR) 

Mr. Nixon. That's correct. 

Mr. Tavenner. Is that correct? 

Mr. Nixon. That's correct. 

The transition in this particular instance from an enlisted man to 
second lieutenant to civilian did not pertain to the basic character of 
the work. This was a rather unusual period, as you can imagine, and 
the work went on in all of these various situations. 

Mr. Tavenner. "Well, what were the circumstances under which 
you were assigned to this work as a civilian ? 

Mr. Nixon. Well 

Mr. Tavenner. I mean, if you were discharged 

Mr. Nixon. Oh, I see. 

Mr. Tavenner. How did it happen you were assigned to work 
as a civilian? 

Mr. Nixon. That's purely a technical question of personnel rela- 
tionships in the Government, which I don't know too much about. 

My work did not change when I took the gold bar off and wore 
the same uniform. It didn't change. The function was exactly the 
same. Technically 

Mr. Kearney. Technically it was a change from military to a 
civilian status? 

Mr. Nixon. That is correct, but it did not change the character 
of the work. 

Technically, I think all of us were employees of the Treasury 
Department. 

I just couldn't enlighten you on just how this thing worked, but 
that's about what it was. 

Mr. Tavenner. Our investigation discloses that the Treasury De- 
partment, in response to a request from the War Department, sought 
the transfer of certain individuals who had formerly been employed 
by the Treasury Department from a military status to a civilian 
status, and by that means put on the Treasury payroll and continue 
in Avork under the direction of the Treasury Department. 

Our investigation shows that there were only about six individ- 
uals who were on that list and who were, at the request of the Army, 
so reassigned. 

Now, I should ask you at that point whether you had ever at any 
time been an employee of the Treasury Department prior to your 
discharge. 

Mr. Nixon. No ; I hadn't, and the only incorrectness in your state- 
ment is that — or maybe it's an inadequacy in your statement — is that 
there were persons who were not, had never been employees of the 
Treasury Department. 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes ; I am coming to that. 

Mr. Nixon. O. K. 

Mr. Tavenner. The action I have explained 

Mr. Nixon. All right. 

Mr. Tavenner. From our investigation is taken as a result of the 
request of the War Department of the Treasury Department to 
transfer these former Treasury Department employees, 

Mr. Nixon. Well, I don't know how this Avorked. We were too 
busy 

Mr. Tavenner. Now, our investigation further shows that the 
Treasury Department then prepared another list, a list of individuals 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION (GOVERNMENT — LABOR) 1663 

which included you, and recommended to the Department of Army 
that they be transferred from a military status to a civilian status and 
placed on the payroll of the Treasury Department ; and your name, as 
I say, was on that second list. 

Now, do you know how your name got there? 

Mr. Nixon. Well, really, Mr. Tavenner, I don't know how these — 
the technicalities of these matters — I can tell you what my best im- 
pression is about it. The Treasury, as I understood it, had a certain 
kind of general assignment for responsibility of the Finance Depart- 
ment, and they, Treasury personnel, under the direction of Secretary 
Morgenthau, were peopling the division, as far as I understood it, 
and the man in charge at that time, Colonel Bernstein, was a former 
official of the Treasury Department; and I don't know exactly how 
it worked at this end, but in my case, to be precise about your question, 
I was already functioning in the division under the general juris- 
diction of the Treasury Department. When we became civilians, 
we continued in the same general work which, by general agreement, 
was under the jurisdiction of the Treasury Department. 

The only exception that I know to that is that there was in the 
decartelization aspect of this work a group of people assigned from 
the Justice Department. 

Mr. Kearney. Well, let me interrupt you. 

May I ask counsel if there is anything unusual in those transfers. 
If he has some specific reason for asking the witness these questions, 
the Chair will allow him to proceed. If it is just to pursue a general 
line of questions as to how transfers in the Armed Forces came 
about — I think we are both well acquainted with the procedure — let's 
not waste time going into that. From time immemorial, many of these 
things have happened and no one knows why the transfer was made. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Chairman, under our investigation 

(At this point Mr. Nixon conferred with Mr. Scribner.) 

Mr. Tavenner (continuing). We found that a group of individuals 
had been asked to be transferred by the Treasury Department. It 
may be of some importance to know — and other witnesses have been 
examined on the subject — as to how their names were obtained and 
just why it was these particular individuals were transferred. 

Mr. Walter. Now, as I understand it 

Mr. Tavenner. This witness 

Mr. Walter. All these men were doing work for the military ? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes. 

Mr. Walter. But, obviously, they weren't being conpensated ade- 
quately and, thus, all the additional red tape had to be unwound, in 
order to facilitate the operation, and they were released from military 
service and went into this work in a civilian capacity. 

Mr. Tavenner. This witness is giving that explanation, and I want 
to make certain there was no other explanation for it. 

Mr. Kearney. Did the witness ever make any request to be trans- 
ferred to this? 

Mr. Nixon. I was never in anything except the function I was in. 
After I left the replacement depot in Givet, the technical arrange- 
ments were completely out of my hands. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you confer with anyone in the Treasury De- 
partment about your transfer to this position in the first place 

Mr. Nixon. Oh, no. 



1664 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION (GOVERNMENT LABOR) 

Mr. Tavenner (continuing). While you were in the Army? 

Mr. Nixon. Oh, no, sir. As a matter of fact, it was a complete sur- 
prise to me. I was sitting there in Givet, and I got two orders the same 
day — one to report to Paris — I think it was to the Strategic Bombing 
Survey — and the other one to report to London to the Allied Control 
Council. When you are in the Army 14 months, you don't know where 
these things come from. I certainly didn't. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Irving Kaplan was a member of the group 
working with you while you were in the Army ? 

Mr. Nixon. Yes. I think that is a matter of record. He was a 
Treasury employee. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Kaplan was asked to tell the committee the cir- 
cumstances under which he was assigned to that work and, during the 
course of the questioning, he was asked whether or not he conferred 
with you about going to Germany before he want to Germany, and he 
refused to answer the question on the ground that to do so might tend 
to incriminate him. Can you throw any light on that answer? 

Mr. Nixon. No ; I can't read Mr. Kaplan's mind. 

Mr. Tavenner. Well, had you 

Mr. Nixon. I can't 

Mr. Tavenner. Conferred with him prior to his assignment to that 
work ? 

Mr. Nixon. I hadn't been in the United States 

Mr. Tavenner. That is 

Mr. Nixon. For some period of time. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Irving Kaplan. 

Mr. Nixon. I hadn't been in the United States from October 1944. 

Mr. Tavenner. Well, had you conferred with him either personally 
or through correspondence? 

Mr. Nixon. Well, the answer is "No." I don't even — I don't think 
I knew him. I'm not absolutely sure, but I don't think I knew him 
before. 

Mr. Tavenner. You have stated that Mr. Bruce Waybur 

Mr. Nixon. No. 

Mr. Tavenner. Have you ever stated Mr. Bruce Waybur was 

Mr. Nixon. No; I have not. 

Mr. Tavenner. Our information is that Mr. Bruce Waybur was one 
of those who was assigned to this same work with you and placed on 
the Treasury payroll ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Nixon. My impression is that he was on the payroll of the 
Treasury. I haven't any direct relationship. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was he engaged in the same work with you ? 

Mr. Nixon. Yes, sir; he was. He worked for me during a consider- 
able period of the time. 

Mr. Tavenner. Had you known him prior to your military serv- 



ice 

Mr. Nixon. Yes; I had known Bruce Waybur. _ 

Mr. Tavenner. Here in the District of Columbia? 

Mr. Nixon. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. He has been identified before this committee by 
Mary Stalcup ? as having been a member of the Communist Party. Is 
that identification correct, as far as you know ? 



1 This individual testified under her married name, Mary Stalcup Markward, July 11, 
1951. 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION (GOVERNMENT LABOR) 1665 

Mr. Nixon. That is a question I won't answer on the grounds I 
have already stated to you, Mr. Tavenner. 

(At this point Mr. Nixon conferred with Mr. Scribner.) 

Mr. Kearney. The committee will recess for 5 minutes. 

( Whereupon, at 11 : 41 a. m., the hearing was recessed, to reconvene 
at 11:46 a. m.) 

(The hearing reconvened at 11 : 49 a. m.) 

Mr. Kearney. I want to suggest to Counsel that we will adjourn 
at 12 o'clock because certain members of the committeee have to be 
on the floor and we will reconvene at 2. 

(Representative Gordon H. Scherer left the hearing room at this 

point.) 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you remain in Germany, working while m the 
employ of the Treasury Department? 

Mr. Nixon. I left Germany in January 1946. 

Mr. Kearney. Let the record show that Mr. Scherer has left. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you have a fundamental disagreement with the 
State Department in the manner of handling German assets? 

Mr. Nixon. I think it was a fundamental disagreement, Mr. Taven- 
ner. The record of this is very fully spelled out in my testimony 
before the Senate Subcommittee on War Mobilization, in testimony 
which I gave in February of 1946. It is very fully spelled out in that 
official testimony and is part of the record of Congress. 

Mr. Tavenner. And was it your contention at that time that the 
U. S. S. R. should engage in search for German assets in that area of 
western Europe which had been assigned to the Allies % Was that the 
substance of your disagreement? 

Mr. Nixon/ Well, I had many disagreements with the State Depart- 
ment and with the military government policy, the way it was develop- 
ing ; a wd, as I say, this is spelled out. If you are interested in informa- 
tion, it is a part of the record you already have in a great more detail 
than I can possibly give to you off the cuff. 

The issue — and this was", mind you, still 1945 — was the question of 
the preservation of the quadripartite approach to the vesting of Ger- 
many's external assets everywhere throughout the neutral countries 
which were under the jurisdiction of the Allied Control Council, as 
provided in the Potsdam declaration, and my objection was to efforts 
to disrupt — again, 1945, this quadripartite approach; but, as I say, 
this is very fully spelled out in my testimony in 1946 which I gave 
at the request of Senator Kilgore. 

Mr. Tavenner. You issued a public statement in regard to the mat- 
ter while you were still employed in Germany, did you not ? 

Mr. Nrxox. We had very fine relations with the press, and very 
interested in my opinion ; did a fine job reporting the German story. 
In 1945, and over a long period of time, we had discussions with the 
press, and among those discussions was the discussion regarding this 
aspect of the whole question. 

Mr. Tavenner. And do you have a copy of that statement 

Mr. Nixon. I never prepared 

Mr. Tavenner. Allegedly made by you ? 

Mr. Nixon. I never prepared a written statement. I talked to the 
press when they asked me questions within the range of the material 
that I could justifiably discuss. 

There was no prepared statement, Mr. Tavenner. My statement on 



1666 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION (GOVERNMENT LABOR) 

this matter, as I said now three times, is contained in my testimony 
before the Senate Committee on War Mobilization. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you familiar with the release made by the State 
Department on January 8, 1946, in answer to the charges that you had 
made? 

Mr. Nixon. Yes ; I'm familiar with all aspects of that controversy. 

It's been a long time since I've looked at the material or reviewed it. 
I would suggest, if you're really interested in any part of it, that you 
look at my testimony of 1946. 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes. We will do that. In the meantime, will you 
examine the paper which I am handing you and state whether or not 
that appears to be the reply or answer to your statement to which you 
have just referred ? 

Mr. Nixon. Yes ; I think this is a State Department statement. 

And, incidentally, Mr. Tavenner, if you are going to put this in 
the record, I think it is only equitable that you should put in at least 
that portion of my Senate testimony which deals with this question. 

I asked at that time, as a matter of fact, that the State Department 
come up and testify in the same hearings, but they never saw fit to 
ao su. 

Mr. Tavenner. I desire to offer the document in evidence 

(At this point Mr. Nixon conferred with Mr. Scribner.) 

Mr. Tavenner (continuing). As Nixon exhibit No. 1. 

Mr. Kearney. Received. 

(The Department of State statement dated January 8, 1946, was 
received in evidence as Nixon exhibit No. 1.) 

Mr. Nixon. What about my request? 

Mr. Walter. What is it? 

Mr. Tavenner. It is the answer from the State Department to his 
allegations. 

Mr. Nixon. What about my request? 

Mr. Tavenner. And I think as a part of the record, if it is published, 
if this is published, it should, of course, include a proper description 
of what your testimony was there. 



Mr. Nixon. I would suggest- 



Mr. Walter. Well, it seems to me before this is made a part of the 
record it ought to show clearly what this is in answer to. 

Mr. Tavenner. Well, if you know of any way to get a copy of the 
statement, we would like to have it. 

Mr. Nixon. Here it is, Mr. Tavenner. I'll give it to you at the end 
of the hearings. 

Mr. Tavenner. The statement which you made to which this is a 
reply ? 

Mr. Nixon. I explained to you — and you must understand — that 
that was a discussion with the newspapermen. I presume that is what 
you are referring to. 

Mr. Tavenner. Well, do you have a copy of it ? 

Mr. Nixon. I told you — and listen carefully — there was never a 
statement in writing that was given out ; that the press reports to which 
I assume you are referring was a report in the press on the basis of 
discussion with me in the orderly interview and procedure of the 
press. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you have a copy of that press report? 

Mr. Nixon. There was no press report. There was — there was an 
item in the press. There were many items in the press. 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION (GOVERNMENT — LABOR) 1667 

Mr. Tavenner. Kegardless of what you call it, do you have a copy 
of it? 

Mr. Nixon. Do I have a clipping of the newspapers? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes. 

Mr. Nixon. Not with me, and I am sure you can get it easier than I 
can, and you are more than welcome to it. 

Mr. Walter. Is it a part of the record you are referring to? 

Mr. Nixon. No, sir. The statement that I would want to have to 
clarify the record on this particular question is my testimony in hear- 
ings before the subcommittee of the Committee on Military Affairs of 
the United States Senate, 79th Congress, on February 25, 1946. That 
deals quite adequately in my opinion with this whole matter. 

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

Mr. Xixon. I would not be satisfied to have what you — I forget your 
language exactly — something that describes my testimony. I would 
suggest that my statement be included because you are not putting in 
a description of what the State Department said. You are putting 
in what the State Department said and I would want the same kind of 
consideration, and I am prepared to furnish you with this material. 

Mr. Kearney. Do you have a copy of the statement? 

Mr. Xixox. Oh, yes, sir, of the testimony before the Senate subcom- 
mittee. 

Is that what you're referring to, sir? 

Mr. Kearney. I am referring to the release that was just handed 
to me, in which it states here : 

The statement issued by Mr. Nixon is full of mischievous inaccuracies and 
misleading innuendoes. 

What statement is that? 

Mr. Nixon. Well, I'm quite a patient person, and I don't mind 
going over it again for a third time. 

Mr. Kearney. Well, let's not be facetious about this. 

Mr. Xixon. I am not being facetious. 

Mr. Kearney. I am a patient person, too. 

Mr. Nixon. I am not being facetious, Mr. Kearney. 

Mr. Kearney. I would like to know what the statement is. 

Mr. Nixon. I have told you twice, and this is the third time. I 
have never prepared or issued a written statement on this matter. 

Mr. Walter. What is this a reply to ? 

Mr. Nixon. It is a reply to press reports which appeared in the 
United States newspapers. 

Mr. Walter. Well, do you remember what you were alleged to 
have said ? 

Mr. Nixon. Do I remember what I was alleged to have said ? 

Mr. Walter. Yes. 

Mr. Nixon. Well, in a general way, I 

Mr. Walter. What was it ? 

Mr. Nixon. Are you asking me now to recall my press conferences 
in 1946? 

Mr. Walter. To the best of your recollection. 

Mr. Nixon. I'm telling you that the way to find out about this, Mr. 
Walter, is in the statement 

Mr. Walter. I think you ought to put this in the record for just 
whatever it is worth. 



1668 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION (GOVERNMENT — LABOR) 

Mr. Nixon. That's fine. 

(At this point Mr. Nixon conferred with Mr. Scribner.) 

Mr. Nixon. Well, now, just for this record, I would suggest, if 
you're really interested in this, that yon put in the press clippings 
about this matter and that you also put in 

Mr. Kearney. That is what I was trying to get at a minute ago. 

Mr. Nixon. Yes. 

Mr. Kearney. Do you have a copy of those press clippings ? 

Mr. Nixon. I may have in my files somewhere, Mr. Kearney. 

Mr. Kearney. The committee will recess until 2 o'clock, and in the 
meantime see if you can find out 

Mr. Nixon. Well, just a moment. 

Mr. Kearney (continuing). Whether you have them. 

Mr. Nixon. My files are not here in Washington. I do not have 

Mr. Kearney. The committee will recess until 2 o'clock. 

(Whereupon, at 12 noon, the hearing was recessed, to reconvene at 
2 p. m., of the same day.) 

afternoon session 

(At the hour of 2 p. m., of the same clay, the hearing was re- 
sumed, the following committee members being present : Representa- 
tives Bernard W. Kearney (presiding), Gordon H. Scherer, Francis 
E. Walter, and Clyde Doyle. 

Mr. Kearney, (presiding). The committee will be in order. Let 
the record show present Mr. Scherer, Mr. Walter, Mr. Doyle and 
Mr. Kearney, members of the subcommittee. 

TESTIMONY OF RUSSELL ARTHUR NIXON, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS 
COUNSEL, DAVID SCRIBNER— Resumed 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Nixon, do you recall whether there were any 
unusual circumstances surrounding the termination of service of Irv- 
ing Kaplan who served with you in Germany as a civilian employee 
of the Treasury Department? 

Mr. Nixon. To the best of my knowledge, and responding to the 
rather vague phrase, "unusual circumstances," I would say no, I 
don't know. 

Mr. Tavenner. Let me see if this would refresh your recollection 
about what occurred. In the course of the testimony of Mr. Irving 
Kaplan there was presented to him a photostatic copy of a telegram 
from the Office of Military Government for Germany to the War De- 
partment, and the telegram read as follows : 

Important Irving Kaplan be recalled immediately. Use high air priority. 
On finance investigation and other matters Treasury interest. 

Did you have anything to do with the formulation of that telegram, 
the sending of it 

Mr. Nixon. Did you say that was a wire from Washington to Berlin 
or Berlin to Washington? 

Mr. Tavenner. No, from Berlin to Washington. 

Mr. Nixon. I really couldn't recall the details of that, Mr. Tavenner. 
It was quite a long time ago, and we had a good many different per- 
sonnel problems, and I probably would at some stage have been in- 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION (GOVERNMENT — LABOR) 1669 

volved in that since he was working under my direction, but I don't 
recall the special circumstances. 

Mr. Tavenner. Let me read 3'ou from a photostatic copy of an in- 
terdepartmental communication on that subject which may recall the 
incident to your memory. 

The date of the telegram that I just read was December 10, 1045. 

On December 13, 1945, there was an interdepartmental communica- 
tion from Colonel Bernstein to Messrs. White, Coe, 1 and tJllmann, 
U-1-l-m-a-n-n, which read as follows: 

As you know, Kaplan's name was included in the list of 2.j names we requested 
the War Department to recall. Do you want to make a stronger specific request 
for his recall? 

Mr. Nixon. That was a Washington departmental memo? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes. 

Mr. Nixon. I was in Berlin, Mr. Tavenner. 

Mr. Tavenner. I understand, but did you have any communication 
that you can recall with Mr. Harry Dexter White, Mr. Frank Coe, or 
Mr. William Ludwig Ullinann in regard to the recall of Mr. Irving 
Kaplan ? 

Mr. Nixon. To the best of my knowledge, I don't recall it. As I 
said before, there were a considerable number of personnel problems 
and many of them involved desires to return home, and other things of 
that sort, and I wouldn't want to be held absolutely to this, but to the 
best of my knowledge. I never had any correspondence of that 
character. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you recall any particular controversies over a 
report which Mr. Kaplan prepared relating to the subject of the 
Farben investigation I 

Mr. Nixon. Yes, I vaguely recall. Of course, the Farben investi- 
gation was a very important part of our work and there were con- 
siderable elements of controversy involved around the question of 
whether or not the big German war trust of Farben was going to be 
effectively immobilized, and Mr. Kaplan was involved in some of that 
work. If my memory serves me right, he w T rote a report on the status 
of it toward the end of the year. 

Now, again, this part — I am not speaking specifically about this 
subject — was pretty fully laid out in my testimony before the Senate 
subcommittee in February 1046. I haven't reread that testimony in 
many years, and it would not be very fruitful for me to try to remem- 
ber the details of that situation, particularly inasmuch as it is pretty 
well documented already in the Senate committee report. 

Mr. Tavenner. Now, when you were transferred from military 
status to that of civilian was it necessary for you to file an applica- 
tion for a passport? 

Mr. Nixon. I don't believe so. In these circumstances you fill out 
an awful lot of papers, but I am pretty — well, now, let me see. I am 
afraid I wouldn't be sure. I know that we were given passports. 
Whether or not at the time that we transferred from military to 
civilian status we signed papers for the passport I don't recall. 
Seems to me there was some contact with the United States Embassy 
in Paris, but 



1 Harry Dexter White (now deceased). Frank Coe, and William Ludwig Ullmann. 



1670 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION (GOVERNMENT — LABOR) 

Mr. Tavenner. Our investifiation discloses that an application for 
passport was filed by you. 

Mr. Nixon. I just didn't recollect that. 

Mr. Tavenner. And you gave as a reference, according to our in- 
vestigation, the name of Julius Emspak; do you recall that? 

Mr. Nixon. Well, no. I just told you I didn't even recall filing 
the application, so, obviously, I wouldn't recall any 

Mr. Walter. Show him the application there, Mr. Tavenner. 

Mr. Tavenner. Well, I show you a photostatic copy of your appli- 
cation and ask you to state whether or not you did give Mr. Julius 
Emspak as a reference. 

Mr. Nixon. Yes, according to this, I gave the names of Mr. Em- 
spak and Mr. Mason. 1 I have no reason to question that. I hadn't 
recalled it. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long had you known Mr. Julius Emspak? 

Mr. Nixon. Since some time in 1941, when I was working at Labor's 
Non-Partisan League, which was, as I told you earlier, the legislative 
representative of the CIO, at that time I came to know Mr. Emspak 
in his position as general secretary-treasurer of the United Elec- 
trical, Radio and Machine Workers. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was he a person known to you to be a member of 
the Communist Party during any period of time that you were em- 
ployed by the UE ? 

Mr. Nixon. You recall my statement this morning of refusal to 
answer certain questions, and I decline to answer that question on the 
grounds I stated this morning. 

Mr. Scherer. Did you know at the time you gave his name as a 
reference on that application for passport that he was a member of 
the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Nixon. Obviously, Mr. Scherer, my declination to answer Mr. 
Tavenner's question applies to your question for the same reasons. 

Mr. Scherer. I understood you would answer it that way. 

Mr. Nixon. Yes, sir. It is perfectly clear, for the reasons I stated 
this morning to the committee. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you acquainted with Mr. William Ludwig 
Ullmanri, an employee of the Treasury Department? 

Mr. Nixon. I think I will have to decline to answer that question 
on the basis — on the same reasons I gave this morning. 

Mr. Scherer. What was your question, Mr. Tavenner ? 

Mr. Tavenner. My question was whether or not he was acquainted 
with Mr. William Ludwig Ullmann, an employee of the Treasury 
Department. 

Mr. Scherer. You refuse on the basis that to say whether you knew 
an employee of the Treasury Department might tend to incriminate 
you? 

Mr. Nixon. Mr. Scherer, I refuse to answer it on the basis of all 
the reasons I gave this morning. 

Mr: Scherer. Which includes the fifth amendment? 

Mr. Nixon. It includes all of the words which I said to the com- 
mittee this morning in giving my reason to refuse to answer such 
question. 

Mr. Scherer. Mr. Chairman, I move that the witness be directed 
to answer the question as to whether he knew Mr. Ullmann at that 



1 Full name appearing on passport application, Edwin S. Mason. 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION (GOVERNMENT LABOR) 1671 

time. I can't see on what basis that answer might tend to incriminate 
him. 

Mr. Kearney. What was your answer, Mr. Nixon ? 

Mr. Nixon. I decline to answer for the same reasons I stated this 
morning. 

Air. Kearney. On the grounds of the first and fifth amendments? 

Mr. Nixon. On the grounds of the complete statement I made this 
morning. 

Mr. Kearney. Let's not quibble about it. 

Mr. Nixon. Please let's don't. 

Mr. Kearney. It is on the grounds of the first and fifth amendments, 
isn't it? 

Mr. Nixon. I carefully stated my reason and I wouldn't care to 

Mr. Kearney. You stated a lot of reasons. 

Mr. Nixon. That is right, and I wouldn't want now or later to re- 
state my reasons. 

Mr. Kearney. It includes the first and fifth amendments, does 
it not? 

Mr. Nixon. It includes that. 

Mr. Kearney. Well, at least we are getting somewhere. 

Proceed. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you acquainted with Mr. Harry Dexter 
White? 

Mr. Nixon. I decline to answer that question for reasons already 
stated. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you acquainted with Mr. Frank Coe, C-o-e? 

Mr. Nixon. I decline to answer that question for reasons already 
stated. 

Mr. Scherer. Have all these men you are mentioning now been 
identified as members of the Communist Party? 

Mr. Tavenner. They have. 

(At this point Mr. Nixon conferred with Mr. Scribner. ) 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you acquainted with Mr. Nathan Gregory 
Silvermaster? 

Mr. Nixon. I decline to answer that question for reasons already 
stated. 

Mr. Scherer. I think, Mr. Counsel, the record at this point should 
indicate who Silvermaster is. We all know, but perhaps for the rec- 
ord you should indicate who he was. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Silvermaster is a person who was identified by 
witnesses before this committee as having engaged in espionage work 
and as having been a member of an underground group of the Com- 
munist Party in Washington. He has appeared before the commit- 
tee and has refused to testify as to material questions that were asked 
him. 

(At this point Mr. Nixon conferred with Mr. Scribner.) 

Mr. Tavenner. After your return to this country from service in 
Germany, I believe you said you took up again your former employ- 
ment with the UE. Is that correct ? 

Mr. Nixon. That is correct. 

Mr. Tavenner. Where were you stationed during this period after 
your return to this country? 

Mr. Nixon. In Washington. 



1672 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION (GOVERNMENT — LABOR) 

Mr. Tavenner. In Washington? 

Mr. Nixon. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Nixon, during the hearings which were con- 
ducted by this committee in Philadelphia in TJ52, in fact in October 
1952, a witness by the name of Samuel Di Maria appeared. In the 
afternoon session of the day on which he appeared the following ques- 
tions were asked him and answers given : 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Di Maria, at the close of the morning session yon were 
describing to us how you became a member of a commission which had to 
do with the reorganization of Communist Party cells within industry, and 
you told us something of the purposes of and the work of that commission. Ac- 
cording to my recollection, you testified that on your return from the service 
you met with'a group of Communist Party members and that you were selected 
by that group to be a member of this commission of the Communist Party. Were 
the members of that group which selected you just rank-and-file members of the 
Communist Party or did they constitute some official body of the Communist 
Party? 

Mr. Di Maria. They constituted an official body of the Communist Party in the 
sense that many of the members at that meeting were members of the District 
Committee of the Communist Party. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you recall how many persons comprised the commission to 
which you were appointed? 

Mr. Di Maria. Yes, I believe there were three other members other than 
myself. 

Mr. Tavenner. Who were they? 

Mr. Di Maria. The commission to which I was elected consisted of Philip 
Bart, district organizer of the Communist Party  

Mr. Tavenner. Will you speak a little louder? 

Mr. Di Maria. Philip Bart, district organizer of the Communist Party, Joseph 
Kuzma, trade-union secretary of the Communist Party, Dave Davis, a member 
of the District Board of the Communist Party, and myself. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you recall the occasion of the first meeting of that com- 
mission which you attended? 

Mr. Di Maria. Yes. I do. 

Mr. Tavenner. Where was that meeting held? 

Mr. Di Maria. That meeting was held at the home of Philip Bart, district or- 
ganizer of the Communist Party. 

Mr. Tavenner. Can you tell us approximately the time that that meeting 
was held? 

Air. Di Maria. I believe that that meeting was held — it was during the year 
1947, probably in the very early summer or late spring. 

Mr. Tavenner. What of importance occurred at that meeting? 

Mr. Di Maria. I had been advised by Dave Davis and Philip Bart to prepare a 
report on the actual work of that commission, its failures, its successes and its 
prospects for future work, to be given to the person who was in charge of that 
work on a national basis within the UB. I did so, and I prepared such a report. 

Mr. Tavenner. Well, was that report presented at some future meeting? 

Mr. Di Maria. No, that report was presented at that meeting? 

Mr. Tavexner. At that meeting? 

Mr. Di Maria. That is correct. 

Mr. Tavenner. At that meeting, in other words, prior to that meeting you had 
been directed to prepare this report? 

Mr. Di Maria. That is correct. 

Mr. Tavenner. Now, will you be a little more specific as to what this report was 
to cover? 

Mr. Di Maria. This report covered the activity of this commission of the Com- 
munist Party with respect to its successes and failures in reactivating the Com- 
munist Party branches within Local 155, RCA, General Electric and Westing- 
house. 

.Mr. Tavenner. Now, you say that report was to be made to someone from a 
higher level? 

Mr. I >i Maria. That is correct. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you told at that time to whom the report was to be made? 

Mr. Di Maria. I was. 

Mr. Tavenner. Who was that person? 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION (GOVERNMENT— LABOR) 1673 

Mr. I>i Mabia. Russ Nixon, legislative director of the UE. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know whether Russ Nixon is the same person as Russell 
Nixon? 

Mr. I>i Mabia. I believe he is. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was Russell Nixon present at the time you were given instruc- 
tions to prepare the report? 

Mr. Di Maria.. No. he was not. 

Mr. Tavennek. Was he present at the time the report was made and delivered? 

Mr. 1 >i Makia. Yes, sir, he was. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was any other person present? 

Mr. Di Maria. Philip Bart, district organizer of the Communist Party. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you make the report? 

Mr. Di Maria. I did. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was that report made to both Philip Part and Rnss Nixon at 
the same time? 

Mr. Di Maria. It was. 

Mr. Tavenner. At the meeting of the three of you? 

Mr. Di Maria. That is correct. 

Mr. Tavenner. Where was that meeting held? 

Mr. Di Maria. At the home of Philip Bart, a district organizer of the Com- 
munist Party. 

Mr. Tavenner. Can you tell us more definitely when that meeting was held? 
1 think you have already stated it, but I want to know whether you could be 
more definite as to the time? 

Mr. Di Maria. No, sir, I cannot. My best recollection is that it was in the 
late spring of 1947. 

Mr. Tavenner. When you were directed to prepare this report, who gave you 
those directions? 

Mr. Di Maria. Philip Bart, district organizer of the Communist Party. 

Mr. Tavenner. What did he advise you about the making of the report— — 

(At this point Mr. Nixon conferred with Mr. Scribner.) 
Mi-. Tavenner (continuing to read) : 

that is, to whom it was to be made and the circumstances under which it was 
to be made ? 

Mr. Di Maria. Well, as I have already answered, sir, he advised me to make as 
detailed a report as possible to be given to the person who was in charge of the 
same type of work that I was functioning on in this commission, only on a 
national basis. 

Mr. Tavenner. That is, a person who is operating on a higher level in the 
Communist Party, is that what you mean? 

Mr. Di Maria. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did he tell you at the time that Russ Nixon was the person to 
whom the report was to be made? 

Mr. Di Maria. He did. 

Mr. Tavenner. Then at the time that you were to make the report I understand 
Russ Nixon appeared and Philip Bart was also there? 

Mr. Di Maria. That is correct. 

Mr. Tavenner. Well, now, tell us what occurred when that report was made, 
and tell us the substance of the report and everything that occurred that you 
can recall. 

(At this point Mr. Nixon conferred with Mr. Scribner.) 
Mr. Tavenner (continuing to read) : 

Mr. Di Maria. Well, I gave the report, and from the facts of the report itself 
the report did not speak of any great success in reactivating the Communist 
Party branches at RCA, General Electric, or W 7 estinghouse. 

(At this point Mr. Nixon conferred with Mr. Scribner.) 
Mr. Tavenner (continuing to read) : 

The only place where the Communist Party branch had again been organized 
successfully was within Local 155. 

Mr. Tavenner. And, of course, in that testimony you are confining it to the 
Philadelphia area? 

35203 — 53 7 



1674 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION (GOVERNMENT LABOR) 

Mr. Di Maria. That is correct. 

Mr. Tavennek. In your observations from this area? 

Mr. Di Maria. Well, the only areas, or this is the only area that I have any 
experience with. 

Mr. Tavenner. I want to make certain that you are speaking only of the 
Philadelphia area. 

Mr. Di Maeia. That is right, and when I concluded the report it was discussed 
in detail and it was pointed out that the main weakness of the report dealt with 
the fact that local 155 was the least important to the Communist Party reor- 
ganization when compared with the great number of people who worked at Gen- 
eral Electric, Westinghouse or RCA and, therefore, that more emphasis should 
be given to rebuilding the Communist Party branches in those particular places 
other than local 155. 

Mr. Tavenner. Who pointed that out to you? 

Mr. Di Maria. Both Philip Bart and Russ Nixon. 

Mr. Tavenner. What comment or what was the language, if you can recall, 
of Russ Nixon in pointing out that weakness which your report disclosed? 

Mr. Di Maria. Well, I remember specifically Russ Nixon stating that "I don't 
give a damn about 155. I am more interested in the building of the Communist 
Party organizations in General Electric, Westinghouse and RCA. Unless the 
Communist Party is going to be rebuilt on a solid foundation within those three 
plants then the UE certainly will not be able to carry on its program and its 
policies in a correct manner and fashion within those plants." 

Now, Mr. Nixon, did you advocate at that meeting described by Mr. 
Di Maria or at any other meeting, the reorganization of the Communist 
Party in General Electric, Westinghouse, and RCA? 

Mr. Nixon. Obviously, Mr. Tavenner, I am not going to discuss that 
statement or answer that question on the grounds that I have already 
stated to the committee. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you receive the report prepared by Mr. Di 
Maria regarding the successes and failures of the Communist Party in 
its reorganization efforts ? 

Mr. Nixon. To that question and any subsequent question about this 
particular matter I will respond in the way I have ; I decline to answer 
on the grounds already stated. 

Mr. Scherer. Is any of the testimony that counsel just read to you 
untrue ? 

Mr. Nixon. My answer to Mr. Tavenner applies to you, Mr. Scherer. 
I decline to answer the question on the same ground that I stated this 
morning. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you in 1947 engaged in an effort to reorganize 
the Communist Party within any field of labor or branch of labor? 

Mr. Nixon. I decline to answer that question on the grounds stated. 

Mr. Tavenner. You have described your position with the UE over 
a long period of time as that of legislative representative. I believe 
that is the term you used? 

Mr. Nixon. Yes. We don't have a formal title set up in our union. 
I am referred to as Washington representative, sometimes as legis- 
lative representative. 

Mr. Tavenner. And your principal duty as a legislative representa- 
tive is to lobby in Washington, particularly while Congress is in ses- 
sion, on matters in which your union is interested ? 

Mr. Nixon. I wouldn't say that was my principal activity. That 
is one of my important activities representing the workers of the 
union. 

Mr. Scherer. After this testimony today, Mr. Nixon, you can stay 
away from 333 House Office Building. 

Mr. Nixon. I don't think I will lose very much by that, Mr. Scherer. 

Mr. Kearney. Proceed, Mr. Tavenner. 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION (GOVERNMENT LABOR) 1675 

Mr. Tavenner. Did other labor organizations also have legislative 
representatives in Washington? 

Mr. Nixon. At what time, Mr. Tavenner? 

Mr. Tavenner. During the time that you held that position. 

Mr. Nixon. Oh, yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was there any means of cooperation developed be- 
tween you as the legislative representative of your union and the rep- 
resentatives of other labor organizations? 

Mr. Nixon. During the period that we were in the CIO we had the 
CIO legislative committee which generally coordinated its activity 
and programs in Washington in the legislative field. 

Mr. Tavenner. During that period of time did you become ac- 
quainted with Mrs. Dorothy K. Funn, who was the legislative repre- 
sentative holding a similar position to that of yours, except that she 
represented the National Negro Congress ? 

Mr. Nixon. I decline to answer that question on the grounds already 
stated. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mrs. Funn testified in a hearing recently conducted 
in New York City on May 4, 1953. The following questions and an- 
swers occurred during that hearing : 

Mr. Kunzig. Well, now, you yourself, you said, were a legislative representa- 
tive ? 

Mrs. Funn. That is right. 

Mr. Kunzig. That is what is generally known, I believe 

(At this point Mr. Nixon conferred with Mr. Scribner.) 
Mr. Tavenner (continuing to read) : 

to the public as a lobbyist, would that be correct? 

Mrs. Funn. Yes. 

Mr. Kunzig. Now, as a lobbyist I presume you came in contact with other 
lobbyists? 

Mrs. Funn. I did. 

Mr. Kunzig. Did you come in contact — I want you to think very seriously over 
this cpiestion. Were any other legislative representatives or lobbyists whom you 
knew to be members of the Communist Party? 

(At this point Mr. Nixon conferred with Mr. Scribner.) 
Mr. Tavenner (continuing to read) : 

Mrs. Funn. I came in contact with a great number of legislative representa- 
tives, some whom I found later were members of the party, because they met 
with me in the group, in the Communist Party group there in Washington. There 
were regular meetings of the legislative representatives, regular Communist 
Party meetings of the legislative representatives in Washington. 

Mr. Kunzig. You mean the Communist Party held meetings of Communist 
Party members who were also legislative representatives? 

Mrs. Funn. That is right. 

(At this point Mr. Nixon conferred with Mr. Scribner.) 
Mr. Tavenner (continuing to read) : 

Mr. Kunzig. And they met as Communist Party members together? 
Mrs. Funn. That is right. 

(At this point Mr. Nixon conferred with Mr. Scribner.) 
Mr. Tavenner. Then there was an interruption by committee mem- 
bers on a slightly different angle, and Mr. Kunzig then asked this 
question : 

Mrs. Funn. can you search your memory carefully and recall, if you can, the 
names of those people who were legislative representatives of other groups with 



1676 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION (GOVERNMENT LABOR) 

whom you met as Communists together in Washington. D. C. during the period,. 
I believe it was from 1943 to 1946, is that correct? 
Mrs. Funn. Yes. Well, I can. I think I can remember some of them. 

And the witness then proceeds to mention several persons. Among 
them was the name of Harriet Bouslog, who was the representative of 
the International Longshoremens and Warehonsemens Union. 

May I stop the reading of this testimony to ask you if you were 
acquainted with Harriet Bouslog? 

Mr. Nixon. Generally in regard to that question and any questions 
you may ask me about this aspect of Mrs. Funn's testimony I will 
decline to answer on the same grounds as I declined this morning. 

Mr. Tavenner. The witness then proceeded to identify certain other 
persons, and then was asked this question : 

Mr. Kunzig. Did you know a Russell A. Nixon? 

Mrs. Funn. Yes, I knew him. He was originally the — I think he was origi- 
nally with the CIO, but I know he joined the United Electrical, Radio and Ma- 
chine Workers of America as their representative. 

Mr. Kunzig. Did you know him to be a member of the Communist Party? 

Mrs. Funn. He met with the group. 

Mr. Kunzig. Could you keep your voice up 

Mr. Walter. Now, is that, Mr. Tavenner, as far as she ever went,, 
'"met with the group" ? 

Mr. Tavenner. No, sir. 

Mr. Walter. You see, that is not responsive. 

Mr. Tavenner. No, sir, that is explained 

Mr. Walter. And as far as other people who met with the same 
group is concerned, they deny they have ever been Communists and 
point to her testimony that is not responsive. 

Mr. Tavenner. I think that is explained in the questions that 
follow : 

Mr. Claedy. I would like to ask you a question there. You said you met with 
the group 

(At this point Mr. Nixon conferred with Mr. Scribner.) 
Mr. Tavenner (continuing to read) : 

Mr. Clardy. I think counsel's question was, Did you know Nixon as a member 
of the Communist Party? 

Mrs. Funn. Yes, that is the answer. 

Mr. Kunzig. I think, sir, it is already on the record that all of these people 
who met with this group, as I understand it 

Mrs. Funn. That is right. 

M v. Kunzig. Were members of the party, is that correct? 

Mrs. Funn. I tried to make that very clear, that no one who was not a mem- 
ber of the party could attend these specific meetings. 

And she had so described it in the earlier part of her testimony. 
Mr. Tavenner (continuing to read) : 

Mr. Kunzig. So that any other names you mention from now on that met with 
you in the group you mean are members? 

Mrs. Funn. Are members. 

Mr. Kunzig. Or you knew them as members of the Communist Party? 

Mrs. Funn. As members of the Communist Party, that is correct. 

Mr. VrcLDE. In what capacity was Mr. Nixon acting? 

Mis. Funn. Legislative representative of the United Electrical, Radio and 
Machine Workers of America. 

And the questioning continued, then, with regard to other persons. 
Now, Mr. Nixon, was Mrs. Funn correct in identifying you as hav- 
ing attended Communist Party meetings composed of legislative 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION (GOVERNMENT — LABOR) 1677 

representatives of various organizations here in the District of 
•Columbia '. 

Mr. Nixon. As I have made abundantly clear, I decline to answer 
that question for reasons already stated. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you ever sit in a Communist Party meeting 
with Mrs. Fuim? 

Mr. Nixon. The answer is the same, Mr. Tavenner. 

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

Mr. Nixon. For the reasons I have already made clear to you, I 
decline to answer that question. 

Mr. Kearney. Well, if you were not a member of the Communist 
Party, Mr. Nixon, would you so state to the committee? 

Mr. Nixon. Gee, you sure almost tricked me there, Mr. Chairman. 
I think that is obviously the same kind of question, and I refuse to 
answer your question on the grounds I have already stated. 

' At this point Mr. Nixon conferred with Mr. Scribner.) 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Nixon, were you a member of the Communist 
Party at any time during your service in Germany either as a mem- 
ber of the Armed Forces or while on the payroll of the Treasury 
Department ? 

Mr. Nixon. I decline to answer that question for reasons already 
stated. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you a member of the Communist Party at 
any time while you were a legislative representative of the UE? 

Mr. Nixon. I believe the same answer for the same reasons to your 
question. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you a member of the Communist Party at 
any time, or of the Young Communist League at any time while you 
were a student at Harvard University ? 

Mr. Nixon. I give you the same declination, Mr. Tavenner, on the 
same grounds as already stated. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you a member of the Communist Party at any 
time you were a teacher at Radcliffe College, at Massachusetts Insti- 
tute of Technology, or at Harvard University ? 

Mr. Nixon. For reasons already stated I decline to answer. 

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

Mr. Kearney. Mr. Scherer? 

Mr. Scherer. I have no questions. 

Mr. Kearney. Mr. Walter? 

Mr. Walter. Mr. Nixon, from what I understand, this Dorothy 
Funn was lobbying for FEPC legislation and some modifications to 
the Wage-Hour Law, and other similar legislation. Were you not 
lobbying for the same thing, or at least interested in the same causes? 

Mr. Nixon. The program of my union, which I have always been an 
advocate of in my years here, has always included a vigorous fight for 
the enactment of permanent FEPC legislation. 

Mr. Walter. Yes, and during the course of the activity on behalf 
of that legislation you conferred frequently with other people who 
were interested in the same legislation, did you not ? 

Mr. Nixon. Why, yes. In all the years of work here there has been 
conferences with other people. 

Mr. Walter. And during the course of those conferences didn't 
you come in contact with Dorothy Funn ? 



1678 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION (GOVERNMENT LABOR) 

Mr. Nixox. Well, I won't be be led into discussion of her by this 
route, Mr. Walter. 

Mr. Walter. I am not trying to lead you into anything. 

Mr. Nixon. I am just saying I will not discuss Mrs. Funn for reasons 
which I have stated to this committee. 

Mr. Walter. Well, now, certainly you are not seriously contending 
that the answer to that question might subject you to criminal prosecu- 
tion, are you ? 

Mr. Nixon. I am declining to answer the question, as you know, on 
several grounds which I have stated, and I know that you as a lawyer 
know the breadth of my right to make that claim 

Mr. Walter. Yes. 

Mr. Nixox. And you know, also, that it would be wrong for you. 
particularly for you men as lawyers to draw any inference from the 
utilization by me of that constitutional provision. 

Mr. Walter. Well, I am going to be a little bit more frank with you 
than you have been with us. I am interested, and I pursue this line of 
questioning with the hope that perhaps we could find out about meet- 
ings that Dorothy Funn attended in order to determine whether or 
not there were two tj-pes of meetings. That is my sole purpose. But 
if you want to raise the objection, of course, there is nothing to stop it. 

I have nothing further. 

Mr. Kearxey. Mr. Doyle. 

Mr. Doyle. You mentioned, Mr. Nixon, you said "during the period 
we were in the CIO." When did that period cease ? 

Mr. Nixox. _ We left the CIO in 

(At this point Mr. Nixon conferred with Mr. Scribner.) 

Mr. Nixox. November— November 1949, at the time of the — just 
prior to the CIO convention in the city of Cleveland. 

Mr. Doyle. And at the time that you refer to as your union having 
left the CIO, were you at that time the legislative representative of 
your union in the CIO ? 

Mr. Nixox. Yes, my period of being legislative representative cov- 
ered that time. 

Mr. Doyle. And it had dated back approximately how long prior 
to the time you left the CIO ? 

Mr. Nixox. Well, as I testified this morning, I entered into the 
position with the UE in November of 1941. 

Mr. Scherer. Will you yield for one question, Mr. Doyle? 

Mr. Doyle. Yes. 

Mr. Scherer. Was this a voluntary leaving of the CIO ? 

Mr. Nixon. Yes, sir, it was more than voluntary, Mr. Scherer. It 
was a proclaimed leaving on our part. The details of this have been 
made available this year in testimony to the Senate Labor Committee 
and to the House Labor Committee, and last year before the Humphrey 
subcommittee of the Senate Labor Committee. It has been very, very 
lengthily discussed, and our position, the facts as we see them on that 
are on the record of the Congress several different places. 

Mr. Doyle. I notice you refer in your statement and in the press 
release to the Dennis * case, that is, to the minority opinion of the 
Dennis easo. I believe that the Dennis case came from the United 
States Supreme Court June 4. 1941. I have the text, the full text of 
the decision here before me. 



1 Eugene Dennis, convicted anion? 11 top Communists under the Smith Act. 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION (GOVERNMENT LABOR) 1679 

Mr. Xixon. You mean 1951, don't you ? 

Mr. Doyle. Correct. In view of the fact that your statement and 
press release does, and your testimony here today does emphasize 
so much the freedom of speech, and so forth, I think, Mr. Chair- 
man, it might be appropriate just at this point for 2 or 3 paragraphs 
from that majority opinion of that decision to go into the record. 

You didn't mention the majority decision and what it held 

Mr. Nixon. No, I think that is perfectly 

Mr. Doyle. And, of course, this is a government of laws, not of 
men, and the majority of the Supreme Court of the United States 
determines what the law is 

(At this point Mr. Nixon conferred with Mr. Scribner.) 

Mr. Nixon. Mr. Doyle, you might be 

Mr. Doyle. And you are supposed to be bound by it. 

Now, let me just read a paragraph or two. 

Mi-. Nixon. Sure. 

Mr. Doyle (reading) : 

Speech is not an absolute, above and beyond control by the legislature when 
its judgment, subject to review here, is that certain kinds of speech are so 
undesirable as to warrant criminal sanction. Nothing is more certain in mod- 
ern society than the principle that there are no absolutes, that a name, a phrase, 
a standard, has meaning only when associated with the considerations 

(At this point Mr. Nixon conferred with Mr. Scribner.) 
Mr. Doyle (continuing to read) : 

which gave birth to the nomenclature. 

The mere fact that in the period 1945 to 1948 petitioners' activities did not 
result in an attempt to overthrow the Government by force and violence is, 
of course, no answer to the fact that there was a group that was ready to make 
the attempt. 

(At this point Mr. Nixon conferred with Mr. Scribner.) 
Mr. Doyle (continuing to read) : 

The Communists have no scruples against sabotage, terrorism, assassina- 
tion, or mob disorder ; but violence is not with them, as with the anarchists, 
an end in itself. The Communist Party advocates force only when prudent 
and profitable. * * * They resort to violence as to truth, not as a principle but as 
an expedient. Force or violence as they would resort to it, may never be 
necessary, because infiltration and deception may be enough. 

Unless we are to hold our Government captive in a judge-made verbal trap, 
we must approach the problem of a well-organized nationwide conspiracy, such 
as I have described, as realistically as our predecessors faced the trivialities 
that were being prosecuted until they were checked with a rule of reason. I 
think reason is lacking for applying that test to this ease. 

And then, finally — 

Having held that a conspiracy alone is a crime and its consummation is an- 
other, it would be weird legal reasoning — 

(At this point Mr. Nixon conferred with Mr. Scribner.) 
Mr. Doyle (continuing to read) : 

to hold that Congress could punish the one only if there was clear and present 
danger of the second. This would compel the Government to prove 2 crimes 
in order to convict for 1. 

The Communist Party realistically is a state within a state — 

(At this point Mr. Nixon conferred with Mr. Scribner.) 
Mr. Doyle (continuing to read) : 

An authoritarian dictatorship within a republic. It demands these free- 
doms, not for its members, but for the organized party. It denies to its own 
members at the same time the freedom to dissent, to debate, to deviate from the 



1680 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION (GOVERNMENT LABOR) 

party line, and enforces its authoritarian rule by crude purges, if nothing more 
violent. 

I felt, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, it might be 
appropriate to have a few comments from the majority opinion in 
there at that point. 

Mr. Nixon. Could I make an observation, Mr. Doyle, or am I 
interrupting you ? 

Mr. Doyle. Well, I wish to follow my line of questioning, if I 
may. 

You are familiar with the jury cases, I know, throughout our 
Nation in the last 2 or 3 years in which alleged Communists have 
been indicted and found guilty by juries of their peers in the Federal 
courts, aren't you? You are familiar with all of them, no doubt? 

Mr. Nixon. In a general way I am familiar — you are referring 
to- 



Mr. Doyle. Not in a specific way? 

Mr. Nixon. I don't know where you draw the line between general 
and specific. 

Mr. Doyle. I draw the line here. I assume from your comments 
and your history as a legislative representative for many years and, 
by the way, I believe a very thorough one, from my information as 
to your ability, I would just assume that you are rather specifically 
informed on these jury cases. 

Mr. Nixon. By guilty, you mean for violation of the Smith act? 

Mr. Doyle. They were indicted and found guilty, were they not, 
by every American jury in the last 2 years in this country? 

Mr. Nixon. They were found guilty of the Smith act, violation of 
the Smith act. 

Mr. Doyle. They were found guilty of what they were charged 
with ? 

Mr. Nixon. They were charged with violation of the Smith act. 

Mr. Doyle. They were found guilty of conspiracy. 

Mr. Kearney. Let's not quibble. Whatever charges they were 
charged with in the indictment, they were found guilty ? 

Mr. Nixon. The charges were important in this discussion. 

Mr. Doyle. They were charged with violation of statutory law of 
your country and my country? 

Mr. Nixon. Eight. 

Mr. Doyle. And the law governs, not your opinion and my opinion 
of them, in America, in my book. 

Mr. Nixon. Of course  

Mr. Doyle. Don't you think it is significant — and the reason I am 
asking you these questions I think is basic in view of your statement — 
•don't you think it significant that every American jury for the last 
couple of years has found their fellow American citizens guilty of 
either being a part of a conspiracy or individually advocating the use 
of force and violence? 

Mr. Nixon. Yes, I think it significant, and it confirms my feeling 
of the wrongness of the Smith act. Now, your Los Angeles demo- 
cratic county committee in 

Mr. Doyle. Now 

Mr. Nixon. In May 1952 

Mr. Doyle. In other words 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION (GOVERNMENT — LABOR) 1681 

Mr. Nixon (continuing). Has come out against the Smith Act and 
called for its repeal. I take the same position as your democratic 
county central committee. 

Mr. Doyle. I don't want you to exaggerate that too much because 
sometimes political committees make errors temporarily. 

Mr. Walter. Particularly California. 

Mr. Doyle. And I wish to say to you that I am not at all proud of 
the fact that at one time in Los Angeles County the Los Angeles 
democratic committee came out against the Smith Act. It was be- 
cause they did not then know the seriousness of the existing Com- 
munist conspiracy. 

Mr. Nixon. They said unanimously a year ago in regard to the 
Smith Act, "* * * ideas, books, and opinions of persons who have 
been charged were no instance of an illegal or unlawful act or overt 
conduct." 

Now, that is the statement of your Los Angeles democratic county 
central committee, and they did not dissent. 

Mr. Doyle. Just a minute. When in possession of all the facts, 
folks change their opinions. 

Mr. Scherer. Of course, neither did the Supreme Court of the 
United States. 

Mr. Doyle. One thing more. Apparently, then, you don't agree 
with the American juries in their findings of these defendants guilty? 

Mr. Nixon. I tried to tell you that I think the significance of the 
jury findings that you mention rests basically on the evil of the Smith 
Act as a censor and limitation on the basic rights of the American 
people to exercise freedom of speech. That is where I think the basic 
difficulty lies. 

Mr. Doyle. I mentioned the Dennis case and quoted from the ma- 
jority opinion, and I mention the jury cases, and I could mention the 
recommendation by the panel of the Subversive Activities Control 
Board, which I know you are familiar with, too, but I will not take 
time for that. 

In view of the fact that on page 4 of your statement you are charg- 
ing this committee with hiding behind a facade of fake concern, 
f-a-k-e, a fake concern, about forceful overthrow of our 

(At this point Mr. Nixon conferred with Mr. Scribner.) 

Mr. Doyle (continuing). Form of government — and I wish to call 
to your attention, Mr. Nixon, that there is no fake concern on my part 
in sitting on this committee and trying to uncover the subversive 
activities of either individuals or groups of individuals. 

Mr. Scherer. At least we are not Communists hiding behind the 
fifth amendment. 

Mr. Nixon. That is a very unfortunate statement for a lawyer to 
make, Mr. Scherer, because you know the fifth amendment has impli- 
cations which do not justify that kind of belittlement of our Bill of 
Rights. The Supreme Court said that, and I think you should recall 
it yourself as a lawyer. 

(At this point Mr. Nixon conferred with Mr. Scribner.) 

Mr. Scherer. I can draw no other conclusions from your testimony, 
either as a lawyer or a citizen or a member of this committee, except 
that you are a member of the Communist Party today. 

Mr. Doyle. May I say this, Mr. Nixon, in closing my brief observa- 
tions and questioning: I have always been very proud of the fact,. 



1682 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION (GOVERNMENT LABOR) 

and I am now, that in all of my 4 campaigns for election and re- 
election to the United States Congress, I have been endorsed and 
approved by the right wing of the CIO and by the AFL, and that 
ought to indicate to you the fundamental attitude on my part in con- 
nection with this next question in your statement. 

I just wish to say to you, because I can't let it go by unchallenged, I 
do not know of any truth in your statement, so far as fact is con- 
cerned, that this committee, at least during 2y 2 years I have been a 
member of it, has ever participated directly or indirectly, intentionally 
or otherwise, in union baiting, and I just want the record to show that 
I think you are entirely mistaken, and I know of no such plan in the 
past or in the present. Naturally, I think neither I nor any other 
member of this committee would be a party to any such despicable 
program, because in my judgment it would be despicable. 

Mr. Nixon. Will you let me put in the record the evidence I have 
to back up my opinion of this committee ? I have a substantial amount 
of evidence 

Mr. Doyle. I understand 

Mr. Nixon. And I have an affidavit of a former friendly witness of 
this committee which established it without any question of doubt. 
Mr. Walter remembers very well. 

Mr. Doyle. I understand there may be at a later date hearings on a 
bill or two, at which time if there is such honest evidence — — 



" 



Mr. Nixon. I can prove it right now. I don't care to wait. I would 
like to have the opportunity to do it. I would be glad to present 
this affidavit to the committee, of I may. 

Mr. Doyle. Of course, an affidavit is not competent before this 
committee for that sort of conclusive evidence we ought to have. 

Mr. Nixon. It is pretty important evidence because this is a witness 
friendly to this committee. 

Mr. Doyle. It is not competent or conclusive in answer to the 
statement I have made. We need ample conclusive evidence whether 
our affidavit is not. 

Mr. Nixon. Not conclusive, but highly significant. 

Mr. Kearney. Let's proceed without any argument here. 

Mr. Doyle. Now, finally I wish to ask you, Mr. Nixon, I wish to 
urge you as a recognized labor leader of thousands of men and largely 
responsible, therefore, for their attitude on legislative matters 

Mr. Nixon. It is the other way around. They are responsible for 
my attitude. I mean that 

Mr. Doyle. Well 

Mr. Nixon. Particularly in areas 

Mr. Doyle. Through your evidence, of what attitude they would 
take, I would say. 

Mr. Nixon. It doesn't work that way in a democratic union. They 
don't need professors to tell them what their attitude should be. 

Mr. Doyle. In my book it works substantially that way. But may 
I just urge you to do this, as promptly as may be, to consider chang- 
ing your attitude toward the United States Congress, which is your 
Congress. I want to urge you to change your attitude to the extent 
that vou become willing to cooperate with your Congress in uncovering 
subversive people or subversive programs, and I refer expressly at this 
instant to the American Communist Party, or to any American 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION (GOVERNMENT — LABOR) 1683 

Fascist or any other person or any other group of persons that may 
be totalitarian subversive in their intent to overthrow our Government. 

In other words, I am not limiting it in this statement to the Amer- 
ican Communist Party. I am broadening it to include any sub- 
versive person or group of subversive persons in my country. 

You could do your Nation a world of good if you cooperate with 
your Congress in helping to uncover, instead of otherwise. 

Mr. Nixon. Mr. Doyle, it is very important for me to be able to say 
that I have the greatest respect for the Congress, and I have shown 
that in all the years I have been here. It is precisely because I have 
such respect for the institution of such representative government and 
for the Constitution that I am disturbed by the climate of fear which 
I think is damaging my country and its welfare and interest. 

As far as proposals, I am prepared right now to make proposals 
to 3 r ou as to where you Avant to look to get into subversive activities 
in this country. I can do it right now. 

Mr. Scherer. We might be willing to listen to those if you an- 
swered questions we asked you instead of invoking the fifth amend- 
ment. We are not willing to listen to a witness who hasn't come to 
testify. 

Mr. Nixon. Mr. Doyle asked for them and I said I was willing to 
give them right now. 

Mr. Doyle. I said uncover them in a constructive manner. There 
will be an opportunity at a future time when we can go into some of 
those things, but I am not personally confining my attitude as a mem- 
ber of this committee toward subversive conduct and illegal subversive 
activity of just the American Communist Party. 

Mr. Nixon. The unfortunate thing is, the committee hasn't touched 
the operations of the Fascist group in this country, and the anti- 
Semitic, Jim Crow elements. 

Mr. Doyle. You are not in position to know how far we have gone. 

Mr. Nixon. I know the public record. 

Mr. Kearney. We will confine ourselves to the hearing. 

Mr. Doyle. I think that is all at this time. 

Mr. Kearney. I haven't any question, Mr. Nixon, other than to 
state that I have read your statement through thoroughly several 
times during the recess, and I am not going to receive it for the record 
due to the fact that I think, in my own opinion, that it contains much 
scurrilous matter and many untruths. 

The committee is in recess until 10 o'clock tommorrow morning. 

( Whereupon, at 3 : 15 p. m., the hearing was recessed until 10 a. m., 
Wednesday, June 10, 1953.) 



INDEX 



Individuals Page 

Bart, Philip 1672-1674 

Bernstein, Colonel 1663 

Bouslog, Harriet 1076 

Bridges, Harry 1656 

Campbell, Margaret 1618, 1622 

Carey, James B 1659 

Carlson, Frank 1616, 1622 

Chamberlin, Edward 1652 

Chancey, Martin 1596, 1597 

Chase, Andy 1622 

Chernin, Lil 1622 

Coe, Frank 1669, 1671 

Crowe, Frank 1631 

Davis, Dave 1672 

Decavitch, Victor 1658-1660 

Dennis, Eugene 1678 

DiMaria, Samuel 1672-1674 

Dulles, Allen 1661 

Emspak, Julius 1657, 1670 

Fiering, Henry 1658, 1659 

Fitz-erald, Albert J 1657, 1659 

Frankfeld, Jean i:,93 

Frankfeld, Philip 1595, 1593 

Funn, Dorothy K 1675-1678 

Grier, Mary Catherine 1589-1608 (testimony) 

Harris, Ed 1618, 1622 

Hayden, John 1632, 1639 

Heacoek, Amos 1609-1647 (testimony) 

Heaeock, Joseph (Joe) 1623, 1624 

Holther, William B 1622, 1623, 1627, 1630 

Hoover, Professor 1661 

Hutcheson, Fritz 1638 

Kaplan, Irving 1664, 1668, 1669 

Kibre, Jeff 1618, 1622 

Kibre, Virginia 1618, 1622 

Kruger, Colonel 1661 

Kuzma, Joseph 1672 

Mark, John 1633, 1638, 1639 

Markward, Mary Staleup. (See Mary Stalcup.) 

Mason, Edwin S 1670 

Matles, James J 1657 

McCoy, Roy 1616, 1617, 1622 

Nixon, Russell Arthur 1649-1683 (testimony) 

Olson, Jack 1616, 1622 

Pelman, Mat 1617, 1622 

Powell, John Raymond 1689 

Pressman, Lee 1657 

Rand, Harry I 1589-1608 

Reeves, Robert 1634 

Remes. Andrew 1593 

Rosser, Lou _* 1617, 1618, 1622, 1627-1631, 1635, 1640 

Scribner, David 1649-1683 

Silvermaster, Nathan Gregory 1671 

Simpson, W 1622 

Spector, Roy 1618, 1620, 1628, 1631, 1639 

1685 



1686 INDEX 

Page 

Stalcup, Mary 1596, 1664 

Starr, Jack 1618, 1622 

Stiess, Clifford We.stly 1639 

Ullmann, William Ludwig 1669, 1670 

Vosk, Theodore 1641, 1642 

Waybur, Bruce 1664 

Weinzirl, Louis 1593-1595, 1607 

White, Harry Dexter 1669,1671 

Organizations 

American Federation of Labor 1631, 1653, 1654, 1682 

American Federation of Teachers . 1653, 1654 

American Youth for Democracy , 1626 

Arctic Institute of North America, Inc 1590, 1591 

Boeing Aircraft Co 1590 

Congress of Industrial Organizations 1611, 1628, 

1652, 1657, 1659, 1670, 1675, 1676, 1678, 1682 

Duke University 1661 

Geological Society of America 1590, 1592 

Harvard University 1651-1653, 1656, 1677 

International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union 1676 

International Union of Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers 1611, 1616 

Labor's Non-Partisan League 1652, 1657, 1670 

Labor Youth League 1626 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology 1652-1654, 1656, 1657, 1677 

National Negro Congress 1675 

Progressive Party 1653 

Kadcliffe College 1651, 1653, 1677 

Tunnel, Subway, and Aqueduct Workers' Union 1611 

United Electrical Radio, and Machine Workers of America 1650, 1652, 

1653, 1657-1659, 1670-1674, 1676-1678 

University of Southern California 1651 

University of Washington 1590 

Workers' Alliance 1633 

Publications 

American Aviation Daily 1646 

Daily Worker 1593 

Worker , 1593 

Wrangell (Alaska) Sentinel 1643 

o 



BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY 



3 9999 05445 3137 



JAH 2 3