(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 "Hearings held in San Francisco, Calif., June 18-21, 1957. Hearings"

/ //( y 



HARVARD COLLEGE 
LIBRARY 




GIFT OF THE 

GOVERNMENT 
OF THE UNITED STATES 



HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, 
CALIF., JUNE 18-21, 1957— PART 1 



HEARINGS 



BEFORE THE 



COMMITTEE ON UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES 
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 



EIGHTY-FIFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 



JUNE 18 AND 19, 1957 



Printed for the use of the Committee on Un-American Activities 
INDEX IN PART 2 OF THIS SERIES 




UNITED STATES 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON : 1957 



hAavAZD coiLEsr vatM^ 

DEPOSITED BV TH» 



COMMITTEE ON UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES 

United States House of Representatives 
FRANCIS E. WALTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman 
MORGAN M. MOULDER, Missouri BERNARD W. KEARNEY, New York 

CLYDE DOYLE, California DONALD L. JACKSON, California 

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

EDWIN E. WILLIS, Louisiana ROBERT J. McINTOSH, Michigan 

RiCHABD Aeens, Director 
n 



CONTENTS 



PART 1 

Page 

Synopsis vii 

June 18, 1957: Testimony of — 

Irving Kermish 109G 

Angela Ward 1099 

Jay A. Darwin (Statement) 1105 

Peggy (R.) Sarasohn 1106 

Jack (Beverly Mikell) Patten 1109 

Afternoon session: 

Jack (Beverly Mikell) Patten (resumed) 1116 

Edward L. Hanchett 1135 

John Horowitz 11 40 

Jane Scribner 11 43 

June 19, 1957: Testimony of — 

Louis Earl Hartman 1149 

Jack (Beverly Mikell) Patten (resumed) 1156 

Afternoon session: 

Morton L. Elkins 1172 

Thomas D. Hardwick 1178 

George Hitchcock 1182 

Sidney Rubin ■ 11 88 

David Sarvis 1193 

Robert (J.) Nissan 1202 

PART 2 

June 20, 1957: Testimony of— 

Dorothy (M.) Jeffers 1210 

EUis Colton 1220 

Afternoon session: 

Harvev Richards 1245 

Mary Thygeson (Scott) Shepardson 1252 

Evelyn Siris (Mrs. LawTence Arnold Levitan) 1256 

Sol (Solomon) Bineman 1259 

Asher Gordon 1263 

Rose Payne 1268 

Morton '(M.) Garfield 1273 

June 21, 1957: Testimony of — 

John M. Eshleman 1277 

Dorothv (M.) Jeffers (resumed) 1282 

Sydney'H. Brisker 1297 

Afternoon session: 

Charles R. Garry 1301 

Jay A. Darwin (Statement) 1314 

Hugh B. Miller 1317 

Jane Robinson Castellanos 1326 

Rebecca L. (Bea) Melner 1332 

Benjamin Dreyfus 1335 

Index i 

III 



Public Law 601, 79th Congress 

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

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

PART 2— RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

Rule X 

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

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

Rule XI 

POWERS AND DUTIES OF COMMITTEES 
******* 

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

(A) Un-American activities. 

(2) Tlie Committee on Un-American Activities, as a wlioie or by subcommittee, 
is authorized to malje from time to time investigations of (i) tlie extent, ctiar- 
acter, and objects of un-American propaganda activities in tlie United States, 
(ii) ttie 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. 



Rule XII 

LEGISLATIVE OVERSIGHT BY STANDING COMMITTEES 

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

V 



RULES ADOPTED BY THE S5TH CONGRESS 
House Resolution 5, January 3, 1957 

* * :if * * * * 

RuleX 

■standing committees 
1. There shall be elected by the House, at the commencement of each Congress, 

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

Hi ij: * !^ * * * 

Rule XI 

POWERS AND DUTIES OF COMMITTEES 
******* 

17. Committee on Un-American Activities. 

(a) Un-American activities. 

(b) The Committee on Un-American Activities, as a whole or by subcommittee, 
is authorized to make from time to time investigations of (1) the extent, char- 
acter, and objects of un-American projjaganda 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 ov 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 tliereto that would aid Congress in 
any necessary remedial legislation. 

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

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

******* 

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



SYNOPSIS 



San Francisco Hearings, June 18-21, 1957 

For the third time since 1953, a subcommittee of the Committee on 
Un-American Activities held hearings in the city of San Francisco. 
The first hearing was hekl December 1-5, 1953, at which data of a 
general nature concerning the internal workings of the Communist 
Party in the San Francisco Bay area were gathered.^ The hearings of 
December 10 and 11, 1956, concentrated on Communist propaganda of 
a foreign source entering the port of San Francisco and its local dis- 
semination.- 

The December 1956 hearing also demonstrated that Communist or- 
ganizations and individuals representing said organizations in the 
San Francisco area were participating in a nationwide program es- 
poused by the Communist Party to formulate mass public opinion 
against legislation to curb the activities of the Communist Party, and 
thus neutralize internal security. Legislation under bitter attack was 
the Smith Act, the Internal Security Act of 1950, and the Immigration 
aud Nationality Act.^ 

The hearings of June 18-21, 1957, concentrated on an entirely new 
field in the San Francisco area. Broadly speaking, the main subject 
of investigation was the extent, character, and objects of Communist 
Party activities within the professions. The legislative purpose was 
to secure facts which would assist this committee and the Congress in 
the consideration of legislation designed to strengthen the provisions 
of the Internal Security Act of 1950, and to protect our form of govern- 
ment and our country from the threat of international communism. 

The Professional Section of the Communist Party was shown by the 
testimony to consist of tightly organized secret groups of the Commu- 
nist Party, composed of members of the various professions. The 
identity of those who were members of the professional groups of the 
Communist Party was kept secret from the rank-and-file members and 
for the most part the same secrecy was maintained within the Profes- 
sional Section of the Communist Party as to the identity of members 
of the respective groups. 

The evidence disclosed that the lawyers and doctors had their re- 
spective organizational units. Those engaged in the newspaper field 
were at one time members of a separate unit of a Professional Section 
of the Communist Party, but later became members, along with teach- 
ers, artists, musicians, and other professionals, in a miscellaneous unit 
of the Professional Section of the Communist Partv. 



1 See Investisration of Communist Activities in tlie San Francisco Area, Part 1 to 5, 
inclusive, pp. .SO.t.5-3499. 

2 See Investigation of Communist Propaganda in the United States — Part 3, pp. 6039- 
6139. inclusive. 

^ See Communist Political Subversion, Part 1, pp. 6861-6934 inclusive. 



Vin SYNOPSIS 

Tlie committee interrogated 31 witnesses in open session, and 4 in 
closed session. Two witnesses testified at length regarding their Com- 
munist Party membership. Jack Patten, a professor at a leading 
university, laid before the subcommittee a pattern of Communist 
intrigue from the date of his membership in 1936, to his leaving the 
Communist Party in 1948, with the exception of 26 months when he 
served m the United States Army. He gave a detailed account of his 
experiences while a member of the Communist Party in the Profes- 
sional Section in San Francisco during the years 1941 through 1943 
and again from 1946 through 1947. 

Dorothy Jeffers, a former schoolteacher and social worker, wlio 
joined the Communist Party at the request of the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation, testified as to her membership from 1943 to 1952. Her 
entire experience in the Communist Party was within the Pro- 
fessional Section in San Francisco. Her testimony illuminated the 
objectives of the Professional Section and outlined the assignments 
of individual Professional Section members. Members of the Profes- 
sional Section, according to INIrs. Jeffers, were assigned to join and 
work in mass organizations, to gain positions of importance, to further 
the Communist Party line on given subjects, and to neutralize anti- 
Coimnunist opposition. The end result of this program was to at- 
tempt to create a pro-Communist atmosphere in San Francisco. 

Of the remaining 29 witnesses who were heard in open session, 28 
refused to answer pertinent questions relating to their knowledge of 
Communist Party activities of the Professional Section of the Com- 
munist Party and its members, in reliance upon the decision of the 
Supreme Court in the case of Watkins v. United States, decided June 
17, 1957, the clay before the hearings began. However, upon explana- 
tion of the subject under inquiry and the pertinency of the respective 
questions to the subject, each finally resorted to the self-incrimination 
clause of the fifth amendment as a reason for refusal to answer. It is 
regretted that those witnesses who are at this time members of the 
Communist Party did not follow the example of Dr. Patten and a\Irs, 
Jeffers in advising the committee of the facts within their knowledge. 

Louis Earl Hartman, a radio broadcaster, refused to state whether 
or not he is now a member of a professional group of the Communist 
Party at Berkeley, Calif. ; whether or not he was elected as chairman 
of the professional group of tlie Communist Party at Berkeley in Jan- 
uary 1957 ; and the nature of propaganda activity in which the profes- 
sional group of the Communist Party at Berkeley is now engaged. 
This witness did not relj^ upon the self-incriminating clause of the fifth 
amendment in his refusal to answer, but based his refusal to answer on 
the decision of the Supreme Court in WatkiJis v. United States. 

To evaluate the success of the Communist program and the damage 
done to the United States Government is extremely difficult; how- 
ever, it can be said that an analysis made of evidence pertaining to 
the membership of some 120 past and present members of the Pro- 
fessional Section shows that only three members of the section, ex- 
cluding Dorothy Jeffers, an FBI operative, were willing to admit 
their Communist Party membership and relate their experiences while 
members. If, after the Korean conflict and the recent Soviet inter- 
vention in Hungary, the Communist Party still exerts sufficient in- 



SYNOPSIS IX 

fluence to seal the lips of United States citizens, it stands to reason 
that members of the Professional Section were dedicated to the aims 
and objectives of the Communist Party and unquestionably reflected 
the Communist Party program throughout the San Francisco area. 

Attorneys Charles Garry, Benjamin Drey fuss, and Hugh B. Miller, 
all identified during the hearing as members of the lawyers cell 
(Haymarket Club) of the Professional Section, were called as wit- 
nesses but invoked the fifth amendment when questioned concerning 
testimony received from witnesses Jeilers and Patten. 

Heard as witnesses from the medical cell were Dr. Sol. Bineman, 
Dr. Morton Garfield, Dr. Asher Gordon, Dr. Rose Payne (research 
associate), and Dr. Evelyn Siris (Mrs. Lawrence Levitan), all of 
whom relied on the self-incrimination clause of the fifth amendment 
and refused to affirm or deny Communist Party membership. 

From the miscellaneous or multiprofessions cell of the Professional 
Section, the following testified, all availing themselves of the provi- 
sions of the fifth amendment: Sydney H. Brisker, architect; Jack 
Eshleman, newspaperman; Morton Elkins, Thomas D. Hardwick, 
John Horowitz, Jane Scribner, Sidney Rubin, former schoolteachers ; 
Bea Melner, Jane Robinson Castellanos, and Ned Hanchett, present 
educators. 

David Sarvis and George Hitchcock, part-time actors and directors 
of the now defunct California Labor School, were called as witnesses 
to ascertain the degree of influence of the Communist Party in San 
Francisco acting groups. Both persons are connected with Inter- 
players in San Francisco and both declined to respond to questions 
using the self-incrimination clause of the fifth amendment as refuge. 

Another subject under inquiry by the committee was the dissemi- 
nation of Communist Party literature within the San Francisco area 
received from both foreign and domestic sources. The committee is 
considering legislative means of strengthening the Foreign Agents 
Registration Act so as to afl^ord a more effective means of counteract- 
ing the schemes and devices used in avoiding the prohibitions of the 
act with regard to the tremendous flow of political propaganda of a 
Communist origin entering this comitry. A dissemination point of 
such Communist Party propaganda in San Francisco is the Interna- 
tional Book Store, Inc., located at 1408 Market Street. Mr. Ellis Col- 
ton, manager of the store, was subpenaed to appear before the sub- 
committee. He refused to affirm or deny Communist Party member- 
ship, although previouslj^ identified as a member of the Communist 
Party, and further declined to discuss the sources from which he 
received Communist Party publications which had been purchased 
at the International Book Store. He was also questioned on material 
in the possession of the subcommittee purchased at the bookstore in 
recent months, none of which was labeled as required by the Foreign 
Agents Registration Act. 

The committee, in endeavoring to ascertain the current strength and 
activities of the Professional Section, subpenaed Angela Ward, former 
organizer for the Professional Section who resigned the latter part 
of December 1956; Peggy Sarasohn, current active organizer of the 
Professional Section; and Irving Kermish, a social worker, who had 
resigned from the Professional Section during the first quarter of 
this year. These three refused to respond to questions, relying on the 
self-incrmiination clause of the fifth amendment. 



X SYNOPSIS 

In line with the committee's investigation concerning the limitations 
on the issuance of passports to memhers of the Communist Party, testi- 
mony ^A'as heard from Harvey Richards, a Connnunist Party propa- 
ganclist specializing in South American countries. He had just re- 
turned from South America and recently had engaged in a lecture tour 
in the United States criticizing American foreign policy in the South 
American countries. His travels are considered inimical to the best 
interests of the United States. Although passports are not required 
for travel to South American countries, the attention of the Secretary 
of State is called to the problems arising from travel-free restrictions 
of Communist Party members in that area. 

The accomplishments of the subcommittee hearings in San Fran- 
cisco confirmed a pattern which the committee had seen in other areas 
of the operation of the Communist conspiracy. The testimony at the 
hearings adds greatly to the sum total of knowledge possessed by the 
committee that the Communist Party is the vehicle used by the Soviet 
Union to further worldwide Communist domination. 



HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF., 
JUNE 18-21, 1957— PART 1 



TUESDAY, JUNE 18, 1957 

United States House of Representatives, 

Subcommittee of the 
Committee on Un-American Activities, 

San Francisco, Calif. 

Public Hearing 

A subcommittee of the Committee on Un-American Activities met, 
pursuant to call at 10 a. m., in the board of supervisors' hearing room, 
City Hall, San Francisco, Calif., Hon. Francis E. Walter (chairman) 
presiding. 

Committee members present : Francis E. Walter, of Pennsylvania ; 
Gordon H. Scherer, of Ohio ; and Robert J. Mcintosh, of Michigan. 

Staff members present : Frank S. Tavenner, Jr., counsel, and Wil- 
liam A. Wheeler, investigator. 

The Chairman. The subcommittee will come to order. 

The investigation resulting in this hearing began June 14, 1956. 
The original plan contemplated that this hearing would be held in 
the fall of 1956, but postponement was necessary due to other commit- 
tee commitments. The hearing was tentatively agreed upon on Jan- 
uary 22, 1957, the first meeting of this year. The following is an ex- 
tract from the minutes of an executive meeting held on the 15th of 
May 1957 : 

Counsel for the committee called the chairman's attention to the fact that al- 
though the proposed hearings on June 18, 1957, in San Francisco, had been dis- 
cussed and authorized by the committee, no record of the action taken had been 
incorporated in the minutes ; whereupon a motion was made by Mr. Willis, sec- 
onded by Mr. Doyle and unanimously carried, authorizing the setting up of hear- 
ings in San Francisco beginning on the 18th day of June 1957, and the conduct 
of investigations deemed reasonably necessary by the staff in preparation there- 
for, the subject of which hearings and the investigations in connection therewith 
to include all matters within the jurisdiction of the committee, with special 
reference to the extent, character, and objects of Communist Party activities 
within the professions and propaganda activities of a Communist origin. 

The following order was entered on the Order Book of the Commit- 
tee on Un-American Activities relating to the appointment of a sub- 
committee to conduct these hearings : 

To the Clebk of the Committee on Un-American Activities of the House of 

Representatives. 

order for appointment of subcommittee 

Pursuant to the provisions of law and the rules of this committee, I hereby 
appoint a subcommittee of the Committee on Un-American Activities, House of 
Representatives, consisting of Hon. Edwin E. Willis, Hon. Gordon H. Scherer, 

1087 



1088 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 

and Hon. Robert J. Mcintosh, associate members, and myself, as chairmna, to 
hold hearings in San Francisco, Calif., beginning on June 18, 1957, on all mat- 
ters within the jurisdiction of the coiunuttee, and to take testimony on said day 
or any succeeding days, and at such times and places as it may deem necessary, 
until its work is completed. 

Those of the subconiinittee who are now present and constitute a 
quorum are Honorable Gordon H. Scherer, Plonorable Robert J. Mc- 
intosh, and myself. 

Congress has placed upon this committee the duty of investigating 
the extent, character, and objects of un-American propaganda ac- 
tivities in the United States, the diffusion within the United States of 
subversive and un-American propaganda that is instigated from for- 
eign countries or of a domestic origin and attacks the principle of the 
form of government as guaranteed by our Constitution, and all other 
questions in relation thereto that would aid Congress in any necessary 
remedial legislation. Congress has also placed upon this committee 
the duty of exercising continuous watchfulness of the execution by the 
administrative agencies concerned of any laws, the subject matter of 
which is within the jurisdiction of this committee. 

It is the purpose of the committee, in the conduct of this hearing, to 
discharge the duties thus imposed upon it by calling witnesses who it 
has reason to believe possess information which will be of value to it 
and to Congress in the intelligent consideration of legislative means 
of more adequately protecting our form of government and our coun- 
try from the threat of international communism. 

This committee has made numerous legislative recommendations 
to Congress, the vast majority of which have been enacted into law. 
At the close of the 84th Congress, this committee made extensive rec- 
ommendations relating to : 

( 1 ) The revision of passport laws with regard to applicants who are 
members of the Communist Party or who conceal their former con- 
nections and associations with the Communist Party or its fimc- 
tionaries ; 

(2) The protection of investigatory powers and procedures of Con- 
grees from interference by misconduct of witnesses, counsel, and 
others ; 

(3) The need for a clarification of the provisions of the Lobbying 
Act so as to remove any doubt regarding its applicability to organiza- 
tions and associations under Communist influence and direction which 
are trying to influence Congress in the repeal of legislation enacted 
in the field of subversion and security ; 

(4) The strengthening of the Foreign Agents Registration Act so 
as to afford a more effective means of counteracting the schemes and 
devices used in avoiding the prohibitions of the act with regard to the 
tremendous flow of political propaganda of a Communist origin enter- 
ing this country ; 

(5) The strengthening of the provisions of the National Security 
Act of 1950 relating to the power of heads of certain departments and 
agencies of the Government to dismiss civilian employees in the in- 
terest of national security; and 

(6) The need for continued watchfulness and alertness to discover 
the Communist means and methods of infiltration in government. 

The committee is continuing to study the foregoing matters, and 

each will be a subject for consideration in the course of this hearing. 

When this committee proposed the legislation, subsequently enacted 



HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1089 

into law under the title of the Internal Security Act of 1950, con- 
sideration was given to a proposal to outlaw the Communist Parly as 
such. Although the committee was not willing at that time to advo- 
cate such a proposal, it did approve a compromise provision author- 
izing the President, by proclamation, to declare the existence of an 
"internal security emergency,"' and a further provision empowering 
the President, acting through the Attorney General, to apprehend and 
by order detain, during the existence of such an emergency, each per- 
son as to whom there is reasonable ground to believe that such person 
probably will engage in, or probably will conspire with others to en- 
gage in, acts of espionage or of sabotage. Since that time numerous 
bills have been offered in both Houses of Congress, the object of which 
was to outlaw the Communist Party as such. The committee has been 
continuously engaged in the consideration of this subject, and it must 
keep Congress informed so that intelligent action may be taken when 
and if the necessity for such action arises. Information sought to be 
elicited at this hearing is expected to aid the committee in its con- 
sideration of this subject, which, in the committee's opinion, has been 
rendered more vital by the trend of recent judicial decisions. 

This committee began hearings in February 1953, and has continued 
them intermittently ever since, for the purpose of determining the ex- 
tent, character, and objects of Communist Party activities of in- 
dividual members of the teaching profession with the view of deter- 
mining what legislation, if any, is needed in this field. Information on 
this subject will be important to Congress in any legislation it enacts 
in the field of education. Another purpose of this hearing is to solicit 
additional information on this subject. 

In addition to the foregoing subjects to be considered at this hearing, 
the committee will hear any other matter within the jurisdiction of 
the committee which may develop from the testimony. 

It is the standing rule of this committee that any person nanied in 
the course of committee hearings be given an early opportunity^ to 
appear before this committee, if he desires, for the purpose of denying 
or explaining any testimony adversely affecting him. If this be 
a person's desire, he sliould communicate immediately with a member 
of the staff. 

I would remind those present in this hearing room that we are here 
at the direction of Congress to discharge an important legislative 
function. You are here by permission of this committee. I trust that 
you will conduct yourselves as guests of this committee. A disturbance 
of any kind or audible comment during the course of testimony, 
whether favorable or unfavorable to any witness, will not be tolerated. 
For infraction of this rule, the offender will be immediately ejected 
from the room. I trust it is necessary only to call this matter to your 
attention once and that it will not be necessary to have it repeated. 

In nearly every hearing the committee has announced that it en- 
courages witnesses to have counsel with them and has welcomed the 
presence of counsel. The fact that counsel appears with a witness be- 
fore the committee should not be considered in disparagement of the 
counsel. We desire to make this same announcement here. 

Mr. ScHERER. Mr. Chairman, at the opening of these hearings here 
in California, I request, as a matter of personal privilege, the oppor- 
tunity to discuss a resolution adopted by the board of governors of the 
California State Bar Association on March 15, 1957. 



1090 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 

I was a member of a subcommittee of the Committee on Un-Amer- 
ican Activities of the Congress of the United States which held hear- 
ings at the direction of that committee in Los Angeles and San Fran- 
cisco, Calif., in the month of December, last year. This resolution 
severely criticized and condemned the subcommittee for its conduct 
during these hearings. Copies of this resolution, by direction of the 
board of governors of the bar association, were sent to the Speaker and 
my colleagues in the Congress of the United States. The resolution 
was printed in the Congressional Eecorcl. The press all over the 
country carried accounts of the censure. 

Under the circumstances, I feel that on my first return to the State of 
California since this censure, it is necessary for me to answer. In fact, 
I requested the chairman of the Committee on Un-American Ac- 
tivities to appoint me as a member of this subcommittee so that I might 
make this reply in the backyard of the board of governors of the Cali- 
fornia State Bar Association. 

What I say here today in connection with this matter is not a state- 
ment of the Committee on Un-American Activities nor of the subcom- 
mittee against whom the censure was directed, nor does jt necessarily 
reflect the feelings of the other members of that subcommittee or its 
director, none of whom is with us this week in California. 

I have practiced law as a member of the State and Federal bar in 
Ohio for a quarter of a century. I am a member of my local and the 
American Bar Associations. There is almost nothing that hurts a 
lawyer more than to be censured by a governing body of the bar with 
the attendant publicity. It is shocking to be censured by a bar associ- 
ation, supposedly steeped in the tradition of the law — censured when 
one is 2,000 miles away, censured without notice that any such action 
was contemplated, without any knowledge of the charges, without a 
hearing, without an opportunity to reply contemporaneously with the 
publication of the censure in tlie Congressional Record and news- 
papers of the country. 

When I was elected to the Congress for the first time in 1953, I was 
naturally thrilled by the responsibility of my post, by the dignity 
and prestige it presumably carried. Now, I can only smile a bit wryly 
over that first reaction. 

I could not guess that soon after reaching Washington, I would be 
reviled, ridiculed, and insulted from coast to coast. Of course, I am 
not the only victim of this kind of abuse. It is sliared by all Members 
of the House and Senate committees investigating the ravages of the 
Communist conspiracy within our gates, even as it was the fate of our 
predecessors, beginning with the much-maligned Texan, Mai-tin Dies, 
about 20 years ago. 

Legislators may probe garden-variety crimes or scandals like the 
Beck case, with relative impunity; but, when they venture to tackle 
the Kremlin's little gremlins, they have need for strong nerves and 
tough hides. 

In accepting a place on the House Committee on Un-American 
Activities, I had neither misgivings nor forebodings. Our boys were 
dying in the Communist firing in Korea. The mischief wrought by 
Communist agents and spies was no longer a matter of generalized 
surmise — enough of it had been exposed in detail to alarm the Ameri- 
can people. To dislodge these internal enemies seemed to be a task 



HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1091 

any patriotic American could undertake proudly, earnestly, and with 
a clear conscience. Alas for my innocence. 

I failed to see that in joiniii^j this committee one made himself at 
once a tar^jet for organized slander, regardless of how he might con- 
duct himself. Before I had met all of my colleagues on the committee 
and before it had held its first meeting, I'was being plastered by sticky 
epithets by expert mud-gunners. 

It does not make any difference who succeeds to the chairmanship 
of any of the committees of the Congress investigating the Communist 
conspiracy. Whether it be Martin Dies, Joe McCarthy, Pat Mc- 
Carran, Bill Jenner, or Francis Walter, they immediately become sub- 
ject to attack. 

I recall that it was only a very short time after Francis Walter 
became chairman of the Committee on Un-American Activities that 
the committee held hearings in Newark. I believe it was one of the 
first hearings conducted under the chairmanship of Mr. Walter. No 
one could possibly have determined his policies or the manner in 
which he would handle the chairmanship of the Committee on Un- 
American Activities. 

Nevertheless, as I left the hotel at which the committee was staying 
in Newark on the night of the first day of the hearings, at which Mr. 
AValter was not even present, 1,200 pickets, by FBI count, most of them 
imported from New York City, surrounded the hotel. They carried 
dozens of well-painted signs criticizing, condemning, and vilifying 
the new chairman of the committee. These signs had been prepared 
by experts, some of them members of the bar. Ninety percent of the 
people in the picket line did not, or could not, understand the import 
of the signs they were carrying. 

As I say, a number of the Communist lawyers representing clients 
at that hearing assisted in the preparation of this demonstration, as 
well as in the disruptions that took place during the hearings. We 
were even favored with the presence of one of the Communist lawyers 
who had almost driven Judge Medina to distraction in the trial of the 
11 Communists in New York under the Smith Act. 

Pseudo-left-wing liberals, who are always interested in protecting 
the sacred rights of the Communists who appear before our commit- 
tee, were strangely silent about these demonstrations against the 
committee. 

You learn to expect this treatment from the agents of the Kremlin. 
You are shocked and disheartened when it comes from the board 
of governors of a State bar association. 

Let us take a look at a number of facets involved in this censure. 
During the 41/2 years of my service in the Congress, I have participated 
in hearings in Los Angeles on 4 different occasions. There is no place 
in the country — and I have sat in hearings from coast to coast — where 
the committee has been insulted, slandered, ridiculed, its hearings 
disrupted, more than in Los Angeles. There is no city in the country 
where there have appeared before the committee more lawyers who 
have themselves been identified as members of the Communist con- 
spiracy than in Los Angeles. There is no city in the country where 
these Communist lawyers and their like have participated in, urged, 
and planned these attacks upon the committee, more than in Los 
Angeles. 



1092 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 

I have seen lawyers put words into the mouths of witnesses, telling 
them how to answer factual questions — telling them how to bait the 
committee and disrupt the hearings. On more than one occasion, I 
and other members of the committee have publicly, and in the record of 
the hearings, called attention to this reprehensible conduct upon the 
part of these lawyers. 

If lawyers had conducted themselves one-tenth as contemptuously 
in a courtroom as they have before our committee, they would have 
been jailed. These lawyers of whom I speak realize that the com- 
mittee cannot punish for contemptuous conduct and, therefore, have 
continued to violate the rules of ethics and decency. Undercover 
agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation have testified, as did 
one of them at the hearings in Los Angeles in December, that often 
lawyers meet with witnesses — known Communists — and instruct them 
how to bait the committee, how to disrupt the hearings. Some have 
gone so far as to set up a signal system between them and their clients 
for answering questions. 

Has the California bar board of governors taken any action 
whatsoever during the last 4 years against one or more of the lawyers 
who have been guilty of the conduct I have just outlined ? It has not. 

Now someone will say that I am exaggerating the situation. I am 
willing to rest my case on the records of the California State Bar 
Association itself. 

The conduct of certain lawyers at hearings in this State before the 
Committee on Un-American Activities was so bad that two bar asso- 
ciation committees found it necessary to make a complete investiga- 
tion of the nature and extent of this misconduct. The reports of these 
committees to the board of governors of the California State Bar 
Association confirmed in every respect what I have said here today 
about the unethical tactics of these lawyers. These reports are car- 
ried in the journal of the State bar of California. 

To illustrate the unethical and contemptuous conduct of certain 
lawyers who appeared before the Committee on Un-American Activi- 
ties in Los Angeles, the reports set forth excerpts from the testimony 
of the hearings. In the journal of the State bar of California, we 
find this committee, in reporting to the board of governors and in 
urging that the rules be changed so that the bar could deal more 
effectively with these lawyers, saying this, and I quote: 

At the time of the hearings of the Committee on Un-American Activities in 
1952, several members of the bar called as witnesses before the committee con- 
ducted themselves in a most contemptuous and objectionable manner. A lawyer 
is never entitled to conduct himself so as to be discourteous and highly ob- 
jectionable to any public body, court or otherwise. 

In another place in the report in the journal, we find this language : 

The amendment we suggest should be ample to cover the principal grievances 
concerning misconduct presently being considered by the committee. We be- 
lieve the existing rules inadequate to permit the board of governors on its 
own motion to take disciplinary steps against lawyers whose conduct was so 
objectionable in the Un-American Activities Committee hearings. 

The report continues : 

As to lawyers suspected of Communist activities, although we feel that the 
State bar does have some power under section 610G.1, nevertheless it would be 
desirable to broaden the section in the manner provided for in exhibit A. 



HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1093 

The bar association committee which studied the conduct of these 
lawyers before conc^ressional committees was so shocked by their 
conduct that it recommended that section 6068 of the business and 
professions code be changed to read as follows : 

The following are the duties of an attorney : 

1. To maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers, 
a committee of the Congress of the United States, a committee of the legislature 
of this State, any subcommittee of such committee of the Congress or of the 
legislature, the board of governors of the State bar of this State, and any 
administrative committee of the State bar of this State. 

2. Never to seek to mislead by artifice or false statement of fact or law a 
court of justice or judicial officer, a committee of the Congress of the United 
States, a committee of the legislature of this State, any subcommittee of such 
committee of the Congress or of the legislature, the board of governors of the 
State bar of this State, or any administrative committee of the State bar of 
this State. 

Now I ask — what has the board of governors of the State bar done 
with that report, which also contains recommendations for dealing 
with Communist lawyers and those who take the fifth amendment^ 
"What has it done ? Nothing. "What action has it taken against these 
lawyers ? None. It has not even censured them. 

Yet, it was willing to censure this committee, reputable members 
of the bar, who have come to Los Angeles time and time again and 
have been faced by this sam.e cabal of attorneys. "While Francis 
Walter, the chairman of the full committee, was not personally pres- 
ent at the Los Angeles hearings, nevertheless, the censure of his sub- 
committee is a reflection on him — a man who has been the recipient 
of the American Bar Association aAvard for contributing most to the 
preservation of our American form of government. 

The board of governors of the State bar of California has failed 
miserably and has been derelict in its duty to act affirmatively on the 
basis of the findings of its own committees. By reason of its failure 
to act, it shares with these lawyers I have been talking about the 
responsibilit}^ for what happened in the hearing room in Los Angeles 
last December. 

For years the committee allowed itself to be subjected to abuse 
and harangued by those who served the Communist conspiracy, wait- 
ing patiently for some evidence of courage, some action on the part 
of the leaders of the bar of the State of California. 

It was apparent when we came to Los Angeles last December that 
there was a well-conceived plan by the Communists and some of these 
same lawyers to again disrupt the hearings and abuse the committee 
as they had so many times in the past. When we acted fi.rmly and 
ejected these betrayers of the legal profession so the hearings could 
proceed in an orderly manner, the board of governors, who were not 
present at the hearings, censured Members of Congress, reputable 
members of the bar. 

I have studied the censure resolution by the board of governors of 
the California Bar Association with exceeding care. I have likewise 
searched the transcript of the proceedings at the December hearings 
in Los Angeles. The truth is that the basic facts as reported in the 
statement of the board of governors of the California Bar Association 
are misrepresented. 

The tenor of the statement is that certain lawyers, whose conduct 
was in thorough accord with all of the canons of ethics for lawyers, 

94343— 57— pt. 1 2 



1094 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 

were not accorded propei' treatment by the committee. The truth is, 
as reflected by the record and as is indelibly impressed in my memory, 
that certain lawyers who had been repeatedly identified under oath as 
members of the Communist conspiracy deliberately eno;aoed in bar- 
room and back-alley tactics, as they did in previous hearings, for the 
purpose of disrupting a serious enterprise of a congressional com- 
mittee. 

The statement of the board of governors further complains that one 
of the lawyers was identified in the course of the ])roceedings as a 
Conununist. Since when have hiAvyers who are Communists been im- 
mune from exposure or identification ? Does the board of governors 
of the bar association seriously contend that this committee, the Coji- 
gress of the United States, or the American people are precluded from 
attempting to detect and isolate traitors, even though they be pos- 
sessed of a license to ])ractice law ? 

The bar association statement likewise completely misrepresents the 
announced purpose of the hearings. The statement contains the 
following : 

The announced purpose of the hearing was to investigate opposition to the 
MeCarran-Walter Immigration Act. 

This is a bald-faced misrepresentation of the facts, which should be 
apparent to anyone who would take the trouble to read the transcript 
of the ]:)roceedings. The announced pur])ose of the hearings was to 
investigate and develop facts res])ecting the activities of the Commu- 
nist conspiracy in its ])rogram of j^olitical subversion. 

In another ])lace the board of governors used this language in cen- 
suring the subcommittee : 

Counsel appearing for the witnesses were not permitted to address the com- 
mittee or to malve objections to tlie manner in which the proceeding was being 
conducted ; but counsel were repeatedly told that "their sole and exclusive right 
was to advise their clients." 

We admit that counsel were repeatedly told that their sole and ex- 
clusive right was to advise their clients. Evidently the board of gov- 
ernors are not familiar with the rules of the Committee on Un-Amer- 
ican Activities. 

Rule VII reads as follows : 

The participation of counsel during the course of any hearing and while the 
witness is testifying shall be limited to advising said witness as to his legal 
rights. Counsel shall not be permitted to engage in oral argument with the 
committee, but shall confine his activity to the area of legal advice to his clieait. 

It was because the lawyers insisted on violating this rule that they 
were ejected after the repeated warnings. 

Rule VIII provides that the committee shall remove from the hear- 
iiig room attorneys who violate the rules. It is apparent from the 
mere reading of the last two specifications of alleged misconduct on 
the part of the subcommittee, that the lawyers were violating rule 
VIII. 

In fact, the whole censure resolution is so erroneous and biased that 
I wonder what influences were at work in its preparation and adoption. 

I want it clearly understood that tins is not an indictment of all 
laAvyers who have appeared before our counnittee in the Los Angeles 
area or elsewhere. By far the great majority of the attorneys who 
have represented witnesses before our committee have conducted them- 



HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1095 

selves in a most exemplary manner and in accordance with every pro- 
vision of the code of ethics. 

By the same token, the nnwarranted and intemperate action of the 
board of governors does not represent the will of the great mass of 
lawyers in the State of California. This is evidenced by tlie fact that 
we have received numerous letters from members of the California 
bar deploring and condenniing the action of the board of governors. 

The records of the hearings of this committee clearly indict those 
lawyers who are members of the Communist conspiracy and who have 
conducted themselves in the manner I have described. What the rec- 
ord does not show is the fact that some of these very lawyers about 
whom I have been complaining have violated the basic duty and obli- 
gation of a lawyer, namely, to serve the best interests of his client. 
There have been occasions when it was obvious that it would have been 
to the best interests of the client to have cooperated with the commit- 
tee ; and yet when that witness employed a Communist lawyer or had 
an attorney furnished him by the Communist Party, he was advised 
to take the fifth amendment, to his detriment. Wliy? Simply be- 
cause the lawyer was serving the Communist Party rather than his 
client. I have often wondered why bar associations have failed to act 
in such cases. 

Lest my observations be construed as wholly negative, may I com- 
mend the American Bar Association for its forthright position on the 
issue of communism as expressed by its action in creating a special 
committee — of which former United States Senator Herbert O'Conor, 
of Maryland, is chairman — for the purpose of coming to grips with 
this very situation. This special committee on Communist tactics, 
strategy, and objectives of the American Bar Association is working 
zealously toward the objective of removing from the ranks of the legal 
profession those who are in fact dedicated to the forcible overthrow of 
our Government. 

Some few months ago, Francis "Walter, chairman of this committee, 
introduced legislation which would preclude from practice before con- 
gressional committees or in the executive department persons who 
have been publicly identified under oath as Communists. 

I commend this bill to the bar association of this State, as well as to 
all other groups and organizations in this country which are or should 
be earnestly concerned over the increasing menace of communism. 

While the censure resolution of the board of governors of this bar, 
to say the least, has adversely affected all of the members of the sub- 
committee and its director, it has been a rather severe personal blow to 
Congressman Clyde Doyle from the Los Angeles area. As chairman 
of the subcommittee, he feels particularly responsible for the conduct 
of those hearings and the censure weighs heavily upon him because he 
is a member of the California bar. 

While Clyde Doyle is a Democrat and our political philosophies 
and voting records in the Congress are as far apart as the poles, there 
is no more sincere, conscientious, upright, and patriotic man in the 
Congress than he. All those who know him intimately as I do will 
agree that what I have said is no exaggeration. For many years, he 
has been a highly respected member of the California bar, a man 
who lost his only son in the service of his country, a fine, moral, family 
man. It hurt him deeply to be censured by his own bar without a 
hearing and without cause. He was shocked when a colleague of his 



1096 HEARINGS HELD IX SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 

in the adjoining district, a man with a prominent name but a man who 
is in no position to throw stones, ]>lace(l the resolution of censure in the 
Congressional Record — in a subtle violation of the rules of the House, 
and without even discussing the matter with Mr. Doyle or any other 
member of the committee. 

I need not tell you that the Communists and their apologists from 
coast to coast were delighted at the action of the board of governors 
and Jimmy Roosevelt. They have used this censure resolution effec- 
tively. 

I wonder when so-called responsible Americans are going to learn 
the danger of the threat from within and stop attacking the police- 
man and start chasing the criminal. 

It was a rather long statement, Mr. Chairman ; and I appreciate the 
opportunity of making it and I appreciate the attention of those 
present. 

The Chairman. Call your first witness. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Irving Kermish, will you come forward, please ? 

The Chairman. Will 3'ou raise your right hand, please I 

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

Mr. Kermish. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF IRVING KERMISH, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 

JULIAN W. MACK 

Mr. Tavenner. You are Mr. Irving Kermish ? 

Mr. Kermish. Yes, I am. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you spell both your first and last names ? 

Mr. Kermish. I-r-v-i-n-gK-e-r-m-i-s-h. 

Mr. Tavenner. It is noted that you are accompanied by counsel. 
Will counsel please identify himself for the record ? 

Mr. Mack. My name is Julian Mack ; I am counsel for Mr. Kermish. 

Mr. Tavenner. A member of what bar ? 

Mr. Mack. I am a member of the California bar. 

Mr. Tavenner. When and where were you born, Mr. Kermish ? 

Mr. Kermish. I was born July 12, 1924, in New York City. 

Mr. Tavenner. Would you mind sitting a little closer to the micro- 
phone ? It is difficult to hear you. 

What is your profession or occupation ? 

Mr. Kermish. I am a social worker. 

Mr. Tavenner. Where are you engaged as a social worker ? 

Mr. Kermish. I am a social worker for the Family Service Agency 
of San Mateo County. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee what your formal 
education and training has been ? 

Mr. Kermish. Where do you want me to start ? 

Mr. Tavenner. Start upon the completion of high-school work, 

say. 

Mr. Kermish. Sure. I received a bachelor's degree in history, 
majoring in history in Queens College in New York City. 

Mr. Tavenner. What date? 

Mr. Kermish. My degree was granted June 1949. I also received 
a masters degree in social work from the University of Minnesota 
in June 1952. That concludes it. 



HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1097 

Mr. Tav-enner. When did you come to California ? 

Mr. Kermish. I came to California in December 1952. 

Mr. Tavenxer. You have remained in California since that date? 

Mr. Kermish. Yes, I have. 

Mr. Tavexxer. Have you had any other employment in California 
since December 1952 other than that which you have just mentioned? 

Mr. Kermish. Yes. Would you like me to state where ? 

Mr. Ta\'enxer. Yes. 

Mr. Kermish. I was employed by the Family Service Bureau 
of Oakland also as a social worker. 

Mr. Ta^-exner. Mr. Kermish, are you familiar with the testimony 
that has been given before the Committee on Un-American Activ- 
ities during October of 1956 and as late as March of 1957 relating to 
the situation in Hungary ? 

Have you read any of that testimony ? 

Mr. Keu3iisii. I can't recall it at this moment. I am sure I must 
have read something about it in the newspapers. 

Mr. Ta^^exxer. The committee has heard considerable evidence 
from persons who have occupied high positions in the Hungarian 
Government and who were recently involved in the revolution in Hun- 
gary regarding the situation there. For instance, a person by the 
name of Stevan Barankovics, a former editor in chief of Magyar- 
N'emzet, the largest Hungarian anti-Nazi newspaper, prior to 1944, 
was one of the witnesses. He escaped from Hungary and came to the 
United States in 1951. He has kept in very close contact with the 
situation in Hungary. He testified that it was not a people's rev- 
olution in Hungary in 1945 which started the Communist regime in 
Hungary. He saicl the Communist regime was started, and installed, 
by Russian weapons and ''This is an uprising against Communist 
oppression and this is not a counterrevolution. This is a freedom 
fight." His testimony and the testimony of others demonstrated clear- 
ly to our committee numerous causes for the uprising in Himgary. 

Sandor Kiss, a member of the Hungarian Parliament and a person 
who participated in the revolution, was also with us. He testified that 
99 percent of the population of Hungary were opposed to the Com- 
munist government in Hungary and he stated the reasons. I will not 
take time to go into those reasons. We would like to loiow if you had 
any knowledge of the program of the Communist Party in this area 
with respect to its attitude toward the Hungarian revolution, say back 
during the period from October to December of 1956. 

Mr. Kermish. May I rephrase the question to see if I do understand 
it? 

Mr. TA^^:NXER. Yes. My purpose is to inquire from you what the 
Communist Party line was in this area from October to December 
1956 regarding these issues that arose out of the revolt in Hungary. 

Mr. Kermish. I would like to consult with my attorney, sir. 

Mr. Tavexxer. Yes. 

Mr. KJERMiSH. Sir, I must respectfully decline to answer that ques- 
tion on the grounds that any answer I might give might be used in an 
attempt to disclose me to criminal prosecution. I shall, upon the 
advice of my attorney, on the same grounds, refuse to answer any ques- 
tion concerning membership in any organization or association with 
any group or person which has been, and which I think might be, 
accused of being subversive, disloyal, or a Communist front. 



1098 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 

Mr. Tavexxj:r. :Mr. Kerinish, is it not a fact that you differed sub- 
stantially AYith the Communist Party in the area of California regard- 
mg the revolt in the Eussian satellites, especially with reference to 
Hungary ? 

iNIr. Kermish. I nmst respectfully decline to answer on the same 
grounds, sir. 

Mr. Tax-exner. Is it not a fact that you withdrew from the Com- 
munist Party in December 1956 or January of 1957 because of your 
differences over this problem with the Communist Party? 

Mr. Kermish. I decline to answer on the same grounds. 

The Chairman. You say that you must decline. You are not under 
any compulsion. I assume you mean you do decline. 

^Ir. Kermish. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Ta\^nner. If you were a member of the Communist Party at 
any time between October and December 1956, particularly a member 
of a professional group of the Communist Party in this area, you would 
be in a position to observe Communist Party "activity in this field, so 
I want to ask you. Were you a member of the Communist Party in 
San Francisco at any time between October and December 1956? 

Mr. Ker3iisii. I am sorry, sir. I decline to answer on the same 
grounds. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you acquainted with a person by the name of 
Angela Ward? 

JNIr. Kermish. I must decline to answer, sir, on the same grounds. 

Mr. Ta^tenner, Was Angela Ward a Communist Party organizer in 
the professional cell of the Communist Party in San Francisco at any 
time since you have been here, that is, since December 1952 ? 

Mr. Kermish. The same answer, sir. 

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

Mr. Kermish. The same answer. 

Mr. Scherer. May I interrupt just a minute. 

Witness, you have refused to answer the questions of Mr. Tavenner, 
citing as a basis for your refusal to answer, the fifth amendment say- 
ing that if you do answer you liave fears that the answers might tend 
to incriminate you. In the last few years the Congress has passed a 
law which gives the right to this committee, with the approval of the 
Federal court, to grant you immunity from prosecution, so no matter 
what your answers might be to the questions propounded to you by Mr. 
Tavenner, you could not suffer the incrimination which you say you 
now feel and which is the basis for your refusal to answer. We feel 
that you have valuable information as recent as 8, 9, or 10 months ago 
concerning tlie Comminiist Party. We feel that your information 
would be helpful to the Government of the United States. 

If this committee should grant you the immunity which I have just 
told you about, would you then be willing to tell us what you know? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Kermish. Sir, this is a rather important question. 

The Chairman. Before you answer it. may I say to you that this 
committee has called a number of Hungarian officials, people who were 
connected with the short-lived regime. Actually, I was in Austria 
during the revolution for 5 or 6 days and talked with a great many 
people, Wliat we are interested in doing is showing that in the United 



HEARINGS HELD m SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1099 

States there is activity desio-necl to minimize the knowledge of that 
which was occnrring, which was actual]^' the imposition of force by 
, Eussia on the Hungarian people; so it becomes territically important 
if the party line was spread throughout the United States in order 
to minimize the action that was taking place in Hungary. For that 
reason, we feel that ,tou can make a great contribution to the security 
of our Nation if you will cooperate with us. 

Mr. Kermisii. Shall I respond to Mr. Scherer's question^ 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Kermisii. I do not feel that I am in a position right now to state 
either way "j^es*' or "no'' in answering your question. This does re- 
quire considerable thought, and I think in such a consideration I would 
liave to think about it myself and consult with my attorney as to the 
"yes" or "no" of this answer. 

Mr. ScHERER. I think your attitude is yery, very fair, and I think 
the committee would appreciate it if. within the next few days, you 
would consult with your attornej^ and give some thought to the prop- 
osition that I have advanced. I have nothing further. 

Mr. TA^^]s^NER. May I suggest that the w^itness' counsel get in touch 
with counsel for the committee, say, not later than the close of the 
hearings tomorrow so that we may plan the future work of the com- 
mittee here in regard to this matter. 

Mr. ScHERER. Mr. Counsel, I think we will be here until Friday. 

The Chairman. Whenever it is convenient to you, get in touch with 
Mr. Tavenner. In the interim, we will have the witness step down 
and continue him under the subpena. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you go to the clerk of the committee on my 
right and sign a voucher ? 

The Chairman. Call your next witness. 

Mr. Tavenner. Angela Ward, will you come forward, please ? 

The Chairman. Will you raise your right hand ? 

Do you swear the testimony you are about to give, will be the truth, 
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth ? 

Mrs. Ward. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF MES. ANGELA WARD, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 

NOEMAN LEONAED 

Mr. Ta\tenner. Wliat is your name, please ? 

Mrs. Ward. Angela Ward. 

Mr. Ta\^enner. Will counsel please identify himself for the record ? 

Mr. Leonard. Norman Leonard, 240 Montgomery Street, San Fran- 
cisco, Calif. A member of the bar of the State of California and the 
Supreme Court of the United States, 

Mr. Ta\t:nner. Are you a native of California ? 

Mrs. Ward. Yes, I am, sir ; San Francisco. 

Mr, Tavenner. You have lived in San Francisco all your life ? 

Mrs. Ward. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee, please, what your formal 
educational training has been. 

Mrs. Ward. I attended high school and I am a graduate of the 
University of California, bachelor of arts. 

Mr. Tavenner. Wliat was the year of your graduation ? 

Mrs. Ward. June 1931. 



1100 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 

Mr. Tavenner. What has been your profession or occupation ? 

Mrs. Ward. Secretary, clerical worker, officer worker. That is 
what I do now. 

Mr. TA^^NNER. How long have you been doing that ? 

Mrs. Ward. Oh, for about 20 years. 

Mr. Tavenner. How were you employed in 1956 ? 

Mrs. Ward. As a secretary in an office. 

Mr. Tavenner. What kind of an office was it ? 

Mrs. Ward. An insurance office. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you have any other occupation besides that of 
secretary in an insurance office ? 

Mrs. Ward. Excuse me. 

(The witness conferred with her counsel.) 

Mrs. Ward. In 1956, I was a clerical worker, office worker. Are 
you asking me about any other occupation ? 

Mr. Tavenner. Was there any other employment or occupation 
that you engaged in, in 1956, in addition to the one you have described, 
the position you held in an insurance office ? 

Mrs. Ward. That is the only occupation that I had in 1956. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you in a position in 1956 by which you would 
be able to gain a working knowledge of the present organization of 
the Communist Party, that is, particularly the professional group 
or section of the Communist Party in the city of San Francisco? 

Mrs. Ward. I will confer with counsel. 

(The witness conferred with her counsel.) 

Mrs. Ward. Sir, may I inquire what the relevancy of that question 
is in view of the decision that was rendered by the Supreme Court 
yesterday in the Watkins case ? 

The Chairman. To what part of the decision are you referring? 

Mrs. Ward. I refer to the entire decision, sir, as I read it in the 
newspapers this morning, and perhaps it was not in its entirety be- 
cause I do not suppose they carried it all ; but what I read, I refer to 
the entire excerpt that I read in the paper this morning on the 
Watkins case. 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes, I would be glad to explain that to you. The 
subject I am inquiring from you about at this moment relates to 
matters announced by the chairman in his opening statement to the 
committee, and that is consideration of the advisability of the adop- 
tion of legislation which would outlaw the Communist Party as such. 

This question about which you are raising a question, if it were 
truthfully answered, we believe would furnish this committee with 
information of the character of work that is being done by the Com- 
munist Party, the extent of its operations so that this committee would 
be in a position to determine in its own judgment what it would 
recommend about the necessity, the immediate necessity, of a law of 
the type I have described. Tliis question, of course, is in a sense a 
preparatory question. If you tell us, for instance, that you were the 
organizer of the Communist Party in the city — in the Professional 
Section of the Communist Party in San Francisco — I, of course, will 
want to know what knowledge you have which would aid the com- 
mittee in the respect which I have asked you about. 

]\Irs. Ward. Well, sir, in view of the fact that I, in discussing this 
with counsel — I feel that this is an improper question in view of the 



HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1101 

fact that the first amendment says that no political party has been 
outlawed and, therefore, I don't' believe that this question has any 
relevancy at the moment. It violates the precepts of the first amend- 
ment, the question does. 

Mr. SciiERER. Mr. Chairman, I ask you to direct the witness to 
answer the question. Mr. Tavenner has laid the proper foundation. 

The Chairman". I direct j'ou to answer the question. 

Mrs. "Ward. I did not answer you, sir. 

The Chairman. I direct you to answer Mr. Tavenner's question. 

Mrs. Ward. I will consult with counsel, please. 

(The witness conferred with her counsel.) 

Mrs. Ward. Well, since, I have been directed to answer, I will say 
this : That in addition to the reasons I have previously cited, I will 
answer invoke the fifth amendment of the Constitution of the United 
States. 

Mr. TA\T;]srNER. Do you honestly believe that to truthfully answer 
that question mio;ht tend to incriminate you ? 

Mrs. Ward. AVell, I think I will confer with counsel. 

(The witness conferred with her counsel.) 

Mrs. Ward. My answer is the same as it was to the last question. 

Mr. Scherer. I ask you to direct the witness to answer. 

The Chairman. '\Aniat is that answer? 

Mrs. Ward. I rely on the fifth amendment of the Constitution of 
the United States. 

The Chairman. I direct you to answer the question. 

Mrs. Ward. My answer is the same, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you the Communist Party organizer for the 
Professional Section of the Communist Party in San Francisco at any 
time during the year 1956 ? 

Mrs. Ward. I will give you the same answer to this question that 
I have given previously. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you not resign from that position and were 
you not succeeded within the past 6 or 7 months by Peggy Sarasohn ? 

Mrs. Ward. I will give you the same answer, sir, that I have given 
you previously. 

Mr. TA^^ENNER. Did you have any disagreement with the leader- 
ship of the Communist Party in California regarding the uprising 
in Europe in the Russian satellites, particularly Hungary ? 

Mrs. Ward. I think I would like to confer with counsel. 

(The witness conferred with her counsel.) 

Mrs. Ward. Your question seems a little far afield. Will you kind- 
ly tell me the purpose of it and what relevancy it has ? 

Mr. Ta\^nner. Yes. The purpose of the question is this : I think 
Mr. Walter, the chairman of the committee, explained it pretty fully 
just a few moments ago. You were present, were you not ? 

]\Irs. Ward. I was. 

Mr. Tavenner. You heard what he said ? 

The Chairman. Nodding your head does not appear on the record. 
Did you hear what I said ? 

Mrs. Ward. Yes, sir, I heard. 

Mr. Tavenner. I think that covers it fully enough but I may add 
this, that it is important to the study of the overall question of neces- 
sity or need for adoption of further legislation relating to the pos- 
sible outlawing of the Communist Party, as such, to know of the prop- 



1102 HEARESrGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 

aganda activities in which it is engaged, to know the character and 
objectives of its propaganda activities. 

Now, at a time when the foreign policy of this country was in- 
volved in a tremendously important matter — and I am speaking now 
of the revolt in Hungary against communism — it was important that 
we know what the Communist Party was doing about it in this coun- 
try. If you were the organizer of the Communist Party, it would 
be extremely important to know whether you w^ere having difficulty 
with the membership in your party on this question of the Hun- 
garian revolt and what measures you and the Communist Party 
took to try to prevent it and head it off. 

By way of further explanation, if you will pardon me a minute, 
it is important that we know the source of any directives that you 
received in that regard. Now, I think that shows the reasoning of 
the committee for asking a question in this field. 

Mrs. Ward. I will confer with my attorney. 

(The witness conferred with her counsel.) 

Mrs. Ward. Again, sir, I feel that the committee is going into an 
area which it is not permissible under the first amendment of the Con- 
stitution and I feel that as a good citizen upholding the Constitution 
that I would refuse to answer on the grounds of the first amendment. 

The Chairmaist. The chairman directs you to answer the question. 

Mrs. Ward. My answer is the same except that I will protect my- 
self again by adding to it the invocation of the fifth amendment of 
the Constitution. 

Mr. Taveistner. Was your resignation as Communist Party or- 
ganizer brought about in any way by difficulties regarding the Hun- 
garian question ? 

Mrs. Ward. I feel you are asking such questions that I have to 
continue to confer with my counsel. 

ISIr. TA^^:NNER. That is quite all right. 

Mrs. Ward. In view of your question, I will give you the same 
answer I have given you previously. 

The Chairman. By that, you mean that you invoke the fifth 
amendment ? 

Mrs. Ward. The fifth amendment, sir, and the first. 

Mr. Tavenner. You have been a worker in the Communist Party 
for a long period of time, have you not ? 

Mrs. Ward. Are you asking me a question or making a statement? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes, have you not ? 

Mrs. Ward. I give you the same answer as I gave you previously. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you a member of the State CIO council at 
any time ? 

Mrs. Ward. I will confer with counsel, if you please. 

(The witness conferred with her counsel.) 

Mrs. Ward. I would like to inquire, sir, what the relevancy of this 
is. I have heard no discussion on CIO council this morning. I did 
not know that that was being investigated. 

IMr. Tavenner. I will tell you now the full purpose of the question. 

The committee, as has been said before, is undertaking to determine 
just what the urgency is, if any. of the need for the passage of fur- 
ther legislation regarding the Communist Party, such as, for instance, 
the outlawing; of the Communist Partv as such. In order to have 



HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1103 

a clear understanding of the ramifications of the activities of the 
Communist Party in this country, it is necessary for Congress to 
have information over a very wide field. 

If it should be true that you \\ere a member of the CIO council 
and, at the same time, you were a member of the Communist Party 
and that the Communist Party was using you to propagate Com- 
munist Party doctrines within that organization, it would be evidence 
before this committee of what the Communist Party is doing. If 
that were true, you would be in a position to advise this committee 
of the real olDJectives of the Communist Party in that type of 
infiltration. 

Now, will you answer the question ? 

Mrs. Ward. My answer is the same as it was before. 

The Chairman. By that you mean that you invoke the first and the 
fifth amendments '^ 

Mrs. Ward. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you acquainted with Mr. Max Silver? 

(The witness conferred with her counsel.) 

Mrs. "Ward. Sir, I will invoke the first and fifth amendments. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Silver testified before this committee on 
January 24, 1952, that Estolv Ward and his wife, Angela, were 
(^ommunist Party members and were working in the CIO council. 
I do not intend to ask you any question relating to your husband, 
but as far as that statement aft'ects you, was it true or false? 

JNfrs. Ward. I invoke the first and fifth amendments. 

Mr. Tavenner. Have you had such connections with the California 
Labor School as would put you in a position to advise this committee 
of the activities of the Communist Party in connection with the oper- 
ation of that school ? 

Mrs. Ward. One moment, please. 

Mr. ScHERER. Mr. Tavenner, may I ask whether the California 
Labor School has been identified as a Communist-front organization? 

]\[r. Tavenner. Yes, there has recently been a hearing before the 
Subversive Activities Control Board which has resulted in the closing 
of that school. 

Mrs. Ward. In view of that answer, I have no other alternative 
than to invoke the first and fifth amendments. 

INIr. Tavenner. You have another alternative and that Avould be 
to tell us what you know about it. 

Mrs. Ward. Well, I feel that I do not have any alternative in view 
of what the Supreme Court said yesterday and I wish to impose the 
first and the fifth amendments. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you one of the instructors at that school? 

Mrs. Ward. I will give you the same answer, sir. 

Mr. Scherer. Witness, if you were granted the immunity which 
I discussed with the previous witness, would you then testify? 

Mrs. Ward. Does this committee have a court order to offer me 
immunity ? 

Mr. Sciierer. This committee has the right to go to Federal court, 
and if this committee should do that so that you could be granted im- 
munity, would you then testify ? 

Mrs. Ward. But you do not have an order ? 



1104 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 

Mr. SciiERER. I understand that and you understand that, Madam ; 
but I am saying, suppose we do get an order ? 

Mrs. Ward. If such an order were secured, I might consider it. 

Mr. ScHERER. You miglit consider it ? 

Mrs. Ward. Yes. 

Mr. Tavexxer. Favorably or unfavorably ? 

Mrs. Ward. I don't think I have to tell you how, 

INIr. Tavexxer. I think I know. 

The Chairman. AVe Avill cross that bridge when we come to it. 

Mr. Tavexxer. I hand you a photostatic copy of a document which 
bears your name. Will you examine it, please ? 

I will explain it to you. It is a photostatic copy of a record of the 
membership of the Independent Progressive Party State Central Com- 
mittee for the year 1948. 

I believe if you will examine it, you will see that your name is on 
there. Do you see it ? 

Mrs. Ward. I see a typewritten name. 

Mr. Tavexxer. Whose name is that ? 

Mrs. Ward. It corresponds to my name. It is typewritten. 

Mr. Tavexxer. Were you a member of the State central committee 
at that time ? 

Mrs. Ward. Just a moment please. Do you want to know if I was 
a member of this committee staff ? 

Mr. Tavexxer. Yes. 

]\Irs. Ward. Is this an investigation into the Independent Progres- 
sive Party ? 

]Mr. Tavexxer. No, it is an investigation of Communist Party 
activities in that group. Now, will you answer it? 

Mrs. Ward. In view of your answer, I will rely on the first and 
fifth amendments. 

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

The Chairmax. It may be so marked. 

(Document marked "Ward Exhibit No. 1," and retained in com- 
mittee files.) 

Mr. Tavexxer. Mrs. Ward, the committee has received a great deal 
of evidence in certain areas of California, not including San Francisco, 
regarding decisions made by the Communist Party to take over the 
work of the Independent Progressive Party in the State of California. 

Do you have any knowledge on that subject as it would appl}^ to the 
immediate area of San Francisco? 

Mrs. Ward. I would like to invoke the first and fifth amendments. 

The Chairmax. You say you would like to ? Does that mean that 
you do ? 

Mrs. Ward. I do, sir ; I do. 

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

Yes, I have one other, if you will permit it. 

Are you a member of the Communist Party now ? 

Mrs. Ward. I cite my previous answer, sir. 

]Mr. Tavexxer. I have no further questions. 

The Chairmax. The witness is excused, and the connnittee will take 
a recess of 5 minutes at this time. 

(Brief recess taken.) 

The Chairmax. Call your next witness, Mr. Tavenner. 



HEARmGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1105 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Jay Darwin, will you come forward, please? 

The Chairman. Will you raise your right hand ? Do you swear the 
testimony you will give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 
but the truth ? 

Mr. Darwin. I do. I make this statement under oath. 

VOLUNTARY STATEMENT OF JAY A. DAEWIN 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Chairman, this gentleman just brought a matter 
to my attention which I thought should be made a part of the record 
h.ere, and we are very glad to have him make it a part of the record. 
"Will you now proceed to state to the chairman what you had in mind, 
but first of all identify yourself. 

^Ir. Darwin. My name is Jay Darwin. I am an attorney at law, 
admitted to practice in the State of California and the State of New 
York, Federal courts here, and also in the United States Supreme 
Court. 

In your questioning of the prior witness, Mr. Tavenner, you made 
reference to the State CIO council; and perhaps my inference, at least 
it Avas my understanding that way, there was a suggestion that the 
State CIO council, by some means of association, has implicitly some 
connection with the purposes of your investigation. I want to make 
this statement and I want to make it perfectly clear, and it will prob- 
ably be of help to your committee. 

I believe you are referring to the State CIO Industrial Union 
Council as it was constituted prior to the spring of 1950. 

]Mr. Tavenner. That is correct. 

Mr. Darwin. If the reference is to that period of time 

Mr. Tavenner. I might say the testimony of Mr. Silver related to 
that period of time although I did not so state. 

Mr. Darwin. I see. I want to make perfectly clear that the Na- 
tional CIO found the State CIO council, as well as the city and 
county of San Francisco CIO industrial council, as violative of the 
principles, purposes, and policies of the National CIO. As a result of 
that — I may speak perliaps with some pardonable understanding on 
your part since I represented the National CIO in litigation— and as a 
result of that, the charter of the State council was lifted. I Avant to 
make it perfectly plain, howcA'er, that I do not know of my own knowl- 
edge any relevancy as to the questions or the .import of associations 
that your committee may have in mind even as to the whole State 
council. That is not my purpose in talking here. I wanted to get the 
record straight as to tlie present State CIO council. 

Mr. Sciierer. You said the State charter was lifted by the National 
CIO? 

Mr, Darwin. Yes, it Avas. 

Mr. Sciierer. Why Avas it lifted? 

]Mr. Daravin. It Avas lifted because it was found that the purposes, 
policies, and objectiA'es did not compare Avith the purposes, policies, 
and objectiA'es of the National CIO. 

Mr. Tavenner. Thank you \^ery much for clearing that up. 

Mr. DARAA^N. Thank you for the opportunity of making that state- 
ment. 

The Chairman. Call vour next witness, Mr. Tavenner. 



1106 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 

Mr. TA^^ENNER. T*eggy Sarasohn, will you come forward, please? 

Mr. Leonard. Before this witness is sworn, she desires me to state 
to the committee that she wishes to have the television cameras off. 

The Chairman. Your wishes will be complied with. Will you raise 
your right hand, please, and stand up ? 

Do you swear that the testimony 3^ou are about to give will be the 
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Miss Sarasohn. It is. 

TESTIMONY OF PEGGY (R.) SAEASOHN, ACCOMPANIED BY 
COUNSEL, NORMAN LEONARD 

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

Miss Sarasohn. Peggy Sarasohn. 

Mr. Ta\t:nner. Will you spell your last name ? 

Miss Sarasohn. S-a-r-a-s-o-h-n. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will counsel accompanying the witness please iden- 
tify himself for the record ? 

Mr. Leonard. My name is Norman Leonard, 240 Montgomery 
Street, San Francisco, Calif. As I said previously, I am a member of 
the California bar and Supreme Court of the United States. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you Miss or Mrs.? 

Miss Sarasohn. Miss. 

Mr. Tavenner. Where do you reside ? 

Miss Sarasohn. In San Francisco. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long have you lived in San Francisco ? 

Miss Sarasohn. Almost 12 years. 

Mr. Tavenner. Have you lived at any other place during the last 
12-year period ? 

Miss Sarasohn. No. 

The Chairman. INIr. Tavenner, before you go on, I would like to 
remind the photographers of our rules concerning the taking of pic- 
tures during testimony. It is disconcerting, and the committee wants 
you to take your pictures in advance so as not to disturb the witness. 

Miss Sarasohn, Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Ta\t:nner. What is your occupation or profession ? 

Miss Sarasohn, May I consult counsel ? 

Mr, Tavenner, Surely, 

(The witness conferred with her counsel,) 

Miss Sarasohn. I am employed as a saleswoman. 

Mr, Taa^nner, Do you have any other employment or occupation ? 

Miss Sarasohn. No, sir. 

Mr. TA\nENNER. How long have you been a saleswoman? 

Miss Sarasohn, Since 1955, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner, Will you tell us what your formal educational train- 
ing has been ? 

Miss Sarasohn, I am a graduate of the Arts High School and have 
a bachelor of science degree in art education from New Jersey State 
Teachers College, 

Mr, Ta"st:nner, When did you complete your work in New Jersey ? 

Miss Sarasohn, June 1941, 

Mr, Tavenner. Wliere did you live between 1941 and you said 12 
years ago, so that would be 1945, "Wliere were you between 1941 and 
1945? 



HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1107 

Miss Sarasohn. In New Jersey. 

Mr. Tavenner. Where did you live in New Jersey ? 

Miss Sarasohn. Newarl^:, N. J. 

Mr. Tavenner. What was your occupation there ? 

Miss Sarasohn. May I consult an attorney, sir? I wish just one 
moment, please. 

(The witness conferred with her counsel.) 

Miss Sarasohn. Well, between June 11)41 and June of 1945, I was 
employed for the Prudential Insurance Co. and by the Board of Edu- 
cation for Newark, N. J., and for Western Electric Co. in New Jersey. 

Mr, Tavenner. Did you have any oro;anizational experience during 
that period of time for any organization ? 

Miss Sarasohn. I would like to consult my attorney. 

(The witness conferred with her attorney.) 

Miss Sarasohn. I do not understand the relevancy, and that is why 
I consulted with my attorney. 

Mr. Tavenner. Let me withdraw my question for the present and 
I will repeat it a little later, but I Avill ask you this question now: 
Have you done any organizational work for the Communist Party 
since January 1, 1957, in San Francisco? 

Miss Sarasohn, I have heard the testimom^ of the prior witness and 
I wish to state that I will not answer any questions, sir, regarding any 
organization or any individuals that the committee wishes to inquire 
about and I wish to invoke the privilege and the rights of the first and 
the fifth amendments. 

Mr. Tavenner. I did not ask you any question relating to other 
persons, I asked you whether or not you had done organizational 
work for the Communist Party in San Francisco at any time since 
January 1, 1957. You have not clearly answered that question. You 
have stated another question and proceeded to answer it. Now, will 
you answer my question, please ? 

Miss Sarasohn. One moment, please. I wish to rely on the privilege 
of the first and the fifth amendments, as I have stated, sir. 

Mr, Ta\t:nner, Now, I will ask you whether you had organizational 
work and experience before coming to California. 

Miss Sarasohn. My answer is stated the same as I stated to prior 
questions. 

Mr. Tavenner, Have you in any way been connected with the Cali- 
fornia Labor School ? 

Miss Sarasohn, My prior answer, sir, I think applies to this; the 
same answer as I have stated before. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you advise the committee whether or not you 
were registrar of the school in the year 1953 ? 

Miss Sarasohn. My answer has been included in the record; and 
my reasons for my answer, I think, are explicit and are guaranteed 
by the rights of the Constitution, 

Mr, Tavenner, Will you tell the committee what group it was with- 
in the Communist Party that directed the policies of that school, if 
any? 

Miss Sarasohn, I have already indicated to the committee that I 
am not going to discuss any organizations or am^ individuals, I think 
that that would be within the realm of that question, so my prior 
answer so stands. 



1108 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 

Mr. McIntosh. Would you instruct the witness to refer to any 
constitutional clauses on which she seeks to rely. 

Miss Sarasohn. I thought I mentioned them clearly, that I rely on 
the first amendment, which speaks very clearly that Congress shall 
make no law regarding free speech or free press or regarding the 
right of assembly. I think this is pertinent to it and also I do rely 
on the privilege which is part of the Constitution, the fifth amend- 
ment, which requires that no witness shall be required to testify against 
themselves. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee what knowledge you 
have, if any, of the Professional Section of the Communist Party in 
San Francisco as it is operated today. 

Miss Sarasohn. Same answer that has already answered refers to 
my replies. 

Mr. Taat:nner. Are you now a member of the Professional Section 
of the Communist Party ? 

Miss Sarasohn. Same answer that I have already given, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Would you tell the committee the size of the mem- 
bership of the Professional Section of the Conmiunist Party in San 
Francisco ? 

Miss Sarasohn. The same answer, sir, that has already been given 
seems to be part and parcel of this same question. 

Mr. Tavenner. In other words, there is no question that I might 
ask you regarding your knowledge of Communist Party activities in 
this area that you would be willing to tell the committee ? 

Miss Sarasohn. May I consult with my attorney, please? If you 
ask me specific questions, I can give you answers as we go along. 

Mr. Tavenner. Is it worthwhile ? 

Miss Sarasohn. It is up to 3'ou to decide. 

Mr. Tavenner. Every question that I have asked you regarding 
matters which would certainly be within the knowledge of any person 
who was a member of the Professional Section of the Communist 
Party, you have refused to answer. If you will direct me to any area 
of Communist Party activity in which you will answer, it may be of 
such importance that I will inquire. 

Miss Sarasohn. I must consult with my attorney, sir. 

(The witness conferred with her counsel.) 

Miss Sarasohn. It is my understanding, sir, that you are the ones 
that has invited me as a witness and that your phrasing of the question 
is in your area. 

Mr. Tavenner. Let us end the whole subject by asking this 
question : Tell the committee what you know about Communist Party 
activities in San Francisco. 

Miss Sarasohn. Same answer as to the prior questions. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you a member of the Communist Party before 
you came to San Francisco, w^liile you were in New Jersey ? 

Miss Sarasohn. Same answer to the same associated questions. 

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

The Chah^man. The witness is excused. 

Call your next witness. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will 3^ou sign the voucher so you will be paid for 
your attendance. That applies to all witnesses. 

Will you come forward, please, Dr. Jack Patten? 



HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1109 

The Chairman. Will you raise your right hand please ^ Do jon 
swear the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole 
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Dr. Patten. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF JACK (BEVERLY MIKELI) PATTEN 

Mr. Tavenner. Dr. Patten, will you state your full name, please? 

Dr. Paiten. Jack P-a-t-t-e-n. 

Mr. Tavenxer. Is that jonr original name ? 

Dr. Patten. There is a little confusion there. My parents had me 
christened Beverly Mikell Patten. ]My birth certificate shows the 
name of Jack, so, hence, I use tliat name. 

JNlr. Tavenner. That is the name by wdiich you are commonly 
known ? 

Dr. Patten. That is right. 

Mr. Tavenner. How do you spell }■ oui- last name ? 

Dr. Patten. P-a-t-t-e-n. 

Mr. Tavenner. It is referred to occasionally by another spelling? 

Dr. Pai-ten. Yes; the common spelling of the name Patton is 
P-a-t-t-o-n, as in the late General Patton; and I frequently am ad- 
dressed in that manner. 

Mr. Tavenner. Dr. Patten, it is a practice of the committee to ad- 
vise all witnesses that they are entitled to have counsel with them 
during the course of their testimony if they desire. It is noted 
that you do not have counsel. Do you desire counsel ? 

Dr. Patten. With due respect to the bar of the State of Califor- 
nia, I do not feel that I require counsel. 

Mr. Tavenner. "Wlien and where were you born, Dr. Patten ? 

Dr. Patten. December 27 or 28, 1910, at Fortress Monroe, Va. 

Mr. Ta-vtenner. What has been your occupation generally? 

Dr. Patten. Generally a teacher. 

Mr. Ta\t:nner. Will you tell the committee please, what your for- 
mal educational training has been? 

Dr. Patten. Starting with college — right ? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes. 

Dr. Patten. I attended the University of Washington from 1928 
to 1929, in Seattle, Wash., and then attended the New Mexico Military 
Institute for 2 years; returned to the University of Washington and 
was graduated from there with an A. B. on March 17, 1933, with a 
major in English literature and a minor in mathematics. 

I later attended Northwestern University in the year 1933 and 1934, 
which is in Evanston, 111. I returned in 1936 to the University of 
Washington and obtained a general secondary teaching credential. 
Later, in 1948 to 1950, I attended Stanford University, Stanford, 
Calif., and was granted a doctorate in education with a major in 
psychology in June of 1950. 

Mr. Ta\tenner. Did you have service in the Armed Forces of the 
United States? 

Dr. Patten. I did ; from 1940 to 1941 1 was in the Coast Artillery ; 
from 1945 to 1946 1 was in the Ordnance. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee, please, what your 
employment has been ; that is, make a brief statement of what your 
employment has been covering the period from 1936, when you com- 

94343— 57— pt 1 3 



1110 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 

pleted your studies at the University of Washington, on up to the 
year 1950? 

Dr. Patten. Yes ; and I want the committee and you, Mr. Tavenner, 
to understand that exact dates are not always firmly fixed in my 
mind so I may have to give general dates, rather, than specific ones 
ir^ometime. 

I was employed while attending the University of Washington in 
1936. I was employed there. I then, in the fall of 1936, was employed 
in a town called Sultan, Wash., at the Sultan Union High School, 
where I was a teacher of sundry subjects. Thereafter, I worked in 
Everett, Wash., from 1937 — beginning in 1937, 1 worked for the newly 
formed council of the CIO in Everett, Wash., and was employed by 
the WPA as a teacher in workers' education, a branch of their adult 
education, and was assistant State supervisor of adult education, or 
of workers' education for WPA. That was roughly 1937 to 1938 or 
1939. 

I was also, thereafter, employed on a part-time basis by a radio sta- 
tion in Everett, Wash., having the call letters KRKO. In 1940 — there 
was a brief period there before that when I was executive secretary 
of an organization which bore a title something like the New Deal 
Democratic Federation of Snohomish County. That was a subdi- 
vision of the Washington Commonwealth Federation. 

Mr. Tavenner. We have had considerable evidence about that or- 
ganization in the course of hearings in Seattle. 

Dr. Patten. I then went into the Army, in the Coast Artillery, 
and was at Fort Scott which is located in this area. 

Mr. Tavenner. When did you go into the service ? 

Dr. Patten. In August of 1940, until the end of March of 1941. 
I stayed here and did not return to the State of Washington for any 
residence — I have visited there a few times since — I was employed 
for 1 month by Southern Pacific Eailroad here and then went to work 
at radio station KSAN in San Francisco mitil late in December of 
1941. I believe it was in the period between Christmas and New 
Year's that I went to work for Pacific Bridge Co., an engineering firm 
and a shipbuilding division in Alameda. I worked for Pacific Bridge 
roughly a couple of years. I then went to work for a woodworking 
firm here in San Francisco by the name of L & E Emanuel, which was 
building furniture for marine use, and I was transferred there by 
the president of that corporation to a newly formed corporation known 
as Seaporcell Pacific Corp. which sold ceramic-coated bulkheads and 
other equipment for ships. I cannot give you the exact time and 
dates on all of this employment, but it could be checked through social 
security, I assume. 

I worked for the Water Division of Army Transport Service for 
a short time early in 1945 and then went back into the service, into 
the Army, in May of 1945 and was stationed at Aberdeen Proving 
Ground during most of the time I was in the service. That is in 
Maryland. I was discharged July 19, 1 believe, 1946. 

Mr. Tavenner. Then, there were 2 periods of service in the Armed 
Force, one from August 1940 to March 1941? 

Dr. Patten. The last day of March. 

Mr. Tavenner. And then again from May 1945 to July 1946 ? 

Dr. Patten. That is correct. 



HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1111 

Mr. Tavenner. Will yon proceed, please ? 

Dr. Patten. After coming out of the Army in July, I was on com- 
pensation because I had a job coming up the end of August or early 
September of that year. I did not seek employment for that reason. 
Then, I went to work in the fall of 1946 at the City College of San 
Francisco, where I was a teacher of English. While teaching there, 
I also was employed part time in the San Francisco State College 
that year and again in 1948. In the summer of 1948, I changed my 
employment location to San Francisco State College, where I taught 
until 1950, November of 1950. 

Mr. Tavenner. That is the record of your employment over the 
period of time that I asked you ? 

Doctor, dui'ing the period of time that we have discussed, that is, 
during the period in which you were employed in different occupa- 
tions at different places, say from 19?>8 to 1950, did you have an oppor- 
tunity to observe the workings of the Communist Party on the West 
Coast? 

Dr. Patten. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. T\niat was the occasion for your having that knowl- 
edge of the operations of the Communist Party ? 

Dr. Patten. I w^as a member of the Communist Party beginning in 
1936, the fall or late summer of 1936. 
Mr. Tavenner. And continuing until when ? 

Dr. Patten. Either late 1947 or early 1948. I cannot be exact on 
that. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you a member of the Communist Party dur- 
ing that entire period in 1936 to 1947 or 1948 ? 

Dr. Patten. With the exception of the both times when I was in 
the Army, I was a member pretty much all the time. To clarify 
that, when I left the Army the first time and started to rejoin with 
the Communist Party, I obviousl}^ moved from the State of Wash- 
ington to here; and it took a little time for my records to be trans- 
ferred, tlie information they had to have, so there was a lapse of time 
beyond the time when I was in the Army when I was not a member 
(/f the Communist Party. 

May I also point out that when we use the term "Communist Party," 
we are not distinguishing between the Communist Party and the Com- 
munist Political Association, and in anything I say, I am not distin- 
guishing between the two because I see no difference. 

Mr. Tavenner. Have you been a member of the Communist Party 
at any time since 1948 ? 
Dr. Patten. No. 

Mr. Taa'enner. You severed all connections with the Communist 
Party, and it is a thing of the past as far as you are concerned? 

Dr. Patten. As far as I am concerned it is a thing of the past and, 
as far as I know, I cannot associate myself in any way with members 
of the Communist Party. 
Mr. Tavenner. Or its activities ? 
Dr. Patten. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. The committee would be interested to know. Doctor, 
what the circumstances were that brought you into the Communist 
Party and also the circumstances that took you out of the Communist 
Party. 



1112 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 

Dr. Pattex. The circumstances that broii<Tht me in were partially 
personal ones, partially an out<rro\vth of the times. I liad attended 
school, the later part of my schoolino; during the depression. I had 
read a great deal of suggestions, a great many suggestions that were 
made for taking care of the socioeconomic ])roblems in the United 
States. I also read as a student of the literature a great many works 
of a social highs or Utopian nature, so the subject of socialism was 
not foreign to me. 

It appeared to me then that something was necessary to alter the 
economy of the Nation because I did not feel that it was function- 
ing adequately. 

I examined literature of existing organizations, expressed my desire 
to join the Communist Party to a couple of young women I knew, 
and they got me in touch with someone who signed me up in the 
Communist Party. 

I will say, in addition, that the party was personal. I believe it was 
an emotional reaction that I had of mj' own — hostility toward author- 
ity, which one can express in various ways by physically striking that 
person in authority, such as a parent or police officer or engaging in 
political activity which is in opposition to authority. My reasoning 
for mentioning that is that I Imew at the time that that is what I was 
doing. I recognized it ever since ; and to my way of looking at it, a 
great many people have joined revolutionary movements for that pur- 
pose, to give themselves an emotional release of hostility against 
authority. 

Mr. Taa^enner. "Wliat do you think, Doctor, aroused that sense of 
hostility in your own case ? If it is of too personal a character, I will 
w^ithdraw^ the question. I do not know what your answer would be. 

Dr. Patten. Because of the particular psychologist's beliefs I have, 
I could give you a textbook answer, that any emotional disturbances of 
that type start in infancy and early childhood through no malicious 
intent of one's parents, due perhaps to harsh and rigid treatment of the 
child. But I say that with full respect for parents. Is that good 
enough ? 

Mr, Ta\'exxer. Yes. 

As a result of the matters you have discussed, you solicited member- 
ship in the Communist Party, I believe ? 

Dr. Patten. Yes ; nobody asked me. 

Mr. Ta\ti;nner. Did you go to Communist Party headquarters your- 
self and were signed up there or how was it done? 

Dr. Patten. Xo, someone came to see me. 

Mr. TA^^=:NNER. Do you recall who that person was ? 

Dr. Patten. Evelyn Hurst Pool. 

Mr. TA^'ENNER. That was in Seattle ? 

Dr. Patten. That was in Seattle. 

]\Ir. Tavenner. Do you know what position she held in the Com- 
munist Part}^ if any ? 

Dr. Patten. xVt the time, I found out shortly thereafter, she was 
working in the district office in Seattle as a secretary. I was also 
advised before I was finally accepted by a gentleman by the name of 
Bob Roberts, who talked to me further about the question and what 
might be involved. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know what position Bob Roberts had m the 
party ? 



HEARINGS HELD EST SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1113 

Dr. Patten. No. 

Mr. Tavenner. It is not the committee's intention here to go into 
matters which would be more or less confined to the area of Seattle and 
the State of Washington. We do not have time for that ; but if you 
would, describe just briefly the highlights, you might say, of your 
Communist Party activities in the State of Washington, your Com- 
munist Party connections. For instance, did you hold any position 
of leadership at any time in a group of the Communist Party ? 

What I am getting at is, I want to find out how well qualified you 
were to observe the effect of Communist Party activities before you 
came here to the city of San Francisco. It is only information of 
that character that I am interested in bringing out here. 

Dr. Patten. I was a member, first, of a branch in the city of Seat- 
tle which is composed of teachers, government workers, other semi- 
professional people. I then, I suppose early in 1937, since I was 
teaching in Snohomish County, I transferred my membership to a 
branch in Everett, Wash., which was also professional in character. 

I also held a position there in the county headquarters or leader- 
ship as educational director, if I am not mistaken. I know I was 
a nonorganizer. I delivered one or two keynote speeches at county 
conventions during the time that I was there. So, I was in a position 
of some leadership, not in the upper brackets. 

Mr. Tavenner. Before we go into the question of your knowledge 
of Communist Party activities among the professional group, or the 
Professional Section of tlie Communist Party in San Francisco, let 
me ask you more about the circumstances attending your leaving the 
Communist Party. 

Dr. Patten. At the time I went back into the Army, and at that 
particular time, I got the Jacques Duclos letter criticizing the Amer- 
ican Communist Political Association. So, while I was in the Army, 
the Communist Political Association was revamped once more into 
the Communist Party, so it was changed by the time I got out. What 
I read in the newspapers, and so on, when I was in the Army, I did 
not particularly like the turn which the Communist Party had taken, 
the somewhat strong left position it was taking in its attitude toward 
the administration of the United States Government. However, 
when I returned from the Army, I did rejoin and I was then in the 
party for a little over a year. I did not feel too much sympathy for 
what the Communist Party was trying to do then. For my own per- 
sonal betterment and what turned into later professional training as 
a psychologist, I underwent psychiatric treatment; and it was one 
of the understandings of the Communist Party that no one under- 
going psychiatric treatment would be allowed to remain active with- 
in the Communist Party, so I dropped out then never to return. 

Mr. SciiERER. Why was it tliat the Communist Party objected 
to anyone undergoing psychiatric treatment or psychiatric care? 

Dr. Patten. In various forms of psychotherapy or psychoanalysis, 
the patient is expected to tell wliatever comes to his mind. It would 
not be then to the liking of the Communist Party to have members 
revealing to a psychologist or psycliiatrist everything that might come 
to his mind, including information relative to the Communist Party. 
Therefore, as a safeguard, that objection was raised. 

Also, in general, in the party literature at that time, there was a 
great deal of opposition to psychiatry and psychotherapy, ideological 



1114 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 

opposition to it. As I interpret it now, it would be on the assumption 
that a person who had successfully undergone psychotherapy would 
not be a good Communist thereafter, and well that may be. 

Mr. Tavenner. And you said, "And well that may be" ? 

Dr. Patten. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. You were telling us about that situation bearing 
on the question of your leaving the Communist Party. 

Dr. Patten. So, I just ceased to attend, with the full understand- 
ing of other people that I would not attend any more meetings because 
I was undergoing psychotherapy. 

Mr. Tavenner. What was your first connection with the Communist 
Party in California ? 

Dr. Patten. Sometime after I left or was discharged from the 
Army, I went to the Communist Party headquarters, which was then 
located on Eighth Street about a block above the market. 

Mr. Tavenner. You are now referring to the first period of en- 
listment ? 

Dr. Patten. That is right, in 1941. I believe the address there was 
121 Feit Street, if I am not mistaken. I went there and saw someone. 
1 do not know who it was in the office. I introduced myself, and I 
asked that I be readmitted to the Communist Party here in San 
Francisco, and whoever it was told me they would undertake to get 
my transfer through. It took several months. I could not say how 
long, but it was probably in 1942 sometime, possibly early in 1942, 
that I was admitted to the Communist Party in San Francisco. 

Mr. Tavenner. What were your first contacts in the Communist 
Party after being admitted? By that I mean to what type of an 
organization were you assigned ? 

Dr. Patten. I was a member of a professional branch, group, cell, 
or what have you, made up of people of various professional and semi- 
professional standing. 

Mr. Tavenner. I would like you to tell the committee, please, what 
the basic organizational setup of the Communist Party was in San 
Francisco at that time and as you learned it to be in your experience 
in the party over the next 6 or 8 years. 

Dr. Patten. Of course, my first-hand knowledge would be pri- 
marily professional organization because that is what I was a member 
of. There were professional clubs, such as the one to which I be- 
longed. There was one still for a short time made up of a few news- 
paper people, people engaged in newspaper work. There was a club 
of attorneys and one of doctors. This, I believe, comprised the Pro- 
fessional Section. There were other clubs organized on a neighbor- 
hood basis for other than professionals. How many of those there 
were, I do not know through the city. I believe there were some 
organized on an occupational basis, that is, people engaged in par- 
ticular industry, such as waterfront workers, I believe, were in a 
particular one. Those were the basic organizations, and everyone 
was a member of some branch or club. 

Mr. Tavenner. To further understand the professional section 
setup, you said there was at one time a group composed only of news- 
papermen, a group composed only of lawyers, a grou]) comj^osed only 
of doctors. Now, where did the other categories belong, such as 
teachers, artists, musicians, civil service employees? 



HEARESTGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1115 

Dr. Patten. At that time, those people were in one brcanch of the 
city, which was a professional or multiprofessional group. 

Mr. Ta\t:xner. They were all in one group ? 

Dr. Patten. All in one group ; yes, sir. 

]Mr. Tavenner. Were you at any time a member of any group of 
the Communist Party, other than a group within the Professional 
Section ? 

Dr. Patten. No, not a member of any other branch ; I was a mem- 
ber at one time of the county committee. 

]\Ir. Taa-enner. Yes, I will come to that. 

Dr. Patten. I was always a member of the Professional Section. 

Mr. TA^^:NNER. You have spoken of the Communist Party groups 
witliin the Professional Section. Those were the cells or the basic 
groups of the party, were they not ? 

Dr. Patten. Yes. 

]Mr. Tavenner. '\^niat was the organization on the level next above 
these groups that you have described ? 

Dr. Patten. There was a professional section organization which 
was composed of representatives of professional clubs, the purpose 
of which was to take care of internal matters such as dues, collecting, 
recruiting drives, and sucli things within the professional club, to 
some extent, I suppose, to translate educational material to make it 
fit the work of particular professional people or to supplement an 
educational program as it came down from the county and higher 
bodies. 

Whether there were section committees over other branches, I do 
not recall. I do not think it particularly matters. There was a county 
committee above the section level which was elected by convention 
each year. Above that was the county executive committee, likewise 
elected by the convention, and then a State organization set up by 
State conventions and the national. 

INlr. Tavenner. The composition of this section group was repre- 
sentatives from the particular cells? 

Dr. Patten. I believe they were all representatives. There was no 
one who was appointed. 

INIr. Tavenner. In other words, there would be in that group, a 
doctor or two, a lawyer or two. and then representatives from other 
groups ? 

Dr. Patten. If it was functioning adequately, yes. 

]\Ir. Tavenner. Were you ever a member of such a group ? 

Dr. Patten. Yes. 

Mr. Ta\t:nner. Were you a member of the County Committee at 
any time? 

Dr. Patten. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. You were never a member of the State Committee, 
of the Communist Party I believe ? 

Dr. Patten. Xo. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Chairman, you indicated you desired to stop 
at 12, and I think this is a good place. 

The Chairman. The committee will stand in recess and meet at 
2 o'clock. 

(Whereupon, at 12 noon, the committee was recessed to reconvene 
at 2 p. m., the same day.) 



1116 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIP. 

AFTERNOON SESSION— TUESDAY, JUNE 18, 1957 

(Committee members present: Kepresentatives Francis E. Walter, 
chairman; Gordon H. Scherer; and Robert J. Mcintosh.) 

The Chairman, The committee will be in order. 

Call your witness, Mr. Tavenner. 

Mr. Tavenner. I would like to recall Dr. Patten to the stand. 
Come forward, please, Dr. Patten. 

Mr. Edises. Barbara Sherwood, the widow of William Sherwood, 
is present, and she would like the privilege of making a statement 
to the committee at this time. 

The ChairMx\n. We will call the witnesses in accordance with our 
procedure. 

Mr. Edises. She is not a vritness and she has left four children 
at home. She has no time. She has to get back with them as quickly 
as possible. Her statement is very brief. 

The Chairman. We are proceeding in accordance with our 
program. 

TESTIMONY OF JACK (BEVERLY MIKELL) PATTEN— Resumed 

Mr. Tavenner. Dr. Patten, you have described to us the original 
setup of the Communist Party here in the city of San Francisco with 
regard to the Professional Section of the Communist Party. 

You have told us about the existence of certain professional cells 
of the Communist Party. Now, will you describe to the committee, 
please, what the functioning of those groups entails. Just what was 
their purpose, what they did during the course of your experience 
here in San Francisco. 

Dr. Patten. One thing that was expected — let me interrupt at this 
point and say if I use the present tense, it is unintentional because I 
know nothing of the functions of tlie Communist Party today. Any- 
thing I say is in reference to what I know of it at the time I was 
a member. 

At that time, it was expected that everyone who was a member 
would pay dues. That was the first requirement, which was funda- 
mental. At one time, if not all of the time I was in, the constitution 
required that a member belong to a labor union in his own field, if 
such union existed. 

As for activities, they varied with the occupations expected, vary- 
ing with the occupation of the individual, with the type of organ- 
ization, whether it was a professional or neighborhood club. 

In general, anyone in a position of importance or in a profession 
would not reveal his membership as a Communist. 

There were other activities in which all members would engage 
in such activities as fund-raising activities. They would have a party 
for the purpose of raising funds. Parties are most common social 
ali'airs — sometimes auctions, paintings or books or something like 
that. 

At times certain drives were conducted within the party for mem- 
bership, recruiting campaigns which were of one or the other type. 
They were either individual or mass recruiting activities. Most re- 
cruiting was done on an individual basis where members were re- 
quired to, or were expected to, be interested in recruiting people whom 



HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1117 

they met and they knew, with whom they worked, and recruiting 
them into the party. 

Mass recruiting was generally done as the aftermath of a public 
meeting, where the party leader would speak and most of the recruit- 
ing was an individual matter — at times conducted within the 
organization for selling subscriptions, perhaps, to the Daily People's 
World in order to get more people to read that paper. 

I do not know whether that type of thing answers your questions 
sufficiently, Mr. Tavenner. 

Mr. TA\'E]srNER. Was the membership given directions as to how 
they were to engage in work in mass organizations ? 

Dr. Patten. If there were general directions given, then they would 
be given on the basis of study of Marxist literature and the interpre- 
tation of that literature in the light of the organization at the time. 

There may have been specific cases where people were given in- 
structions in how to operate within an organization, certainly opera- 
tion of people within organizations was discussed from time to time 
in small groups, not necessarily in a club meeting. It would be quite 
natural for members of the Communist Party who all happened to 
be also members of some organization to discuss their functioning 
within that organization. 

Mr. Tavexxer. What control did the section group of the Commu- 
nist Party have over the activities of the members of the cell groups? 

Dr. Patten. I am not sure I know what you are referring to. 

Mr. Tavenner. Possibly it would be better to describe what the 
functions of the section group were. 

Dr. Patten. In party educationals ag I mentioned earlier, encour- 
aging activity along lines of recruiting and activity perhaps in a par- 
ticular organization, something like tliat. It was not uncommon at 
one time for the members of individual clubs to be encouraged, for 
example, to participate in activities of such organizations in your 
labor schools ; or perhaps even in a political campaign of a member 
of 1 of the 2 major political parties, to assist someone to be elected. 

Mr. Tavenner. During the course of the educational functions of 
the party cells, as you described a while ago, what emphasis was placed 
on the teaching of Marxist, Leninist, and Stalinist doctrines and 
principles ? 

Dr. Patten. That varied as an off-and-on proposition. I have to 
review just a little bit to explain and review, in a rough sort of a way, 
the history of the Communist Party in the United States, prior to, I 
believe, 1935. The Communist Party was operated very much along 
the lines of what was done in other countries. After 1935, the Seventh 
World Congress, when Dimitrov outlined the People's Front idea, 
efforts were then made to Americanize the Communist Party, to make 
it fit the American people's ideas more, to make it fit the American 
political structure, and so on. 

So, it became at times difficult to study and to teach some of the 
basic literature by Marx, Lenin, and so on, because it did not fit the 
particular period in American history unless it was translated into 
quite different terms. 

This was probably particularly true during the Second World War 
when the Communist Party was exerting its efforts in support of the 
war and the administration's various other programs at that time. 



1118 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did that effort in promoting the war take on the 
character of an effort to assist the United States as the primary objec- 
tive of the Communist Party or not ? 

Dr. Patten. To just give a "Yes" or "No" answer would pretty 
much be a reflection of my opinion, so I have to go into a little more 
detail, I believe. 

The Communist Party was active in support of the United States 
during the war, certainly. Members were expected to be active in war 
industries and in the Armed Forces, getting blood donations for over- 
seas uses, all sorts of things of that type. 

A^Hietlier tliis was solely for the jDurpose of furthering the war 
efforts of the United States or not, is a different question; and I know 
that I am stretching nothing when I say it was the opinion of people 
with whom I came in contact during that time who were not Com- 
munist Party members that every effort must be made to assist the 
Soviet Union. 

This could be because the Soviet Union was an ally of the United 
States, although I never heard such exuberance expressed for Great 
Britain. Great Britain was our ally, also, as well as many others. 
One might say the efforts to assist the Soviet Union were because that 
was the only way of being sure that we would win the war, too. 

However, the expression which I heard so often was that if the 
Soviet Union were to lose in the war against Germany that the whole 
advance of socialism throughout the world would be set back 100 
years or so, and that the Soviet Union for that reason must be 
preserved. 

I actually believe that all of the efforts toward the opening of a sec- 
ond front on the European Continent were primarily for that purpose. 
The cry was set up very early for opening a second front, not with 
the idea of assisting the United States in winning the war because 
we were actually occupied in two wars, but to sufficiently annoy the 
German Army so as to take pressure off the Soviet Union. 

Mr. ScHERER. Mr. Tavenner, what was the witness Klein's first 
name who testified in Kansas City? Do you recall his name? I re- 
member his last name was Klein. It does not make much difference. 
See if my recollection of his testimony is not correct, Counsel; I 
believe you were counsel at that time. 

Klein had been a functionary of the Communist Party and had 
broken with it. Pie was also a labor organizer. His first obligation, 
however, as he said, was to the Communist Party. As I recall, he was 
sent into Schenectady to organize the union at General Electric. 

We asked him why the Communist Party wanted to infiltrate and 
control the union at the General Electric plant in Schenectady. His 
answer was that if Soviet Russia was an ally, then production could 
be accelerated. On the other hand, if Russia was an enemy, then 
sabotage could be so much more easily accomplished. Is that your 
recollection of that testimony, Mr. Tavenner? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes, sir; that is substantially correct. 

What emphasis was placed upon allegience to the Soviet Union, as 
distinguished from allegience to the United States ? 

Dr. Patten. All I can do here is reflect my own feelings at that time 
because obviously there would be nothing published that said your 
first loyalty is to the Soviet Union. 



HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1119 

I do know this, though, that there was not any criticism. Never did 
I hear criticism of anything done in the Soviet Union. It would 
either be, if it were obviously something bad, then it would be labeled 
as an incorrect story. If it was something that one could not under- 
stand why it was done, then one either developed some rationalization 
for what was done or kept quiet about it. The biggest piece of keep- 
ing quiet occurred at the time of the signing of the Soviet-German 
Pact, prior to the full-scale opening of the Second World "War. 

When that occurred, the Communists were dumbfounded. We had 
no answer. That is not only rank and file membership, but there 
was no answer as far as I know in the Daily Worker for more than a 
clay afterwards. 

Now, as I recall, the excuse given by the editors there or someone 
on the Daily Worker was that they wanted the American people 
to have a chance to express themselves on this world-shaking event 
first before they explained it, but it seems pretty obvious to me and 
anyone else who is honest about it, they had no answer for it because 
they were not forewarned by the Soviet Union that this would take 
place or might take place. There was not the remotest possibility 
that said the beloved Stalin and the overt Hitler could join hands, so 
when it occurred no one had an answer for it, but no one would have 
said this is wrong. He would be out of the party very fast if anyone 
said that. 

Mr. Tavenner. That was because of the discipline of the Com- 
munist Party over its members ? 

Dr. Patten. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. There is one person, according to testimony, that 
I know of who did have an answer. Dorothy K. Funn, a school- 
teacher in the State of New York testified that at the time of entry 
into that pact, she was in attendance at a Communist Party school in 
the State of New York and the teacher, when first learning of the 
signing of the pact in the classroom, adjourned the class and told 
them to come back several hours later. 

They came back several hours later and the time of the meeting 
was adjourned again. The second time they came back his reply was, 
"If Stalin does it, it's right." 

Dr. Patten. That is the general idea ; yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. This witness also drew the analogy that what inter- 
national communism wanted would be done and followed in this 
country. From your observation, did you consider that what the 
Communist Party, as a whole, the international Communist Party de- 
sired would be followed by the Communist Party in the United 
States ? 

Dr. Patten. I can answer that question with a "yes." If you were 
observing such affairs in 1945, didn't you notice the Communist Party 
of the United States stopped being a political association and be- 
came a political party again; didn't you see it drop its 100 percent 
American facade and then become again more of an outspoken, thor- 
oughly lef twing organizaiton ? 

This was as a result of a French Communist criticism of the Amer- 
ican Communists, and I do not think Mr. Duclos made that up him- 
self. I think it was the result of conversations with others in the 
European Communist Party. 



1120 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 

There was a little bit of response or feeling among American Com- 
munists, not in the press but just in their conversations, "Who is this 
guy to tell us what to do," but that passed very rapidly, a matter of 
a day or so the wheels started turning to reorganize the Communist 
Party. 

Discussions were held within clubs on the Duclos letter and on 
the whole question of reorganization, with the reorganization and 
intensification of the revolutionary aspects of communism, as against 
the democratic processes that were attempted so much prior to that 
time. 

Mr, Tavenner. What was the effect that the Communist Party 
discipline that you mentioned a moment ago and the teachings of the 
Communist Party had upon you as far as your attitude toward the 
Soviet Union was concerned during the period of your membership 
in the Party ? 

Dr. Patten. It was quite severe. I do not think I am any exception 
there. I think other members of the Communist Party felt the same 
way, did the same mental gymnastics that I was doing all tlie time. 

We read literature from the Soviet Union quite frequently, cur- 
rent magazines. I can recall getting copies of a magazine called 
Soviet Literature. I did not get it quite regularly but quite often, 
reading articles in there on Shakespeare, some Soviet writer's inter- 
pretation of the intent of William Shakespeare in portraying certain 
characters. This was very odd for these writers to attribute to William 
Shakespeare some of the things which they were able to attribute to 
him, including class consciousness and a "man with a heart for the 
worker'' type of thing. But they were able to distort Shakespeare 
sufficiently in that direction. 

The reaction that I got after a few years of this type of satura- 
tion — in fact it did not even take a few years — the reaction was the 
acceptance of anything coming from the Soviet Union, whether it 
be a piece of literature or a political act or the trial of certain former 
members of its party and government, or whatever it might be. 

I know this to be a fact because I have an instantaneous reaction 
to dates, and even today, I have no feeling for that today. 

My first reaction when I see a newspa]3er story or hear a story 
of something which the Soviet Union has done, my first reaction, 
even now, for just a few seconds, is to try in my own mind to justify, 
to understand, and to condone what has been done. I Avant to em- 
phasize again that this last is only a few seconds, and then I go 
through the process of putting my head on straight again, but this 
condition one goes through within the Communist Party does distort 
one's thinking so much that it is a very difficult thing to change it. 

Mr. Tavenner. In the practices of the Communist Party, you would 
describe it as a conditioning process? 

Dr. Patten. Yes, sir, nobody as far as I know, ever told me, or 
I never heard them tell anyone else, that you will condone and sup- 
port anything that is done in the Soviet Union b}^ the Communist 
Party and the Soviet Union or by the Government of the Soviet 
Union. 

Nobody said that, but the Soviet Union was held up as a great ex- 
ample, as the hope of democracy and the hope of true democracy, not 
capitalism, the hope of free people throughout the world. Seldom 



HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1121 

would a speech made at a convention end without praise for the great 
leaders of the Soviet Union, This is standard. It is already ready- 
made to be put into any speech. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was it the practice in the professional cells in San 
Francisco for leaders of the Communist Party on a higher level to 
come to the cell meetings for ("he purpose of conducting what is usually 
referred to as educationals ? 

Dr. Patten. No, not to my recollection. There may have been ex- 
ceptions to this, but there would have been objections raised by some 
members to having anyone who is not a member of that particular 
club come in, even someone from another professional club ; the objec- 
tion would be raised. 

I may be wrong on that, but that is my own recollection. 

Mr. Tavenner. Why was there such an objection to other Com- 
munists coming into the meetings of the professional cells of the Com- 
m.unist Party 'i 

Dr. Patten. In order to get people to be members of the Commu- 
nist Party, protection had to be offered, protection from being exposed ; 
and if it was free and open for anyone from any other club to wander 
in and out, then they could not vouch for that assurance. 

Mr. Tavenner. There was a special effort, then, to keep the names 
of the membership of the professional cells secret as far as other party 
members were concerned ? 

Dr. Patten. Yes. I do not say it was always done in idle conversa- 
tion. One might have started name dropping, but the expressed desire 
was to avoid naming anyone else to anyone else outside your own 
group. 

When I first went into the Communist Party, people did not even 
use their right names. They would make up names for themselves 
or use the name of some person in political life. For example, a Com- 
munist might be giving himself the Communist name of the chairman 
of this committee and operate within the club under that name. This 
was gradually dropped by most people because the upshot was that 
you knew a man's right name anyway. 

Mr. Tavenner. Where people were in the same profession there 
would be no purpose served ? 

Dr. Patten. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. You spoke of work done in mass organizations. 
You take persons who were teachers and were members of the profes- 
sional cell of the Communist Party, were they expected to perform any 
special service in any mass organizations and, if so, what organiza- 
tions ? 

Dr. Patten. Of course, you are concerned more with San Francisco, 
and I cannot tell you too much about that because I was teaching on 
the college level where the logical organizations that one would belong 
to for semipolitical purposes would be the American Association of 
University Professors, and I saw no efforts made, at least on cam- 
puses where I was, to steer the American Association of University 
Professors in that direction. 

You will recall I said it was expected that every member be a mem- 
ber of his union, so it was expected that classroom teachers would be 
members of the American Federation of Teachers. 

I believe I even maintained my membership in that when I was 
teaching in college, although it served no purpose, because it was 



1122 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALtF. 

made up here in San Francisco of elementary and secondary teachers. 

Mr. Tavenxer. You indicated that ,you had knowledi^e of Com- 
munist Party objectives witliin certain teachers' unions and possibly 
at other places than in San Francisco. 

Dr. Patten. That is what I started sayin<x, realizin*^ that I could 
only tell a little bit about San Francisco, but when I first belonj^ed to 
the Communist Party for the first couple of years in the State of 
Washington, I was active, instrumental in forming a local of the Amer- 
ican Federation of Teachers in my own locality where it did no good, 
but we organized it anyway. I was secretary of the State Federation 
of Teachers. 

Mr. Tavexxer. That is in the State of AVashington ? 

Dr. Patten. In the State of Washington. The decision was made 
in a meeting of Communist members of the American Federation of 
Teachers in Seattle that I should run for the office of secretary when 
the State federation was formed or shortly thereafter, and I did run 
and was elected. That decision was made by a bunch of us. I think 
they arrived at my name b}^ the process of elimination. 

Mr. Tavex^x^er. You may be unduly modest about that. 

Dr. Patten, That brings up a question that you may be thinking 
of now or later you will : What purpose did the Communist Party, 
then or anytime when I was a member, have in attempting to capture 
and control labor organizations and other democratic organizations? 

Theoretically, no; theoretically, it was not the intent of the Com- 
munist Party, as I understood it, to control such organizations, to 
capture the chairmanship and all of that, and to hold all of the offices. 

Theoretically, the intent was to be influential within these organiza- 
tions, to help the officers of the organization and the organization as 
a whole move in certain directions on certain issues, but not to control. 

This did not always work out this way and, just as in the State of 
Washington, under the State Federation of Teachers there, I was 
executive secretary. Another Communist was president of the State 
federation. That is what too often happened. 

It is a lot easier to control yourself in a position like that than to 
exercise influence on a non-Communist who is holding those offices. 

Mr. Tavexxer. In what direction was that influence supposed to 
be used ? 

Dr. Pattex'. It varied. Sometimes getting an organization to pass 
a resolution in support of a piece of legislation ; sometimes getting an 
organization to sponsor a mass meeting, to lend its name to the spon- 
sorship of something ; sometimes it might be to get the organization to 
revise its structure so as to allow more people to come into it. For 
example, working within craft unions, it might have been efl'orts to 
get the craft unions to move along industrial organization lines — at 
least prior to the formation of the CIO that might have been true. 

Mr. Tavexxer. In short, it would be to carry out those objectives 
which the Communist Party had at the time. 

Dr. Patten. That is right. 

Mr. Ta\\exxer. In your position in the State of Washington, where 
you were secretary of a State organization, what advantage was that 
to the Communist Party, to have one of its members occupy such a 
position ? 



HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1123 

Dr. Fatten". I doubt if I had the list of all of the members of the 
various locals of the teachers' uuions, but I had a list of the officers and 
I knew influential people in the unions throughout the State. 

I was active in organizino; the union, where I could, and was able 
to initiate activities in behalf of something if I wished. I do not want 
to say anything against the American Federation of Teachers just 
because I happened to operate within it as a Communist. I do not 
want to malign the organization because I am sure it is, by and large, 
a thoroughly respectable and, in many instances, a well- functioning 
organization, beneficial to teachers. 

JNIr. Ta\^nner. I think I should state that it would be strange, in- 
deed, if the Communist Farty overlooked a strong organization such as 
the federations of teachers unions in its effort to infiltrate ; and we have 
had considerable testimony before this committee showing, in some in- 
stances, the success of the Communist Farty in its overall effort 
through teachers to capture particular chapters or locals. 

We have also learned of instances where it was a total failure ; their 
effort was, and we can point to testimony showing that the national 
organization ousted certain locals, like Local 5 in the city of Xew York 
and in the city of Fhiladelphia, because they had been captured. 

I, too, do not want to reflect upon the organization, as such. 'WHiat 
I am after is to try to find out the extent to which the Communist 
Farty would go in endeavoring to capture those organizations and 
"\^hat its purpose was. 

Mr. ScHERER. ]Mr. Tavenner, I think it can be said, in every instance 
where a local was taken over by the Communist Farty, the National 
federation expelled them. Is that not right ? 

Mr. Tavenner. I know they did it on a number of occasions and, no 
doubt, if they had learned of it in others, they would have taken the 
same action. 

Mr. ScHERER. Ferhaps I should amend my remark to say when they 
were aware of it, they acted promptly and vigorously. 

Dr. Fatten. To be more specific, I recall having written up a reso- 
lution to be acted on by the local of which I was a member in the 
American Federation of Teachers, getting other locals to adopt the 
same resolution, perhaps in order to introduce them in the State fed- 
erations of labor conventions or to introduce them in central labor 
councils to try to get them and their affiliated bodies to take like action. 

These were not matters pertaining to teacher welfare generally. I 
remember once a resolution had something to do with the University 
of Wiirttemberg. I am not sure I knew then what it was, but it was 
handed to me by someone. 

Mr. Tavenner. You mean by someone in the Communist Farty? 

Dr. Fatten. Yes. The Central Labor Council, in tlie town where I 
was, adopted it. I do not recall what happened, but it was dastardly 
what had taken place, and this was a resolution to condemn it. There 
were resolutions frequently passed endeavoring to free people, labor 
people, who were imprisoned, such as IMooney, King, Ramsay, Conner 
in California — that type of thing. 

In fact, I had a few little arguments with a member of the Ameri- 
can Federation of Teachers, with some of my colleagues, and a couple 
of fellow Communists in the State Federation of Teachers because 
I felt we should pay some attention to teachers, to textbooks, class- 
room problems, and so on, and make it a professional organization; 



1124 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 

and I was pretty much rebuked. I was a minority of one in that 
argument. 

Mr. Tavenner. Would you say that basically this proposition was 
that the Communist Party was more interested in those groups for 
the purpose of having them serve its purposes, than actually to help 
those teachers? 

Dr. Patten. Yes; as to make teachers "class conscious," to make 
them realize that they were members of the American working class 
and had something in common — thoroughly in common — with other 
wage workers, and the mere fact that they were professionals had 
nothing to do with it. 

Mr. Tavenner. Doctor, would you agree that such a man, and such 
a system, when established on such a large scale, would be one of 
the strongest methods of propagating doctrines or promoting the dis- 
tribution of propaganda that could be designed ? 

Dr. Patten. Yes. In very few cases in the times that I have knowl- 
edge of could a teacher have gone into his high school, say a high 
school classroom, and done a bang-up job of teaching virtues of life 
in the Soviet Union. 

I doubt if this would have been possible, but there were subtler 
ways of bringing in information to see that some child in the class 
would study about the Soviet Union, urging them not to take just the 
popular opinion, but investigate. 

That would have been the approach at times, and at other times, 
they may have omitted a study of something in order to avoid some- 
thing negative coming out and not have it studied at all. That is 
another technique which could be used very easily. 

I am merely reflecting here an opinion and somewhat my own 
knowledge, but I am not referring to any specific situation. I can 
refer to one, and it is only my own activity and nobody told me to do 
it, but at the time of the national election I had a high school study of 
all of the candidates, including Earl Browder. We even had an elec- 
tion and I think Browder had a couple of votes in the classroom. 

Mr. Tavenner. That brings up this subject, Doctor, and of course, 
I am asking you only to draw on your own experience and observations. 

Wlien a person has belonged in the Communist Party through all 
the degrees of training and experience which you have mentioned 
here and he is under the discipline of the Communist Party, will 
his teaching in the classroom be influenced by those beliefs which 
he has acquired, those doctrines with which he has been indoctrinated? 

Dr. Patten. In most instances, I think he would be bound to be 
influenced. Now, I say in most instances, because if you are teach- 
ing straight Euclidean geometry, it might be difficult to give it such 
a class angle ; but I would say, as a former teacher of literature, I was 
influenced to some extent in bringing in for my classroom pieces of 
literature wliich glorified the common man, and so on — which is fine 
and I am all for the common man — but I even said that Walt Whitman 
was the greatest American poet there ever was, and that never was my 
belief, and it still isn't. 

He was capable of writing a lot of words and occasionally writing 
well, but he was not a stupendous poet, as I described him, but that 
was because he was a great pusher for the common man. 

Mr. Tavenner. This committee has had extensive hearings on the 
West Coast in the field of entertainment and, bit by bit, it finally ob- 



HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1125 

tained information of the meeting of V. J. Jerome, the cultural head 
of the Communist Party, and certain important persons in the enter- 
tainment industry in Hollywood. At that meeting we were finally 
able to show that the position that was taken was that if you get into 
the field of screenwriters and they become dedicated Communists, it is 
bound to be reflected in the character of the work that they do. 

Is that about the same thing that you are telling us here in the 
teaching profession ? 

Dr. Patten. If you are a Communist and you see an opportunity to 
sneak in a good punch in the right direction, you do it wherever you 
are. Again, I am speaking of the Communist Party when I got into 
it. I know nothing of it now ; I don't even know that it still exists. 
I am being honest when I say I do not know anything about it. 

There is another point that I might mention since I have told you 
of my skulduggery teaching. In fact, I will mention a little recruiting 
job that I carried on of making use of a classroom. The statute of 
limitations has long ago expired on this, and I do not think I have 
ever told many people about it because, after a while, I was not so 
proud of it. 

When I was a teacher of workers education, I held a class in a 
little town in Snohomish County, Wash. It was not a town, it was a 
grain hall; and somewhere around some stump ranchers lived, small 
farmers, and they had a workers alliance organization because most 
of them were on WPA and belonged to the Workers Alliance. 

I got them to sponsor a workers education class. I was paid by the 
Federal WPA and, at the time of an election, I used that class to 
bring in representatives of all political parties. I think I started with 
the representative of the Republican Party and had him come and 
speak one night, and the next week I had a Democrat, and I ended up 
the whole series with a representative from the Communist Party who 
was a particularly good speaker, and at the end of his talk he passed 
out application cards, and one of the biggest branches in the Com- 
munist Party in the whole State was formed right that night. 

Mr. Tavenner. You called the Communist speaker last? 

Dr. Patten. Sure, you should call him last. You don't think I 
wanted them all to become Republicans. I do not know if that type 
of thing is being done very often. That is just one instance, though ; 
nobody told me it was wrong. 

Mr. Tavenner. Your experience has not been entirely unique. 
There have been others who have had the same experience. 

Dr. Patten. Wait a minute. Just a second, Mr. Tavenner. I do not 
want to reflect on any of my superiors in education or in WPA at 
that time, because I did not tell them in advance. I did not submit 
lesson plans to them for their approval, nor did I tell them after it was 
over what I had done. This was a course in economics, so I doubt if I 
could have gotten away with it if I had told tliem. 

Mr. Tavenner. I previously refeiTed to the testimony of Dorothy 
Funn, a teacher in the State of New York who was solicited to become 
a member of the Communist Party by another teacher. She became 
a very effective member of the party. She rose, finally, to the position 
where she was on a lobbying committee in Washington for an organiza- 
tion, along with many others. There she carried, on her Communist 
Party activities. 

94343— 57— pt. 1 4 



1126 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 

She left the Communist Party and she testified before this commit- 
tee, and this is Avliat she said about lier teacliino- : 

* * * you couldn't possibly be open to all of this propaganda at the time, 
believing in — believing that they were doing something that was really for the 
good of all, as well as for any group, without slanting your work in the class- 
room ; and I'm sure that I did, as well as others. 

Mr. Clardy. It colored your thinking? 

Mrs. FuNN. It colored your thinking completely, and I can look back now and 
think of some of my history classes. Although it was to 12- and 13-year-olds, 
I'm sure that I slanted it in line with Communist Party doctrine. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you acquainted with Dr. Bella V. Dodd? 

Dr. Patten. Yes: I met Dr. Dodd at a National Federation of 
Teachers meetino- in 1937 at Madison, Wis. I saw her for a few days 
then and that is the only time I have seen her. 

Mr. Ta\tenner. Was the Communist Party as active in the National 
convention in their attempt to g-ain the position of influence and con- 
trol as in the local grou])S ? 

Dr. Patten. Yes. We had several, I don't know how many, Com- 
munists at that convention. That was the only convention that I 
attended of the American Federation of Teachers, that one. 

Mr. Tavenner. Dr. Dodd was an organizer of the American Fed- 
eration of Teachers and became its legislative representative. She 
later became a member of the Communist Pai'ty and she held many 
high positions in the Communist Party, but she left the Communist 
Party and she is now practicing law in the city of New York. 

She testified before this committee as follows : 

The Communist Party organized teachers in practically every high school. 

She is speaking of New York — 

and in most of the elementai'y schools, and where there were elementary schools 
in which we didn't have free members, then you would associate 3 or 4 of the 
public schools together and establish a geographical unit. So you would have 
a network of units which were called shop units, actually working within the 
school, and then sending representatives to the county, and then sending rep- 
resentatives to the city. 

She testified that there were more than 1,500 teachers in the State 
of New York who were members of the Communist Party, She goes 
on to state in her testimony that you could not measure the effective- 
ness of their work by the numbers because of the energy with which 
they worked. 

Mr. Scherer. Did not Dr. Bella Dodd tell us, Mr. Tavenner, how 
these resolutions that this witness is telling us about were prepared 
in Communist Party headquarters, how telegrams that were addressed 
to public officials in different conventions were prepared in Com- 
munist Party headquarters and then sent out by this small group of 
Communists who had infiltrated the union ? 

Mr. Tavenner. That is correct and that reminds me, Mr. Con- 
gressman, of testimony of the same character with regard to labor 
unions. 

There, we discovered in connection with the activities of the labor 
union, the adoption of a certain resolution. A year or two later, 
through an investigation we were conducting — my recollection is 
either in San Diego or Los Angeles — we discovered tliat that resolu- 
tion was read at Budapest over the air and disseminated to all of the 



HEARINGS HELD EST SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1127 

Iron Curtain countries as the expression of views of labor in this 
country, when it was actuall}' prepared by the Communist Party. It 
is a type of insidious propaganda that I am talking about. 
Dr. Dodd also said this : 

The difficulty arises that when Communists take over a teachers' union they 
are not only interested in the economic welfare of the teachers but they begin 
to use the union for a political purpose, and that is where the real problem 
comes in because the Communists control the teachers' unions which they do 
infiltrate. 

That is the thing we have been talking about. 

Dr. Dodd then proceeded to tell the committee of the underlying 
purpose of the Communist Party as she understood it in the State 
of New York toward the teachers' union, and this is what she said: 

The Communist Party is not interested in unions per se just to Improve the 
working condition of the workers, and that includes the teachers as well as 
any other unions. 

In quoting Lenin she said : 

We are not interested in unions as reforming organizations, we are interested 
in unions as politicalizing institutions. 

Then she gave at the close of her testimony very fine advice to 
teachers generally which I will not read, but in which she pointed out 
their responsibilities. 

I have asked you these questions in order to point up the impor- 
tance of the role of a teacher. You have told us of your own experi- 
ences. In giving your testimony on this subject,, you indicated that 
you had a little knowledge of the actual operations of the Communists 
within the teacliers' union here. 

Am I correct in that ? 

Dr. Patten. Just a very little. At one time, over a period of a 
couple of months, I remember attending meetings of teachers who 
were Communists and members of the American Federation of Teach- 
ers for the purpose of trying to do something, putting something 
over within the local bureau of the American Federation of Teach- 
ers, and I do not remember in full what they were trying to put over. 

At one point, I remember the question of the local support of the 
California Labor School was an issue, and we met to plan strategy in 
that connection. As I recall — and this is just going on my mem- 
ory — but as I remember, the Central Labor Comicil was rather forc- 
ibly asking the AFL local to withdraw its support of the California 
Council. 

It was advantageous to have as many unions as possible in support 
of it, and the Communists felt that the support of the American Fed- 
eration of Teacliers local was important or that the removal of that 
support would be harmful. 

I do not know what the outcome of that was. I was unable to 
attend certain union meetings because of the hours they were held, 
so I did not know of the outcome. 

Mr. Tavexner. If I understand you correctly, the Communist 
members attempted to guide and direct the ultimate action in that 
case ? 

Dr. Patten. Yes, the officers were not members. 

Mr. TA^^ENNER. Not members of what ? 

Dr. Patten. Not members of the Communist Party. The officers 
of the union were not. 



1128 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 

Getting back to the national convention, we had meetings at night 
of the Communist members of the American Federation of Teach- 
ers at the Madison convention in 1937 ; the president, and so on, of 
the association, I am quite sure, were not members of the Communist 
Party, yet we met to decide who among us would take the floor on 
certain issues to speak on certain questions. 

Mr. Ta\tenner. Did you take the floor ? 

Dr. Patten. Yes ; I took the floor in support of the magazine. The 
magazine, the national organ of the American Federation of Teachers 
was under attack and, as I remember it, it was pretty much in the 
hands — its editorial stafl', I believe, pretty mucli was Local 5 in New 
York, and it was under attack by some other people throughout the 
country because of its left slant, and I got up and gave a pitch on 
behalf of preserving the editorial policies of the magazine. I think 
it was called the American Teacher. 

I do not believe everything I said was true, but it was evidently 
effective because the magazine was left in the same hands for the next 
year. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was that a Communist Party plan that you should 
perform that duty ? 

Dr. Patten. Yes; it was decided in a meeting of the Communists 
the night before who should speak. Of course, we were getting peo- 
ple to speak against the resolution which was condemning the maga- 
zine, getting people from various parts of the country, and I was 
from the West Coast. 

Mr. Tavenner, I want to say that I do not want anyone to feel that 
I think that everything we did was wrong. We supported a lot of 
good things, so just because we supported the war does not mean 
that the other side should have won, but there is always the question 
of the ultimate objective in the support of such aims. 

I would venture to sa}'^ that even today it would be probable that 
any good liberal cause that was started, say among a group of teachers 
or something, would find that it was geting support from Communists 
if they are following today substantially the same practices that they 
had before. 

The last time that I had anything political to do, the effect was 
such that I learned to stop opening my mouth about liberal ideas that 
I had, because I collected too many friends that I did not want. 

This may be contrary to the feeling which you have expressed be- 
fore, that many people — liberal minded people, educators in partic- 
ular — are afraid of expressing their liberal viewpoints because of the 
attacks which might be made upon them from the right and branding 
them as being Communists. That is not what I mean. I feel a fear 
of the support that I would get from tlie left. A good enough ex- 
ample of that was the loyalty oath case here in the State of California, 
particularly in the city of San Francisco. 

I do not want to get off into that now, but it is a good example of 
what happens when a few people take a position, a liberal position, on 
something and are then pushed headlong into, or efforts are made by 
the Communists to push headlong into, the areas where they have no 
desire to tread. 

Mr. Ta\'enner. Those remarks give rise to my asking you this 
question : The committee has heard it indicated at times by witnesses 
who were not frank with the committee as to their own activities, 



HEARINGS HELD EST SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1129 

that there could be no harm in an individual joining a Communist 
Party cell in a community and engaging in work in the community 
which sometimes is of a very fine character and studying Marxist lit- 
erature and things of that kind; that no harm can come of a thing 
of that kind. 

What is your reaction to that sort of a situation? What would 
you say as to whether or not a person is performing an injury to 
his country by merely doing that ? 

Dr. Patteist. A few months ago I told someone substantially that, 
someone who had known I had been a member of the Communist 
Party — I told someone a few months ago that I had been a mem- 
ber of the Communist Party, and I felt I did nothing wrong be- 
cause everything that we supported at that time was fine and dandy, 
the war, social security, WPA, all of those things ; higher wages, bet- 
ter working conditions were all honorable things to support, so I had 
the feeling that I had done nothing wrong. 

But I thought further about this, and I think you can say that 
only if you will take any split second of time that a person is a 
member of the Communist Party at a given moment, he may not be 
contributing toward detrimentals to the United States Government 
or its people, but if you add it all together, he is contributing. 

In the first place, if you are paying dues for the perpetuation which 
has as its ultimate objective the peaceful or violent overthrow of the 
present structure of our Government, I considered that that in it- 
self was a contribution, merely paying dues and sitting physically in 
meetings; but a member is also used to influence many other people. 

Maybe I never influenced anybody. I think my testimony thus 
far has been a little bit to the contrary. Maybe I have not influenced 
anybody toward doing anything wrong ; but the mere fact that some 
people not in the party knew that I was, would bring them closer 
to the adherence to party principles. 

Mr. ScHERER. You are trying to tell us. Doctor, that your position 
in the community in the field of education was such that you loaned 
your name and your prestige to the party? You do not have to be 
modest. 

Dr. Pattex. I would like to be modest. I do not have a whole lot 
of prestige, but I was probably having a little influence. The people, 
I think, who are used much more and are more to be pitied, are the 
people who are not in the Communist Party who have allowed their 
names from time to time to be used to sponsor some drive for peace 
which suited the Communist objectives and things like that. 

Those people have suffered a great deal because the. name is used first 
to support a committee for helping orphans, perhaps. Everybody 
wants to help orphans, but the next time it is a particular type of 
orphan. Before you are through, the names can be used in all sorts 
of different ways. I think you could probably list thousands of people 
in the United States who have been victims of this tactic and all of a 
sudden have awakened to find that they were supporting a paper 
organization, perhaps, which was taking a stand which they opposed 
and their name was already on the letterhead. 

The Chairman. I think we will take a recess at this point. 

(Brief recess.) 

The Chairman. The committee will be in order, please. 



1130 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 

You may proceed, Mr. Tavenner. 

Mr. Tavenner. Dr. Patten, the committee had before it in Los 
Angeles a witness by the name of Paul Orr. Are you acquainted with 
PaulOrr? 

Dr. Patten. I am acquainted with the name. I don't know if I have 
ever met him. 

Mr. Tavenner. In the course of his testimony, I presented him with 
an article from the Daily People's World dated in September 1944. 
This article proceeded to give the names of the officers and certain 
connnitteemen who had been elected in 1944 to positions in the Com- 
munist Party here in San Francisco. Are you familiar with the 
publication of that article? I have the date there now. It was Sep- 
tember 19. 

Dr. Patten. I was not familiar with the date, but I am familiar 
with the article that you speak of. 

Mr. Tavenner. How did it happen that the Communist Party noti- 
fied us through the pages of the People's World of the names of its 
officers and committeemen ? 

Dr. Patten. That was an error, a grievous error. 

Mr. Tavenner. A grievous error ( 

Dr. Patten. Yes. That is the only time, until this moment, that I 
have been exposed as a member of the Communist Party, through the 
People's World. I was elected to that committee along with the 
county committee, along with many other people whose names were 
proposed by someone higher up on the slate, and I think one name was 
added, or at least an eli'ort was made to add someone from the floor. 
Whether it was accomplished or not, I do not know. 

As I understood it, I was rather surprised, being an individual 
reader of the People's World — which I do not now road very reli- 
giously — I was very much surprised to see the list of all of the people 
who were elected to that. As I recall, at the time it was a full, true, 
and complete list of all the people who were elected ; and I asked some- 
one, and I was told that this was a mistake, that a partial list was 
prepared to turn over to the press of people who were known to be 
Communists who were operating in the open, but in editorial exuber- 
ance or reportorial exuberance, the representative of the People's 
World had put in the whole thing. ~\\1iether any mild form of liqui- 
dation followed that, I do not know. I took it as an accomplished fact 
and raised no further objection to it, although I know some people 
were unhappy at seeing their names listed. 

Mr. Tavenner. I am going to read those names to you as I have 
them here, and I would like you to tell the committee what you know 
about the Communist Party activities of those whose names are read 
and whether or not you personalh' know them to be members of the 
Communist Party, aside from the appearance of their names in this 
paper. 

Dr. Patten. Before you do that, Mr. Tavenner, I wonder if I might 
say something briefly. Until this point, I have named two people — 
well, I mentioned that I knew Bella Dodd, but you are the one who 
named her. I have named two people; one was the woman who re- 
cruited me into the Communist Party, and the other is myself. Now, 
here you are beginning to give me a list- — read names and you are 
asking me to identify them, which I will do, but I want to explain 



HEARINGS HELD EST SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1131 

to the committee why I am doing it. I am not doing it just for the 
pleasure of mentioning names. I am not doing it to injure anyone. 
If I am injuring Communist Party, that is fine, but I am not intending 
to injure any individual who was then a member of the Communist 
Party and is not now. The only point is this : 

If there be such people on that list, and I identified them as being 
Communists, and they feel hurt by this, then they have an easy alter- 
native which will cause them no harm, and that is to admit the cor- 
rectness of it, to admit the error of their former ways, and to state 
to you, Mr. Wheeler — or whomsoever they choose in authority on this 
matter — to state that they are no longer of this opinion, of these 
beliefs, and they will have done themselves a decided benefit and also 
benefited this committee and other bodies of the (jovernment which 
are seeking to stop Communist activities. 

If they cannot do that, then I can only feel that they are still 
sympathetic with the Communist Party if they are unwilling to go 
through with it. 

I am in an odd position here before this committee only because 
so many people have not been in this position. If a number of 
people in education alone throughout the United States who once 
were Communists and regret it, if all of those had come out and said 
so, the reaction would have been "That is interesting," and it would 
have been forgotten, because there would have been so many and some 
very outstanding people, I am sure, would be among them, who, for 
a brief period of time, were members of the Communist Party and who 
felt they were doing the right thing, but it is only because so many 
of those people have not that there is anything unique at all in my 
position. 

]Mr. Ta\t.nner. Doctor, there is nothing personal in our asking you 
to tell us whether a certain individual was known to you to be a mem- 
ber of the Communist Party. "We cannot investigate the extent and 
character of Communist Party activities without knowing who were 
in the Communist Party and obtaining what knowledge they are 
willing to give us of the activities of the Communist Party and that 
is the only purpose for asking you those questions. 

Dr. Patten. It is my understanding, particularly in view of refer- 
ences made earlier today to the most recent Supreme Court decision, 
it is my understanding that this committee is endeavoring to ascertain 
methods with which the Communist Party members have operated 
Avithin other organizations and professions. 

For me to speak theoretically alone and say they did this, they did 
that, and so on, is insufficient for me to speak of my own activity alone, 
which I am quite willing to do and have done so far, to illustrate 
points which I make, that is insufficient, because in some cases my own 
activit}^ was not there where things were done. 

Therefore, I have lied to you if I mentioned it. I am not intending, 
by the way, to use either the first or the fifth amendments. 

]Mr. Taat^nxer. The article proceeds as follows : 

"Officers elected for the ensuing j^ear at yesterday's county conven- 
tion of the Communist Political Association are : 

"President, Oleta O'Connor Yates." 

Dr. Patten. Oleta. 

Mr. Taat:nner. Oleta O'Connor Yates, Were you personally ac- 
quainted with her ? 



1132 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 

Dr. Patten. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. You knew her to be a member ? 

Dr. Patten. I knew her to be a member and I knew her to be a 
Communist before and after. 

Mr. Tavenner. "Vice presidents, Rudie Lambert and John Pitt- 
man." 

Dr. Patten. I knew them both. Rudie Lambert worked in the 
office of the Communist Party. I believe that was his sole activity 
at that time I knew him although he may during the war have had 
some other job. 

John Pittman was writer for, and later editor of, the People's 
World. 

Mr. Tavenner. "Secretary -treasurer, Clemmie Barry." 

Dr. Patten. I know Barry and when I knew her, she worked for 
the People's World. 

Mr. Ta\^nner. "County Committee, including officers above : Char- 
lotte Callahan." 

Dr. Patten. I recall the name only. I don't know whether I would 
recognize the person were I to see her. 

Mr. Tavenner. "June Stevenson." 

Dr. Patten. No. I say "No" as far as remembering the person. 

Mr. Tavenner. The next name appearing here is "Jack Patton." 

Dr. Patten. That is where they had me confused with the gentle- 
man. That is I. I saw in the misspelling the possibility at the time 
of denying it, but that was my name. 

Mr. TA^^ENNER. "Henry Massey." 

Dr. Patten. I don't know him. 

Mr. Tavenner. "Violet Orr." 

Dr. Patten. There again I could not be sure that I could identify 
Violet Orr if I saw her or if I saw a picture of her as she was then. I 
merely remember the name as being one that was quite frequently 
referred to. 

Mr. Tavenner. "Ray Irvine." 

Dr. Patten. No. 

Mr. Tavenner. "Archie Brown." There appears after that name in 
parentheses, "on leave to the armed forces." 

Dr. Patten. I knew him. I have heard him speak at meetings, open 
and closed. He was at one time State chairman of the Communist 
Party, I believe; but, of course, as you indicated there, he was in the 
Army at that time and hence was on leave from Communist duties in 
San Francisco. 

Mr. Scherer. Did I not understand you to say that when this list 
was covered in the People's World, it was a correct and accurate list 
of the officers who had been elected at that convention ? 

Dr. Patten. I knew at the time that it was and so, undoubtedly, 
knew these people, but I wanted to be absolutely truthful and where 
I do not remember I am saying so. 

Mr. Tavenner. "Ann Stout." 

Dr. Patten. I remember her appearance there but I have no idea 
what her activities were other than that. 

Mr. Tavenner. "Virginia Lindbergh." 

Dr. Patten. I would give the same reply there. I remember her. 

Mr. Tavenner. "Ernest Lavino." 



HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1133 

Dr. Patten. No, that means nothing to me. 

Mr. Tavenner. "Herbert Resner." 

Dr. Patten. Yes; I knew him. He was an attorney here in San 
Francisco. 

Mr. Tavenner. He was a member of the county committee with 
yon? 

Dr. Patten. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. Can you recall any of his activities on the county 
committee with you ? 

Dr. Patten. No. I can recall his presence, but this was a deliber- 
ative body, that is, we sat along a long table in the party office and 
discussed various plans of recruiting within the county and other 
activities, and reports from certain people, and so on, so I do not recall 
any activity which he undertook as a member of that committee, other 
than his presence. He is quite well known as an attorney, however. 

Mr. Tavenner. "Jackie McNeil." 

Dr. Patten. No, I can not identify him. 

Mr. Tavenner. "Tom Boylan." 

Dr. Patten. I do not believe I could identify him. 

Mr. Tavenner. "Walter Stack." 

Dr. Patten. Yes, I knew him first in Seattle and later I knew 
him down here. He was here as a Communist. I believe he was once 
a seaman. I am not sure on that, nor do I know what he was doing 
here, what occupation he followed. 

Mr. Tavenner. "Paul Orr." 

Dr. Patten. No ; there again it is just a name. 

Mr. Tavenner. "Ada S-m-o-l-a-n." 

Dr. Patten. Yes, I recall her ; and she, at some time when I knew 
her, worked in the Communist Party office, whether for pay or devo- 
tion, I do not know. 

Mr. Tavenner. "Dan M-a-h." 

Dr. Patten. Yes; I recall him. He is a Chinese-American. I do 
not know his occupation. I know he was active in the committee 
and so on. 

Mr. Tavenner. "Beatrice Kinkead." 

Dr. Patten. I did not know her as a member of the committee. I 
met her socially either before or after, but I did not know her as a 
member of the Communist Party. 

Mr. Tavenner. "Mack P-o-s-e-y." 

Dr. Patten. Yes, I recall him, but I cannot tell you anything more 
about him. 

Mr. Tavenner. When you say you recall him, what do you mean ? 

Dr. Patten. When I say I can recall him, I can make a picture 
in my head of such a person. In other words, I can recall what the 
person looked like, so to that extent I know him. If you asked me 
to actually recall Mr. Posey's sitting in the county committee meet- 
ing with me, I cannot. 

Mr. Tavenner. "Harvey Richards." 

Dr. Patten. Yes ; I recall him. There are some people I can recall 
seeing at the county committee meeting and he is one. 

Mr. Tavenner. He is one you can recall ? 

Dr. Patten. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. Can you tell us anything else about Harvey Rich- 
ards? 



1134 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 

Dr. Patten. I don't believe I can. 

Mr. Tavenner. "Leon Ka]:)lan." 

Dr. Patten. Yes ; I remember him quite well as a member of the 
committee. He was concerned with activities within the labor unions 
at that time. I lialfway recall that he was the party director of 
trade-union activities, but I could be mistaken on that. I do remem- 
ber his discussing union affairs at the county committee meeting. 

Mr. Tavenner. "Margery Pogue," P-o-g-u-e. 

Dr. Patten. Yes. She was secretary in private employment at 
least some of the time when I knew her. I recall her presence at the 
county committee meetings. 

Mr.' Tavenner. "M-i-n-i Carson." 

Dr. Patten. Yes ; I think she worked at the People's World also, 
if I am not mistaken. I knew her as a member of the committee. I 
have seen her in party activities. 

Mr. Tavenner. "A1 Yates." 

Dr. Patten. He was the husband of Oleta O'Connor Yates. I 
think he was a plumber, or something like that, and I remember him 
as a member of the county committee and as a member of the party. 

Mr. Tavenner. "Bill F-r-i-e-r-s-o-n." 

Dr. Pattex. Yes; I knew him well. I talked with him many times 
and I knew him as a member of the committee. 

Mr. Tavenner. "Lucy B-a-1-c-o-m-b." 

Dr. Patten. She was, some time when I knew her, office secretary 
in one of the party offices in the State or county. I knew her as a 
member of the committee. 

Mr. Tavenner. "Henry Seigel." 

Dr. Patten. I recall previous to that time meeting with him. It 
seems to me that when I got active in the Communist Party here in 
San Francisco that I took over a job that he had been running of 
collecting dues, or something of that sort. I think he was collecting 
dues. Now whether he was being relieved of that task to do some- 
thing else, I don't know. 

Mr. Tavenner. I am going to ask you if you were acquainted with 
1 or 2 persons who were in the teaching profession. "Were j^ou 
acquainted with Ned H-a-n-c-h-e-t-t? 

Dr. Patten. Yes. 

JNIr. Tavenner. He was a member of the teaching profession? 

Dr. Patten. He was a member of the Communist Party and he 
taught at that time, at the time I knew him, in South San Francisco 
somewhere. 

Mr. Ta\t:nner. Were you acquainted with John Horowitz, 
H-o-r-o-w-i-t-z ? 

Dr. Patten, Yes. He was a teacher when I was at City College, 
and he was there. 

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

Dr. Patten. Yes, although he was not too active. He did not 
attend meetings the way he should have all the time, and it worried us. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you acquainted with Jane Scribner? 

Dr. Patten. Yes, she was also a teacher at City College when I 
was there and she was also a member of the Communist Party, and 
she and John at sometimes were members of the same branch that 
I was a member of. 



HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1135 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Chairman, I believe that is all I desire to ask 
this witness at this time. 

The Chairman, iVll rio:ht, the witness is excused. 

You may call your next witness. 

Mr. Tavenner. j\Ir. Ned Hanchett, Edward L. Hanchett. 

The Chairman. Will you raise your right hand. 

Do you swear the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, 
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth ? 

Mr. Hanchett. I do. 

The Chairman. You may proceed, Counsel. 

TESTIMONY OF EDWAED L. HANCHETT, ACCOMPANIED BY 
COUNSEL, LAWEENCE SPEISEE 

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

Mr. Hanchett. My name is Edward L. H-a-n-c-h-e-t-t. 

Mr. Tavenner. It is noted that you are accompanied by counsel. 
Will counsel please identify himself for the record. 

Mr. Speiser. Lawrence Speiser, attorney at law, San Francisco, 
Calif. 

Mr. Tavenner. When and where were you born, Mr. Hanchett? 

Mr. Hanchett. Santa Tora, Calif., May iS, 1912. 

Mr. Tavenner. Where do you now reside ? 

Mr. Hanchett. In Mill Valley. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long have you lived in the State of California ? 

Mr. Hanchett. All my life. 

Mr. Tavenner. AVliat is your profession or occupation ? 

Mr. Hanchett. I am a schoolteacher. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee, please, what your edu- 
cational training has been for the practice of your profession? 

Mr. Hanchett. Yes, I will. I graduated from San Francisco State 
College in 1935 with a bachelor of arts degree in education. I at- 
tended the University of California with graduate work during 194^6 
and 1947 and briefly in San Francisco State College, which I believe 
was from 1948 and up. 1948 and 1949. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee, please, where you have 
practiced your profession? 

Mr. Hanchett. Yes. In 1935 to 1937 in San Bernardino College; 
in elementary, in 1935 to 1939 ; Santa Cruz County Elementary, teacher 
and principal, 1939 to 1942; junior high school teacher, Monterey 
County, 1943 and 1944 ; 1 year, I think. In South San Francisco High 
School, 1947; and high school in South San Francisco, 1948 to 1950: 
high in San Francisco, 1957; from February to the present time, 
teacher, at Marinwood Elementary School. 

Mr. Tavenner. I have been gratified to see from an issue of the 
press, the Examiner, of Tuesday, January 22, 1957, that although you 
had not taught since 1950 because of your refusal to sign the loyaltv 
oath, you had indicated that you were then willing to sign such nn oath. 

Mr. Hanchett. That is correct. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee whether or not, at the 
time of your indication that you were willing to sign this oath, you 
had left the Communist Party, and were no longer a member of it ? 



1136 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 

Mr. Haxchett. I wish to say, Mr. Tavenner and Mr. Chairman, 
that I am not now a member of the Communist Party, nor have I been 
since 1951. 

Mr. Tavenner. What date ? 

Mr. Hanchett. 1951. However, I should like to state that with 
respect to any questions concernino; any prior period to that date, I 
must respectfully refuse to answer on the f ollowino; grounds : 

First of all, the first amendment prohibits Congress from passing 
any laws infringing on freedom of speech. The mandate of this com- 
mittee is unconstitutional in authorizing it to investigate into an area 
in which the Constitution forbids it to legislate. 

Second, questions asked of me concerning my political beliefs or as- 
sociations abridge my right of freedom of speech and assembly pro- 
tected by the first amendment. 

Third, the inquiry of the committee and the purpose of this hearing 
are not for any valid legislative purpose mider Article I of the 
Constitution. 

The Chairman. You did not hear the statement made of the pur- 
pose of the hearing this morning, did you? 

Mr. Hanchett. I did, and I shall rest on the statements I am now 
making. 

They are solely to expose myself and others to publicity and ridicule 
and for the mere sake of exposure. 

Fourth, this committee s summoning of me is for the purpose of 
placing me on trial without any of the rights guaranteed me by the 
fifth and sixth amendments, which accord me the right to notice of 
any charges, the effective aid of counsel, right of cross-examination, 
and the presumption of innocence. 

Fifth, this committee's inquiry infringes on the rights retained by 
the people and the States under the 9th and 10th amendments. 

Sixth, this hearing and this committee's inquiries are unconstitu- 
tional infringments by the legislature into the jurisdiction of the 
judiciary, which has the sole power to place me on trial and inquire 
into my personal conduct, or associational activity. 

Seventh, under the fifth amendment I cannot be compelled to be a 
witness against myself. 

I must respectfully decline to answer that question upon all the 
grounds previously stated. 

Mr. Ta%t:nner. You have made a very long statement as to why you 
will not answer other questions. 

My question to you was whether or not you were a member of 
the Communist Party at the date of the publication of the article that 
I referred to. I am not sure that you answered. 

Mr. Hanchett. Indeed I have. 

Mr. Tavenner. You answered it, but then the rest of your statement 
was in relation to questions you think I am going to ask. 

Mr. Hanchett. That is correct. 

Mr. Tavenner. Well, now, let's come down to some specific ques- 
tions. 

You stated that you had not been a member of the Communist Party 
since 1951. Have you any knowledge of Communist Party activities 
on the part of any individual in the field of education since 1951, dur- 
ing the period you have not been a member of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Hanchett. I do not. 



HEARINGS HELD IN S.\N FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1137 

Mr, Tavenner. Is that because you had no connection with the Com- 
munist Party yourself ? 

Mr. Hanchett. That is correct. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee, please, what type of 
activity the Communist Party was interested in with teachers prior 
to 1951? 

Mr. Hanchett. Excuse me. I respectfully refuse to answer this 
question on all the grounds previously stated. 

The Chairman. "Wliat criminal prosecution do you think could be 
lodged against you for anything that you did before 1951 ? 

Mr. Hanchett. Mr. Chairman, it is not up to me to justify my use 
of any of the rights given to me as an American. 

The Chairman. That is true, but it is the duty of every American 
to contribute as much as he can toward the preservation of this great 
Republic. It seems to me you would be very anxious to tell this com- 
mittee what the objectives of the Communist Party were during the 
period I think you were a member. 

Go ahead, Mr. Tavenner. 

JVIr. Tavenner. Will you tell us whether or not you refused to sign 
a loyalty oath at the school in which you were employed as a teacher ? 

Mr. Hanchett. I did. 

Mr. Tavenner. What was the date ? 

Mr. Hanchett. 1950. 

Mr. Tavenner. 1950? 

Mr. Hanchett. That is correct. 

Mr. Tav^enner. What school was that at which you taught at the 
time? 

Mr. Hanchett. The High School of Commerce, San Francisco. 

Mr. Tavenner. It is noted that within the short period from 1950 
to 1951 that your answers are quite different or changed quite a bit. 
Wliat occurred between 1950 and 1951 which permits you now to say 
that you are not a member of the Communist Party and prior to 1951 
you will not tell us anything about it ? Did something occur ? 

Mr. Hanchett. For one thing, sir, the oath which I refused to sign 
did not mention the Communist Party. It referred to organizations 
which advocated the overthrow of the Government by force. 

The Chairman. You do not think the object of the Communist 
Party is anything else but that ? 

Mr. Hanchett. I have never belonged to any organization that 
advocated the overthrow of the Government by force. 

The Chairman. Did you ever belong to the Communist Party? 

Mr. Hanchett. I answered your question previously by making a 
statement. 

Mr. Tavenner. That is, that you refuse to answer. 

Mr. Hanchett. That is correct. 

Mr. Tavenner. At the time that you arrived at the decision not to 
sign the oath requested of you, or required of you, did you consult 
the leadership of the Communist Party in San Francisco as to what 
action you should take ? 

Mr. Hanchett. No, I did not. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you become a member of an organization 
known as the Joint Action Council for Repeal of the I^evering Act 
which opposed the loyalty oath requirement? 

Mr. Hanchett. Not to my knowledge I did not, sir. 



1138 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 

Mr. TA^^ENNER. Do you know of any Communist Party activity 
within any group organized to oppose the signing of loyalty oaths ? 

Mr. Hanciiett. No, I do not. 

Mr. Tavenner. You began teaching in 

Mr. ScHERER. Let me interrupt. 

Witness, did you withdraw from the Communist Party so you 
could sign that loyalty oath without committing perjury? Is that 
your reason ? 

Mr. Hanchett. Mr. Scherer, I believe you are assuming something 
that is not in evidence here. 

Mr. Scherer. Is my assumption correct or untrue ? 

Mr. Hanchett. I shall have to refuse to answer that question. 

Mr. Scherer. I put it to you as a matter of fact and ask you to 
affirm or deny that you withdrew from the Communist Party so that 
you could sign the loyalty oath. 

Mr. Hanchett. Mr. Scherer, this committee, in my mind, is a com- 
mittee supposed to find out the facts and not base anything on as- 
sumptions. 

The Chairman. That is what we are trying to do. 

Mr. Scherer. I ask that you direct the witness to answer that 
question. 

The Chairman. I direct you to answer that question. 

Mr. Hanchett. I refuse to answer on the grounds previously 
stated. 

The Chairman. That means you are invoking the fifth amend- 
ment? 

Mr. Hanchett. I am relying on all of the objections I previously 
mentioned. 

Mr. Tavenner. You stated that the Congressman was predicating 
his question to you upon an assumption which was not in evidence 
here regarding your Communist Party membership. You were pres- 
ent, weren't you, when Dr. Patten testified a few minutes ago ? 

Mr. Hanchett. Yes, I was. 

Mr. Tavenner. Dr. Patten testified that you were a member of the 
Communist Party to his knowledge, so it is a matter that is in evi- 
dence ; and what I am trying to ask you is to give this committee the 
benefit of such laiowledge you have acquired while a member of the 
Communist Party, if you were a member ; if you were not a member, 
then say so. So let me ask you: Were you a member of the Com- 
munist Party at any time between 1943 and 1948 ? 

Mr. Hanchett. I refuse to answer on the grounds previously stated. 

Mr. Scherer. Was Dr. Patten telling the truth when he told the 
committee j^ou were a member of the Communist Party or was he 
Ijdng ? 

Mr. Hanchett. The best vehicle for determining the truth is cross- 
examination, and I should like to request that my attorney be given 
the right to cross-examine this witness. 

Mr. Scherer. I ask you to direct the witness to answer the question, 
was Dr. Patten lying or telling the truth ? 

The Chairman. You are directed to answer that question. 

Mr. Hanchett. I shall refuse to answer on the grounds previously 
given. 

Mr. Tavenner. You are a member of the teachers' union now? 



HEARINGS HELD EST SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1139 

Mr. Hanchett. No, I am not. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you a member of the teachers' union prior to 
1950? 

Mr. Hanchett. Yes, I was. 

Mr. Tavexner. Over what period of time were you a member ? 

Mr. Haxchett. Intermittently from 1937 to 1951, 

Mr. Ta\:enner. Were you the recipient of any office in the teachers' 
union ? 

Mr. Hanchett. Yes ; at one time I held the vice presidency in San 
Francisco. 

Mr. TA^'ENIs'ER. During what period of time ? 

Mr. Hanchett. I think it was about 1917. 

Mr. TA^'ENNER. At the time you were a vice president, were you a 
member of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Hanchett. I refuse to answer on the grounds previously stated. 

Mr. TA^'ENNER. Were there other members of the teaching profession 
in the Federation of Teachers who were known to you to be members 
of the Communist Partv '? 

Mr. Hanchett. I did not Imow any such people. 

Mr. TA^■EIsrls^ER, I am not sure that you understood my question. 
Were there any members of the teachers' union who were known to 
you to be members of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Hanchett, I understood your question, and my answer was that 
I did not laiow such persons. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you participate in any meeting of the Com- 
munist Party at which the problems of the teachers' union were 
discussed ? 

Mr. Hanchett. I refuse to answer on the grounds previously stated. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you participate in the activities of the Cali- 
fornia Labor School prior to 1950? 

Mr. Hanchett, I refuse to answer on the ground previously stated. 

Mr, Tavenner, I have here before me a copy of the catalog for the 
year 1918 in which you are listed as a teacher of physics at that school. 
Did you teach at that school the subject of physics or any other subject 
during the year 1948 or any other year ? 

Mr. Hanchett. I refuse to answer on the grounds previously stated. 

Mr, Scherer, Is that catalog in error in reporting you as such a 
teacher ? 

Mr, Hanchett. That question I also refuse to answer. 

Mr, Tavenner. Will you tell the committee, if you know, what the 
numerical strength of the Professional Section of the Communist 
Party was in San Francisco in 1950 and 1951 ? 

Mr. Hanchett. I don't know, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner, Will you tell the committee what the approximate 
size in numbers was of any group or cell of the Professional Section ? 

Mr, Hanchett, I do not know. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you a member of the Professional Section of 
the Comunist Party in San Francisco? 

Mr, Hanchett, May I request the pertinency of this question, sir? 

Mr, Ta\t:nner, Yes, The pertinency of the question is the subject 
that we are discussing, which is the strength and the extent of activities 
of the Communist Party within the professions in the city of San Fran- 
cisco, For such bearing as it would have on the Imowledge that the 



1140 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF, 

committee seeks with reference to the need for legislation, looking pos- 
sibly toward the doing away with the Communist Party and making 
it a violation of the law, the very existence of the Communist Party, 
as such. 

If you were to answer the question asked, the committee, of course, 
would inquire further as to your knowledge of Communist Party 
activities in the cell about which we are inquiring. Therefore, it is 
important for the committee to have an answer to your question, both 
as preparatory to other questions and for the purpose of under- 
standing better the constitution of that group. 

Mr. ScHERER. You did not expect him to answer that, Mr. Tavenner, 
did you, after stating the pertinency ? 

Mr. Hanchett. Would any further questions you might have, Mr. 
Tavenner, involve a request for me to name the names of other people ? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes, I am not going to make terms with you or any 
other witness as to what questions I would ask as a bargain for your 
answering any question that I propose. 

Mr. Hanchett. Then, on that basis, I must respectfully refuse to 
answer on the ground previously stated. 

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

Yes, I do have one other question. 

Why did you leave the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Hanchett. I must refuse to answer that question on the grounds 
previously stated. 

The Chairman. The witness is excused. 

Call your next witness. 

Mr. Tavenner. John Horowitz. 

The Chairman. Mr. Horowitz, will you raise your right hand, 
please. 

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

Mr. Horowitz. I do. 

Mr. Speiser. May I request that this witness not be televised, at his 
request. 

The Chairman. The television sets will be shut off. 

Proceed, Mr. Tavenner. 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN HOROWITZ, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 
LAWRENCE SPEISER 

Mr. Tavenner. What is your name, please ? 

Mr. Horowitz. John H-o-r-o-w-i-t-z. 

Mr. Tavenner. It is noted that the same counsel accompanies this 
witness as the previous witness. 

When and where were you born ? 

Mr. Horowitz. In New York City, 1906. 

Mr. Tavenner. Where do you now reside ? 

Mr. Horowitz. In San Francisco. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long have you lived in San Francisco ? 

Mr. Horowitz. Since about 1937. 

Mr. Tavenner. What is your profession or occupation ? 

Mr. Horowitz. I was a teacher but T have not tauglit for the last 
year and a half except private tutoring. 



HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1141 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee, please, what your for- 
mal educational training has been for your profession ? 

Mr. Horowitz. I received my bachelor of arts degree at UCLA in 
1927, my master of arts at Harvard in 1939, and I attended the Univer- 
sity of California as a teaching psychologist from 1931 to 1933. 

Mr. Tavenner. Where have you taught besides the State of Cali- 
fornia ? 

Mr. Horowitz. Nowhere. 

Mr. Ta\^enner. When did you begin teaching in California ? 

Mr. Horowitz. I began the teaching fellow at the University of 
California at Berkeley in 1931. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long did you remain there ? 

Mr. Horowitz. For 2 years, from 1931 to 1933. 
^ Mr. Tavenner. Where have you taught since that time ? 
■ Mr. Horowitz. I have taught, for remuneration, at the Univer- 
sity of California, the extension division, from about 1934 to 1937; 
the City College of San Francisco from 1935 to 1950; the Drew 
School from 1951 to 1956. 

Mr. Tavenner. I notice that you stated, as you were enumerat- 
ing places, that you taught for remuneration. Were there any places 
at which you taught that were not for remuneration ? 

Mr. Horowitz. I refuse to answer that question and similar ques- 
tions on the following grounds : 

Questions put to witnesses concerning beliefs and expressions or 
associations infringe upon their rights of freedom of speech and as- 
sembly 

The Chairman. Let me interrupt you here. Here you have not 
been asked anything at all about your beliefs. You were merely 
asked about where you taught and not about your beliefs. This is 
not a responsive answer. Answer the question, Where did you teach ? 

Mr. Horowitz. I refuse to answer on the basis of the first and fifth 
amendments. 

The Chairman. All right, go ahead, Mr. Tavenner. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Horowitz, we have been inquiring about the 
organization and activities of professional groups of the Communist 
Party within this general area. Were you at any time an educational 
director of a branch of the Professional Section of the Communist 
Party? 

Mr. Horowitz. I refuse to answer on the grounds previously stated. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you in a position to advise the committee of 
the activities of professional groups in the Communist Party as of 
today ? 

Mr. Horowitz. I refuse to answer on the ground previously stated. 

Mr. Tavenner. During the period that you were a teacher as you 
described, were you a member of the teachers' union ? 

Mr, Horoavitz. I refuse to answer on the grounds previously stated. 

Mr. Scherer. I ask that you direct the witness to answer the ques- 
tion. 

The Chairman. Yes. You are directed to answer that question. 

Mr. Horowitz. Pardon? 

The Chairman. You are directed to answer that question. 

Mr. Horowitz. Was I a member of the teachers' union ? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. HoROWTTz. May I consult my attorney ? 

94343— 57— pt. 1 5 



1142 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Horowitz. Yes, I was a member of the teachers' miion. 

Mr. Tavenner. Over what period of time ? 

Mr. Horowitz. Approximately from 1937 to 1940 and sporadically 
after that. 

Mr. Tavenner. What do you mean by "sporadically?" 

Mr. Horowitz. I was for a short period, I believe, in 1950. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you also for a period in 1948 ? 

Mr. Horowitz. Not that I recall. 

Mr. Tavenner. What local of the teachers' union was it of which 
you were a member ? 

Mr. Horowitz. I bebeve it was Local No. 31 in San Francisco. 

Mr. Tavenner. TVliere is that located generally ? 

Mr, Horowitz. It met at the time I was associated with it, it met 
at various public schools and the Public Health Building. 

Mr, Tavenner. How many locals were there at that time in San 
Francisco ? 

Mr. Horowitz. As far as I know, that was the only one. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell us please whether Mr. Ned Hanchett 
was vice president of it at a time when you were a member? 

Mr. Horowitz. Not when I was a member. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was he a member of that local while you were a 
member ? 

Mr. Horowitz. May I consult my attorney ? 

I claim the privilege of the first and fifth amendments on that 
question. 

Mr. Tavenner. That is difficult to understand in view of your 
response to my first question. You said he was not vice president, 
that you could recall, while you were a member; and I asked you 
whether he was a member of it, and you claimed the first and fifth 
amendment. That is not logical certainly. 

Why is it that you deny Imowledge of his vice presidency and you 
refuse to testify whether he was a member ? "V\niat is your reason for 
that ? What is the basis of that ? 

Mr. Horowitz. I will stand on my claim. 

Mr. Tavenner. Is it because you suddenly realized that Mr. 
Hanchett has testified earlier that he did not know anybody else in 
the teachers' union who was a member of the Communist Party ? Isn't 
that the reason that you suddenly changed your line of answering to 
my questions ? 

Mr. Horowitz. I claim the privilege. 

The Chairman. By that you mean you invoke the fifth amendment? 

Mr. Horowitz. The first and fifth amendments. 

Mr. Tav-enner. Did you know any members of your local who were 
also members of the Communist Party? 

Mr. Horowitz. I invoke the first and fifth amendments. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee what it was the Com- 
munist Party was attempting to do with regard to the teachers' union 
in San Francisco, if anything ? 

Mr. Horowitz. I invoke the first and fifth amendments. 

Mr. Tavenner. How many cells of the Professional Section of the 
Communist Party were there in San Francisco ? 

Mr. Horowitz. I invoke the first and fifth amendments. 



HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1143 

Mr. Tavenner. What cell was it that you were a member of, if any ? 
Mr. Horowitz, I invoke the first and fifth amendments. 
Mr. Tavenner. Are you a member of the Communist Party now? 
Mr. Horowitz. I invoke the first and fifth amendments. 
Mr. Tavenner. I have no further questions. 
The Chairman. The witness is excused. 
Call your next witness. 
Mr. Tavenner. Jane Scribner. 

The Chairman. Will you raise your right hand, please. 
Do you swear that the testimony that you are about to give will be 
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 
Miss Scribner. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF JANE SCRIBNER, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 
WILLIAM COLLINS 

Mr. Tavenner. What is your name, please ? 

Miss Scribner. Jane Scribner. 

Mr. Tavenner. Spell your last name, please. 

Miss Scribner. S-c-r-i-b-n-e-r. 

Mr. Taatsnner. It is noted that you are accompanied by counsel. 
Mr. Counsel, please identify yourself for the record. 

Mr. Collins. William Collins, attorney, member of the California 
State Bar and the San Francisco Bar Association. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you a native of California ? 

Miss Scribner. lam. 

Mr. Tavenner. Where do you now reside ? 

Miss Scribner. Sausalito, Calif. 

Mr. Tavenner. Have you lived in California all your life ? 

Miss Scribner. I have with the exception of a brief period during 
my schooling as an undergraduate in Cambridge, Mass. 

Mr. Tavenner. What is your profession or occupation ? 

Miss Scribner. Medical secretary. 

Mr. Tavenner. Medical secretary ? 

Miss Scribner. That is right. 

Mr, Tavenner, Have you practiced any other profession or trade ? 

Miss Scribner, I have been a teacher and a bacteriologist. 

Mr. Tavenner, Over what period of time were you a teacher? 

Miss Scribner, The major time was the fall of 1941 to November 
of 1950, plus some additional time during approximately 1935 or 1936 
as a teaching assistant at the University of California. 

Mr, Tavi^inner, Will you tell the committee, please, what your for- 
mal educational training has been in preparation for the teaching 
profession ? 

Miss Scribner. I received the bachelor of arts degree from Kadcliffe 
College in Cambridge, Mass., in 1933. The doctor of philosophy 
degree from the University of California, granted in 1937. 

Mr, Tavenner. What teaching assignments have you had in the 
State of California ? 

Miss Scribner, My appointment as a teacher, as I mentioned, was at 
City College in 1941 until 1950, with the exception that I noted as a 
teaching assistant, 

Mr. Tavenner, What was the reason for terminating your teaching 
experience ? 



1144 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 

Miss ScRiBNER. I resigned my teaching position, 

Mr. Tavenner. What was the date of your resignation ? 

Miss ScRiBNER. It is difficult for me to give the exact date. It was 
approximately a year after November 1950, or thereabouts. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee, please, whether prior 
to your resignation in 1950 you were in a position to have knowledge 
of the activities of the Communist Party within the professionals m 
the city of San Francisco? 

Miss ScRiBNER. I object to the question and also to this hearing on 
each and all of the following grounds, and there are four grounds : 

1. The subpena served on me, the committee's authorizing resolution, 
and also the subject of this investigation as announced in the oral 
opening statement to the committee do not define its authority and do 
not inform me of the nature, purpose, extent, and limitation of this 
hearing or of the matters to which I am to testify, or inform me of the 
nature and cause of any accusation which has been brought against me, 
or give me a reasonable period of time within which to answer any 
such accusation, but placed me on trial and deprives me of the right 
to being confronted with witnesses against me, of the right to cross- 
examination, of the presumption of innocence, and of the right to the 
effective assistance of counsel for my defense. 

Each and all of which said things deprive me of the due process 
of law guaranteed to me by the fifth amendment of the Constitution of 
the United States and of the rights guaranteed to me by the sixth 
amendment of the Constitution of the United States. 

The Chairman. Let's get the record straight. You are not charged 
with anything and no one is charged with anything. We do not con- 
duct a trial. This is a congressional inquiry. 

Miss ScRiBNER. I am making a statement of my objections to the 
question. 

2. It is an attempt to inquire into private affairs unrelated to a valid 
legislative purpose and exceeds the power lodged in Congress by Arti- 
cle I of the Constitution and constitutes an unlawful exercise of the 
exclusive power lodged in the judiciary by Article III of the Constitu- 
tion, and of law enforcement power lodged exclusively in the executive 
by Article II of the Constitution, and it also denies and disparages 
rights retained by the people as guaranteed by the ninth amendment of 
the Constitution, and also usurps the power reserved to the States or to 
the people by the tenth amendment of the Constitution. 

3. It is an unlawful attempt to compel me to divulge information 
concerning my political beliefs, opinions, and activities and associa- 
tions, and those of other persons, and to cause injurious publicity to 
me and to them, and to expose me and them to public contempt, hatred, 
and ridicule in violation of the power lodged in Congress by Article I 
of the Constitution. 

4. It constitutes an abridgment of the freedom of the speech and 
expression and of the freedom of the press and of peaceable assembly 
and association guaranteed to me by the first amendment of the Con- 
stitution. 

Mr. Ta^^nner. May I have a direction that the witness answer the 
question ? 

The Chairman. You are directed to answer the question. 
Miss ScRiBNER. May I ask for a repetition of the question ? 



HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1145 

The Chairman. Read the question, please. 

Miss ScRiBNER. May I 

The Chairman. What did you think you -were answering when you 
read that piece of paper ? May I ask what question you thought you 
were answering ? 

Miss ScRiBNER. Yes ; I asked for a repetition of the question. 

The Chairman. You gave a rather lengthy answer to something, 
and I just wondered what j-ou thought you were answering. 

Will you read the question, please. 

(Question read by the reporter.) 

Miss ScRiBNER. I decline to answer the question on each and all of 
the grounds I previously stated as grounds of my objections to the 
question and to this hearing, and also on the additional ground that 
I cannot be compelled to be a witness against myself in violation of 
the provisions of the fifth amendment of the Constitution of the 
United States. 

Mr. TA^^:NNER. Do you contend, honestly, that to answer that ques- 
tion truthfully might tend to incriminate you ? 

Miss ScRiBNER. The committee has no authority to cross-examine 
me on the claimed privilege. It is an interference with judicial powers. 

Mr. ScHERER. The courts have said that if there is a question 
whether j'ou invoke the fifth amendment properly or in good faith, 
we must ask whether you honestly believe that to answer the question 
may tend to incriminate you, so we are following out the mandate of 
the court when we ask you whether to honestly answer the question 
might tend to incriminate you, so we do have a. right and a duty to 
ask that question. 

Miss ScRiBNER. I shall consult my attorney. 

Mr. ScHERER. In fact, the courts say you must answer "Yes" or "No" 
to that question, otherwise you might place yourself in contempt. 

Miss ScRiBNER. I asserted my privilege under the fifth amendment 
and I am relying on that claimed privilege. 

Mr. Ta\^nner. Will you tell the committee, please, whether or not 
you have been in a position to have knowledge of activities of the 
professional cell of the Communist Party at any time since 1950, that 
is, professional cells in the city of San Francisco ? 

Miss ScRiBNER. I have no knowledge of that. 

Mr. Ta\tnner. Since 1950 ? 

Miss ScRiBNER. That is correct. 

Mr. Ta\^enner. What is the reason for your answering my question 
as to the period of time since 1950 and a refusal to answer the identical 
question prior to 1950 ? 

Miss ScRiBNER. I decline to answer the question on each and all of 
the previously stated grounds of my objections to questions and as 
gi'omids previous stated for my reasons for refusing to answer ques- 
tions. 

Mr. Tavenner. Am I correct in assuming, in light of your testi- 
mony, that you have no information regarding the activities of the 
Communist Party within the professionals in San Francisco since 
1950 because you have not been a member of the Communist Party 
since 1950? 

Miss ScRiBNER. I am not a member of the Communist Party, and I 
was not a member of the Communist Party in 1950. 

The Chairman. Since 1950? 

94343— 57— pt. 1 6 



1146 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 

Miss ScRiBNER. I was not a member in 1950. 

Mr. Tavenner. Have you been a member of the Communist Party 
between 1950 and the present date ? 

Miss ScRiBNER. I object to the question and also to this hearing on 
each and all of the grounds previously stated as announced to my 
objections and grounds to questions asked at this hearing. 

Mr. ScHERER. I ask the chairman to direct the witness to answer 
the question. 

The Chairman. You are directed to answer that question. 

Miss ScRiBNER. I decline to answer the question on each and all of 
the grounds previouslj^ stated as grounds of m}^ objections to ques- 
tions, and as grounds previously stated for my refusal to answer 
questions. 

The Chairman. Including the fifth amendment, of course ? 

Miss ScRiBNER. The grounds included that. 

Mr. Tavenner. This is really a strange situation. You say you are 
not a member of the Communist Party now, and you were not a mem- 
ber in 1950, and you will not testify prior to 1950 and you will not 
testify to the period between 1950 and the present time. It is neces- 
sary to analyze that a little bit further. For what period of time was 
it, beginning in 1950, that you were not a member of the Communist 
Party? 

Miss Scribner. Since there appears to be some confusion in this 
matter, on the date in 1950 at which date shortly thereafter I re- 
signed my teaching position, I shall state that I am not a member of 
the Communist Party now and was not from January of 1948. 

Mr. Tavenner. Have not been since January 1948 ? 

Miss Scribner. That is correct. 

Mr. Tavenner. Thank you very much for clearing that up. 

Mr. Collins. I think she wishes to include the prior questions with 
respect to 1948. 

Mr. Tavenner. You may proceed with any explanation you desire 
to make. 

Miss Scribner. I am not now a member of the Communist Party. 

Mr. Tavenner. We understood that. 

Miss Scribner. And I have not been at any time since January 1, 
1948. 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes ; we have understood that. 

Prior to January 1948 were you a member of the local teachers' 
union? 

Miss Scribner. I object to the question and also to this hearing on 
each and all of the grounds previously stated as grounds for my ob- 
jections to questions asked. 

Mr. Tavenner. May I have a direction that the witness answer? 

The Chairman. Yes ; I direct you to answer that question. 

Miss Scribner. I decline to answer the question on each and all of 
the grounds previously stated, as grounds of my objections to ques- 
tions and as grounds previously stated for my refusal to answer ques- 
tions. 

The Chairman. All right, go ahead, Mr. Tavenner. 

Mr. Taatenner. Were you a member of the Communist Party prior 
to January 1,1948? 



HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1147 

Miss ScRiBNER. I object to the question and also to this hearing on 
each and all of the grounds previously stated as grounds of my objec- 
tions to questions, and to this hearing. 

Mr. Tavenxer. You stated that you resigned as a teacher. Did you 
not resign because you felt that you could not sign the oath required 
by the Levering Act because of vour membership in the Communist 
Party? 

Miss ScRiBXER. I object to the question and also to this hearing on 
each and all of the grounds previously stated as grounds of my ob- 
jections to questions, and to this hearing. 

Mr. Ta\'exxer. Her objections have been stated, Mr. Chairman, in 
such a way it is difficult to determine whether she actually is relying 
upon the fifth amendment or not, so in light of that, I request that you 
direct that she answer the question. 

The Chairman. Well, with the exception of this last question, I am 
sure that when she said the grounds previously relied upon, she meant 
all of the grounds relied upon, and including the fifth amendment; 
is that correct ? 

Miss ScRiBNER. That is correct. 

The Chairmax. The meeting is adjourned until 9 : 30 tomorrow 
morning. 

(Whereupon, at 5 p. m., the hearing was recessed, to reconvene at 
: 30 a. m., Wednesday, June 19, 1957.) 



HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF., 
JUNE 18-21, 1957— Part 1 



WEDNESDAY, JUNE 19, 1957 

United States House of Representatives, 

Subcommittee of the 
Committee on Un-American Activities, 

San Francisco^ Calif. 

PUBLIC hearing 

The subconunittee met at 10 a. m., pursuant to recess, Hon. Francis 
E. Walter, chairman, presiding. 

Committee members present : Representatives Francis E. Walter of 
Pennsylvania ; Gordon H. Scherer of Ohio ; and Robert J. Mcintosh of 
Michigan. 

Staff members present : Frank S. Tavenner, Jr., counsel, and Wil- 
liam A. "Wlieeler, investigator. 

The Chairman. The committee will please come to order. 

Mr. Tavenner, call your first witness. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Louis Earl Hartman, will you come forward, 
please. 

The Chairman. Raise your right hand, please. Do you swear the 
testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and 
nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Hartman. I do. 

The Chairman. Will you proceed, please, Mr. Tavenner. 

TESTIMONY OF LOUIS EAEL HARTMAN, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS 
COUNSEL, LAWEENCE SPEISER, SAN FEANCISCO, CALIE. 

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

Mr. Hartman. My name is Louis Earl Hartman. 

Mr. Tavenner. It is noted you have counsel. Will counsel please 
identify himself for the record. 

Mr. Speiser. Lawrence Speiser, 690 Market Street. 

Mr. Tavenner. When and where were you born ? 

Mr. Hartman. Second day of May 1915, Borough of Brookljm. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long have you lived in the State of California ? 

Mr. Hartman. How long have I lived in the State of California ? I 
believe 12 years this month. 

Mr. Tavenner. Have you lived here continuously since that date ? 

Mr. Hartman. Except for visits to my home in the East, I have, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. What is your occupation ? 

Mr. Hartman. I am a radio broadcaster. 

Mr. Tavenner. Where do you reside ? 

1149 



1150 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 

Mr. Hartman. In Berkeley, sir. 

INIr. Tavenner. How long have you lived in Berkeley ? 

Mr. Hartman. I believe I have lived in Berkeley for the 12 years 
that I have lived in California. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee, please, briefly, what 
your formal educational training has been ? 

Mr. Hartman. I was graduated from the McBurney Prep School on 
West 63d Street in New York City. I went to the Johns Hopkins 
University in the city of Baltimore, taking a premedical degree for 2 
years. 

Mr. Tavenner. Wliat was that date, please ? 

Mr. Hartman. That was the year 1932 I went to Baltimore, Mr. 
Tavenner. I then transferred to the arts division of Johns Hopkins 
for 1 year and transferred then to the University of Illinois, Cham- 
paign, 111., and received my bachelor of arts degree in 1936. 

I was winner of the Bachelor Highland Guild playwriting prize and 
I was graduated with honors and I was graduated Phi Beta Kappa. 
T returned after my graduation to take some postgraduate courses in 
journalism but I did not complete the course. 

Mr. Tavenner. Have you had any other educational training at any 
school besides those that you have mentioned ? 

Mr. Hartman. In respect to the question, sir, I wish to make the 
following objection: (1) The committee's authorizing resolution and 
the subject of the hearings as announced by the committee are vague 
and indefinite in that they fail to inform me of the nature, purpose, 
and extent and limitations of the hearing or the matters about which 
I have been called to testify. Therefore, the question posed is not 
pertinent or relevant to any legitimate, valid, definitive legislative 
purpose and thus violates my rights under due process of law under 
the fifth amendment, as held by the United States Supreme Court, 
as held in the case United States v. Wathins. 

(2) The first amendment prohibits the Congress from passing any 
law infringing on speech, conscience, and assembly. The mandate of 
this committee and the purposes announced at this hearing are un- 
constitutional in attempting to authorize it to investigate into an area 
in which the Constitution forbids it to legislate. 

(3) Questions asked me concerning my political beliefs and asso- 
ciations under the circumstances of these hearings abridge my rights 
of freedom of speech and association protected by the first amendment. 

(4) The inquiry of the committee and the purposes of this hearing 
are inquiry into affairs unrelated to any valid legislative purpose un- 
der Article I of the Constitution and are solely designed for the 
purpose of exposing myself and others to publicity and ridicule. 

(5) This committee's inquiry is for the purpose of placing me on 
trial without any of the rights guaranteed by the due process of 
laws of the fifth amendment and of the sixth amendment which affords 
me the right to notice of any charges, the effective aid of counsel, ade- 
quate time to prepare a defense, right of cross-examination, and the 
presumptions of innocence. 

(6) This committee's inquiry infringes on the rights retained by the 
people and the States under the 9th and 10th amendments. This hear- 
ing and this committee's inquiries are unconstitutional infringements 
by the legislature into the jurisdiction of the judiciary which has 



HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1151 

the sole power under the Constitution to place me on trial and to 
inquire into my personal conduct. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you objecting to the question on the grounds 
that you fail to see its pertinency ? 

Mr. Hartmax. I am objecting on the issues of points 1 through 7, 
which I have just stated. 

Mr. Tavenner. Specifically, are you raising the question that you 
do not understand the pertinency of the question ? 

Mr. Hartman. I believe the statement I have just made, Mr. Taven- 
ner, is what I am trying to say. I admit that the legal language is a 
little unusual for me, but that is what I believe. 

Mr. Tavexxer. Due to the fact that the witness will not answer 
specifically the last question I asked, I will pass on to a question the 
pertinency of which ma}^ be more apparent to the witness. 

Have you been a member, and are you a member now, of a profes- 
sional cell of the Communist Party at Berkeley? 

Mr. Hartmax. My answer to the question just posed is the answer 
which I gave to your first question, Mr. Tavenner, points 1 through 7 
as stated, and they are in the record. 

Mr. Tavexxer. I will try to explain to you the pertinency of the 
question and, assuming that that is the real basis of your refusal to 
answer, with the hope that when you see its pertinency that you will 
answer. 

First of all as to the subject, you said you had not been informed 
of the subject. Were you present when the chairman of the commit- 
tee read the opening statement here yesterday ? 

Mr. Hartmax. I was, sir ; I was in the press box, 

Mr. Tavexxer. And you heard it ? 

Mr. Hartmax. I did sir. 

Mr. Tavexxer. The committee has been endeavoring to ascertain 
the workings of the professional groups of the Communist Party 
within this area. As far as you are concerned, it relates to Berkeley, 
not to the city of San Francisco. That is the only dijfference. 

The question of the activitiy, that is, the extent, the character and 
the objectives of Communist Party activities in the professional 
groups of the Communist Party is a very important matter to the 
committee because it is now and has been for a considerable period 
of time considering and weighing the question of need for further 
legislation with regard to the Communist Party. 

As the chairman pointed out to you and others, numerous bills 
have been introduced in the House of Kepresentatives from time to 
time to outlaw the Communist Party as such. There has been some 
difference of opinion by individual members of this committee on that 
subject but the committee has not taken action recommending such 
procedure to the present time. It feels that it must be informed on 
that subject. It feels that Congress expects to be informed on that 
subject and therefore we are now hearing evidence which will be of 
value to Congress and this committee on that matter. 

Now, so much for the subject. 

You say you do not understand the pertinency of that question? 

Mr. Hartmax. Excuse me, sir. I did not say that. I am sorry. 

Mr. Tavexxer. It would seem to me that the question is pertinent 
on its face, that no one with any intelligence would need to have the 
pertinency explained, when I asked you the question of whether or not 



1152 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 

you are at this time a member of the professional cell of the Communist 
Party in Berkeley. 

Of course it is important for us to know that because you are a man, 
as you say, engaged in an important field of work. This committee 
is entitled to know of these facts. 

Now the reasoning of the committee as to why that question is per- 
tinent is that there is no way for the committee to ascertain facts re- 
garding the activities of a secret cell of the Communist Party, you 
might say a supersecret cell because, as we understand from evidence, 
even the rank-and-file members of the Communist Party do not know 
either the names or the activities of such a group, and how can Con- 
gress be informed of the activities of such a group if it cannot ascer- 
tain who are in it in order to question ? 

The reasoning of the committee, further, on that subject, I think is 
important. As I have said, the committee has been considering for 
some time the need for further legislation in this field. It is all 
pointed up very plainly by the position of the Communist Party as 
expressed in the press this morning. 

Dorothy Healey Connelly, the former chairman of the Communist 
Party of Los Angeles, quoted in this morning's press as having re- 
joiced in what she termed the greatest victory the Communist Party 
in America has ever received. As a quotation : 

It will mark a rejuvenation of the party in America. We have lost some 
members in the last few years — 

and mark you, this is the rest of the quote — 

but now we are on our way. 

We feel that Congress is entitled to information which may help 
to block that way, 

Now does that explain the pertinency of the question to you ? 

Mr. Hartman. Eespectfully, Mr. Tavenner, I stand on the objec- 
tion previously stated. 

Mr. Tavenner. You did not lionestly give that objection because 
you felt you did not understand the question. You are merely offering 
it as an excuse for refusal to testify when you made up your mind as 
to a course which you were going to take ? 

Mr. Hartman. I can only ask, Mr. Tavenner, that you believe me 
when I say that my objections are as stated. 

Mr. Tavenner. That your objection is that you do not see the per- 
tinency of the question ? 

Mr. Hartman. My objection is, sir, as stated in points 1 though 7. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Chairman, I think I have made as full an ex- 
planation of the subject and of the pertinence of the question as is 
reasonable under all of the circumstances, and I suggest that he be 
directed to answer. 

The Chairman. Yes : I direct you to answer. 

Mr. Hartman. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Tavenner, I respectfully decline 
to answer on all the grounds previously stated as grounds to my ob- 
jections. I wish to inform the committee specifically that I am rely- 
ing in no way on the privileges of self-incrimination provided me by 
the fifth amendment, although I do not believe that any one who does 
should be criticized in any way for relying on that or any other rights 
granted by the Congress. 



HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1153 

The Chairman. Then as I understand it you are not invoking the 
fifth amendment. 

Mr. Hartman. Mr. Walter, I am not invoking the fifth amendment. 
My attorney informs me that my legal language is very faulty. I am 
not invoking the criminal amendments of the fifth amendment. As I 
said in my earlier statement, I do rely on the fifth amendment in other 
aspects of the questioning. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you now the chairman and have you been the 
chairman of the Professional Section of the Communist Party in 
Berkeley since early January 1957 ? 

Mr. Hartman. In objecting to that question, I rely on the points 
briefly made 1 through 7, as on the previous questions. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee, please, how many pro- 
fessional cells of the Communist Party there are in Berkeley ? 

Mr. Hartman. My answer to that question, Mr. Tavenner, is the 
objection as has been stated. 

The Chairman. You are objecting to the question. Do I understand 
by that that you are refusing or declining to answer the question ? 

Mr. Hartman. I am making an objection to the question on the 
grounds previously stated. 

The Chairman. You are objecting to it, and now I direct you to 
answer it. 

Mr. Hartman. Now, sir, I am respectfully declining to answer on 
all of the grounds previously stated. I am not going to answer the 
question as I previously stated. 

The Chairman. In addition to objecting to the question, you are 
now declining to answer the question for the reasons that you have 
given heretofore ? 

Mr. Hartman. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. Scherer. To this question do you also not invoke the self-in- 
crimination portion of the fifth amendment ? 

Mr. Hartman. That is right. 

Mr. Tavenner. Now, sir, will you advise the committee of propa- 
ganda activities that are now being carried on by the Professional Sec- 
tion or group of the Communist Party in Berkeley ? 

Mr. Hartman. Once again I respectfully object to the question on 
the grounds previously stated. 

The Chairman. Just a minute, Mr. Tavenner. 

Do you decline to answer the question ? 

Mr. Hartman. Is the Chair directing me to answer that question ? 

The Chairman. Yes, I am directing you to answer the question. 

Mr. Hartman. I decline to answer on the grounds previously stated. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you refusing to answer notwithstanding the 
explanation that_ was made of the subject of the inquiry that I am 
making at this time, as well as the explanation regarding the perti- 
nency of the question, because the same explanation applies to this 
question ? 

Mr. Hartman. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee, please, what activities 
the professional cell of the Communist Party in Berkeley is now en- 
gaged in ? 

Mr. Hartman. I object to the question on the grounds previously 
stated. 

The Chairman. Just a minute, Mr. Tavenner. 



1154 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 

I direct you to answer the question. 

Mr. Hartman. I respectfully decline to answer on the grounds 
previously stated. 

Mr. Tavenner. Is your refusal to answer made notwithstanding 
the explanation that I previously made regarding the subject and 
pertinency of the question which applies also to this question which 
1 have asked ? 

Mr. Hartman. My objection, sir, is as previously stated. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Hartman, I have before me a thermofax copy 
of the People's World of March 24, 1949. I see there an article, the 
heading of which is ASP Urges Support for Peace Meet. The article 
begins as follows : 

A call for "men and women of good will" to support the New York City Cul- 
tural and Scientific Conference for World Peace opening Friday, was made today 
by Louis Hartman, East Bay chairman of the Arts, Sciences, and Professions 
Council. 

Hartman declared that action by the State Department in canceling visas for 
12 international delegates to the conference "exposes the war drive of American 
reaction." * * * 

"The attempt of our State Department to declare the Cultural and Scientific 
Conferences for World Peace as Soviet propaganda," Hartman said, "can only 
serve to expose the war drive of American reaction. Peace is a universal desire 
of all decent people of every nation and political persuasion. At a time when 
it wishes to sell the American people a bill of goods called the Atlantic Pact, 
the State Department suffers extreme political embarrassment." 

Was the embarrassment resulting to the State Department in having 
to take action in regard to that so-called peace council the result of 
Communist Party propaganda disseminated in this country in which 
you played a part ? 

Mr. Hartman. I object to the question on the grounds previously 
stated, Mr. Tavenner. 

The Chairman. Do you decline to answer the question ? 

Mr. Hartman. I decline to answer on the grounds previously stated. 

Mr. Tavenner. The article quoting you refers to the action of the 
State Department with regard to that so-called peace meet in New 
York City. The action of the State Department was set forth in 
House Report 1954, released by this committee on April 26, 1950. 
The report of this committee in referring to that matter at the time 
stated this : 

From the outset, Secretary of State Dean Acheson referred to the gathering 
as "a sounding board for Communist propaganda." The State Department 
pointed out that "none of the cultural leaders of eastern Europe" who attended 
"were free to express any view other than that dictated by the political authori- 
ties in Moscow," and expressed no doubt "as to the manner in which the Com- 
munists will attempt to use the manipulate" the Conference. 

Will you tell the committee, please, whether or not the professional 
cell of the Communist Party in Berkeley took action in regard to 
this matter ? 

Mr. Hartman. I object to the question, Mr. Tavenner, on the 
grounds previously stated. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you not 

The Chairman. Just a minute. There is a distinction between ob- 
jecting to a question and declining to answer a question. You have 
objected to it. Do you decline to answer the question ? 

Mr. Hartman. I decline to answer on the grounds previously 
stated. 



HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1155 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you not at the time of the publishing of that 
article in the People's World, March 24, 1949, when you were quoted 
as I have read, engaging in an activity of the professional cell of 
the Communist Party in Berkeley designed to embarrass the United 
States in its foreign policy ? 

Mr. Hartman. I object to the question, Mr. Tavenner, on the 
grounds previously stated. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Chairman, I think I should explain a little 
more fully at this point to the witness of the effect of that question, 
the pertinency of it. I have explained the purpose of the inquiry 
that we are making here. I will not repeat that, but as to the perti- 
nency of this question, it is the reasoning of the committee that it 
knows of the work of the professional cell or has information of 
the work of the professional cell at Berkeley at an early date. _ It 
is important, it thinks, to ascertain the workings of it today particu- 
larly in light of all that has transpired internationally, and it feels 
that by tracing the operations of this professional cell up to the pres- 
ent time, it will throw light upon the activities of the Communist 
Party and that it will be an indication of the seriousness of matters of 
the propaganda activities in which the Conununist Party is engaged. 
Therefore, we would like to know, in other words, we are connect- 
ing up those activities, those propaganda activities, with a group of 
the Communist Party of which I have asked you as to whether or 
not you are a member, and your particular activity in it. 

With that explanation, may I ask again that you answer the ques- 
tion? 

Mr. Hartman. Am I directed to answer that question, Mr. Chair- 
man? 

The Chairman. Yes ; you are directed to answer that question. 

Mr. Hartman. Then I must refuse to answer the question on the 
grounds previously stated. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you an active member of the Civil Eights 
Congress in Berkeley in March 1951 ? 

Mr. Hartman. I object to the question, sir, on the grounds previ- 
ously stated. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you a member of the professional cell of the 
Communist Party in Berkeley in March 1951 ? 

Mr. Hartman. I object to the question, sir, on the grounds previ- 
ously stated. 

Mr. Tavenner. Is the professional cell of the Communist Party 
in Berkeley now carrying on a campaign of propaganda in any 
manner 

Mr. Hartman. I object. 

Mr. Tavenner. Just a moment — in regard to the Sobell committee? 

Mr. Hartman. I object to the question on the grounds previously 
mentioned. 

Mr. Scherer. Mr. Chairman, I ask that you direct the witness 
to answer. 

Mr. Hartman. There was a series of questions. Is that the last 
question or all of them ? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Hartman. In regard to the last question I respectfully decline 
to answer on all of the grounds previously stated, for the grounds of 



1156 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 

my objection, and I again inform the committee that I am not in any 
way relying on the self-incrimination provisions of the fifth amend- 
ment. 

Mr. Tavenner. I have before me a copy of the July 30, 1947, issue 
of the People's World. This article reports that you were to partici- 
pate in a cultural conference to be held on August 2 and 3 under the 
auspices of the California Labor School. From this article it appears 
that John Howard Lawson was to be the keynoter and that the cul- 
tural conference was broken down in panels. Under the motion picture 
panel appears the name of A. Polonsky, a screen writer, Waldo Salt, 
whose profession was also that of a screen writer, and yourself, under 
the name Lou Hartman. There has been very extensive evidence 
before this committee of the Communist Party membership of John 
Howard Lawson, Abe Polonsky, and Waldo Salt. There has been 
considerable evidence relating to the activities, propaganda and other- 
wise, of the California Labor School. Will you state whether or not 
the occasion to which I have referred was the result of Communist 
Party consultation and planning ? 

Mr. Hartman. I object to the question on the grounds previously 
stated. 

Mr. Tavenner. May I have a direction ? 

The Chairman. You are directed to answer the question. 

Mr. Hartman. I respectfully decline to answer on all of the grounds 
previously stated as grounds for my objection. 

Mr, Tavenner. I have asked you whether or not you were the chair- 
man of the Professional Section of the Communist Party in Berkeley, 
which you refused to answer, and I will now ask you whether or not 
you are a member of the Communist Party on any level whether super- 
secret or not. 

Mr. Hartman. I object to the question, sir, on the grounds pre- 
viously stated. 

The Chairman. You are directed to answer the question. 

Mr. Hartman. I respectfully decline to answer on all of the grounds 
previously stated as grounds for my objection. 

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

Mr. McIntosh. Mr. Hartman, you have not intended to raise the 
self-incrimination clause in any of your answers ? 

Mr. Hartman. That is correct, Mr. Mcintosh. 

Mr. Tavenner. I have no further questions. 

The Chairman. The witness is excused. Call your next witness, 
Mr. Tavenner. 

Mr. Tavenner. I would like to recall at this time Dr. Patten. 

The Chairman. The witness has been sworn. Go ahead, Mr. 
Tavenner. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. JACK (BEVERLY MIKELL PATTEN)— Resumed 

Mr. Tavenner. Dr. Patten, you have advised the committee that 
ypu held various positions in the Communist Party here in San Fran- 
cisco. I believe you said you were on the county committee at one 
time ; is that corect ? 

Dr. Patten. That is correct. 

Mr. Tavenner. Wliat other positions did you hold ? 

Dr. Patten. Within the Professional Section I was an educational 
director at one time and chairman at various times in branches. 



HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1157 

Mr. Tavenner. Therefore, you had an opportunity to know well 
persons who were in your particular group of the Communist Party, 
your particular professional cell ? 

Dr. Patten. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. Let me ask you generally about such groups of the 
professional cells as you describe as the doctors' group. Did you ever 
attend a meeting of the doctors' professional group of the Communist 
Party? 

Dr. Patten. No, I didn't. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you have occasion to learn the names of some 
of the members of that group ? 

Dr. Patten. Specifically, yes — a couple of instances attending sec- 
tional educational meetings, perhaps a Sunday meeting or something 
like that, I did have occasion to meet some. Others one learned about 
only by hearsay, but I did meet a couple anyway whom I knew to be 
members because they were attending such meetings. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were those meetings confined to the membership 
of the Communist Party ? 

Dr. Patten. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. In fact, all of the activities of the professional group 
of the Communist Party were held as secret as they could be? 

Dr. Patten. They were quite closed. I recall no occasion where 
people from the outside were invited. 

Mr. Scherer. You mean people outside of the professional group? 
You said you know of no occasion where people were invited? 

Dr. Patten. I meant no people invited from outside of the Com- 
munist Party. There may have been an occasion when an organizer 
from the party higher up met with the professional clubs and groups. 

Mr. Tam^nner. I think you previously explained that the members 
of the professional group rather resented other members of the Com- 
munist Party coming before their meetings. 

Dr. Patten. As a precaution; yes. They would object to anyone 
from outside of their own particular club or occasionally extending 
that to the section, anyone from the outside coming. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee, please, who were mem- 
bers of the Professional Section among the doctors who attended the 
meetings to which you have referred ? 

Dr. Pati'en. I think I can accurately recall only 3 people, doctors, 
with whom I have come in contact in party meetings, 2 M. D.'s, Asher 
Gordon 

Mr. Tavenner. Dr. Asher Gordon ? 

Dr. Patten. Morton Garfield. I believe there was a dentist by the 
name of Sol Bineman. 

iSIr. Tavenner. B-i-n-e-m-a-n? 

Dr. Patten. I am not sure of the spelling on that. 

Mr. Ta\tsnner. A dentist ? 

Dr. Patten. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. What was the occasion of their attendance at these 
meetings ? 

Dr. Patten. As I recall, the first two I mentioned were in educa- 
tional meetings, as I previously described. I want to point out to 
the committee that the structure of the Communist Party and the 
Communist Political Association changed from time to time, and 
where I have indicated previously that doctors and lawyers were 



1158 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 

always separate — it occurs to me that it is possible, I am not sure, but 
it is possible that doctors were at one time during my various periods 
of activity at one time included within regular professional sections 
not within their own. I do recall being at meetings with Dr. Bine- 
man and I believe he was actually in the same branch that I was in 
but I could not verify that, I only know that I have been at meet- 
ings with him. 

Mr. Tavenner. At least during the greater part of this time, the 
doctors had a separate group of their own ? 

Dr. Patten. That is right. 

Mr. Tavenner. I understood you to say you never attended one of 
their meetings. Is that correct ? 

Dr. Patten. That is correct. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you have any knowledge of the activities that 
the doctors professional group engaged in ? 

Dr. Patten. Nothing that they as a group engaged in, no. I don't 
recall it. It is just something that never came to my attention, appar- 
ently, or not with sufficient intensity for me to remember it. I don't 
recall their having a particular program that I have ever heard of 
within a medical society, any health movement or anything directly 
connected with their profession. I merely know that individual 
members, individuals such as those three I mentioned, allowed their 
names to be used to sponsor broad causes such as an organizaiton for 
peace. I believe that you will find one or more of those gentlemen 
listed as sponsors of the California Labor School. As I recall, their 
names frequently appeared as sponsors for such organizations. That 
is individual and not group activity. I know nothing of group 
activity. 

Mr. Tavenner. I believe you stated earlier in your testimony that 
there was a professional group organized — I believe you said — the 
Newspaper Guild. Did you express it that way? I am not certain. 

Dr. Patten. It was reierred to as a guild club but they were news- 
paper workers in that all of them were members of the local newpaper 
chapter of the American Guild. Again I am mentioning the name 
of an organization on which I do not want to cast any reflection, that 
is, the Newspaper Guild. The fact that they have had Communists 
in their organization is no reflection on them, nor is it the first time 
that such information has been brought to light in the United States. 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes ; I think the files of our committee will disclose 
that the Communists have made an effort to infiltrate almost every 
known organization in our society. 

Have you had any occasion at any time to meet with that group ? 

Dr. Patten. Yes. When I got out of the Army in 1941 and was 
subsequently readmitted to the Communist Party here in San Fran- 
cisco, one of the first assignments I was given was to meet with the 
Newspaper Workers Club of the Communist Party, who were under- 
going some organizational difficulties at that time. I was sent there in 
an effort to help them either solve this problem and operate as a prop- 
erly functioning group of the Communist Party or else dissolve it as 
n separate organization and move it into our club. 

The final decision was made that it should disband as a separate 
organization and go into other professional clubs. 

Mr. Tavenner. What other professional clubs did they go into ? 



HEARINGS HELD EST SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1159 

Dr. Patten. They would be clubs that were not specifically for 
doctors or attorneys but were general professional clubs made up of 
teachers, artists, architects, and what-have-you. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you give the committee, please, the names of 
those who were in the newspaper guild group of the Communist Party, 
the Professional Section of the Communist Party, or who affiliated 
with the miscellaneous professional group ? 

Dr. Patten. Yes. Now I may not remember all of the names. In 
anticipation of your question, Mr. Tavenner, I have jotted down 
names here. 

I want to make it understood that I did this in my hotel room last 
night from my own memory, and that is why I am referring to a 
paper here. 

I remember these people and there may have been more, I don't 
know. Ralph Brnenn, Jack Eshleman. 

Mr. Tavenner. Just a moment. If you recall, I would like to know 
how those people were employed at that time, if you know. 

Dr. Patten. If I know. I am not sure on Ralph Bruenn. 

Mr. Tavenner. If you are not sure, then say so. 

Dr. Patten. Jack Eshleman — I am not sure of the spelling of his 
name — was employed by the Call Bulletin, I believe. If he was not 
then, he was shortly thereafter. 

There was a woman by the name of Yudauka, who used the name 
of 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you spell both ? 

Dr. Patten. Yudauka, and used the pen name of Sue Barry and 
wrote for the Daily People's World. Also early in the war wrote a 
pamphlet which was widely distributed on racial integration. Morris 
Watson, who was with the longshoreman's newspaper. 

Mr. Tavenner. Spell his first name. 

Dr. Patten. M-o-r-r-i-s. 

Mr. Tavenner. Morris Watson. 

Dr. Patten. That is right. 

Mr. Tavenner. What longshoreman's newspaper was that ? 

Dr. Patten. International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's 
Union newspaper. I am not sure of the name of it. It is the one 
published as the organ of the International Longshoremen's and Ware- 
housemen's Union. He was the editor. 

There was one other man who was either there or I knew him later as 
a newspaper writer, Emerson Street. I do not know what paper 
he might have been working for, if any. Later I believe he was editing 
trade house organs, trade journals for various industries. That is the 
extent of the people I have been able to recall in the Newspaper Club 
of the Communist Party. 

Mr. Ta\t;nner. I believe you had testified that the teachers did not 
have a separate professional club of their own. 

Dr. Patten. Yes, and at one time, thinking it over, I think they 
had — toward the end of my membership I think they did, but I think 
they were always with other professional people. I could be mis- 
taken on that. 1 do not want to be too hasty on this thing, but the 
Communist Party changed its organizational structure so often that 
it is a little difficult to keep up with it. The purpose in doing it was 
ostensibly, anyway, to produce a better functioning organization, 



1160 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 

having people organized in such a way so that they would operate 
more effectively. 

Mr. Tavenner. You have previously given us the names of three 
persons, Ned Hanchett, Jane Scribner, and John Horowitz, who were 
members of the professional group among the teachers. 

Will you give us the names of other teachers ? 

Dr. Patten. Leonard Pockman was employed at the San Fran- 
cisco State College when I was there, John Hardwick— I am not 
sure where he was employed. He was attending the University of 
California, having taught previously outside this State, but he was 
teaching after that down the peninsula somewhere south of here. 

There was a Bea Melner and Ann Glass. I do not know where 
either one of them taught but I believe it was in the city system here. 
John Glass — in for a short time and employed at City College of San 
Francisco part of the time while I was there. 

Morton Elkins was a substitute teacher while also attending Stan- 
ford University doing graduate work. He was a substitute teacher 
in the city and county school system. 

There was Bertha Williams, who came there some time during my 
membership and taught in the schools here. 

Did I mention the name of Ann Glass ? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes, you did. 

Dr. Patten. There is a Sidney Rubin whom I knew in the State 
of Washington. I later met him down here in the party, and I under- 
stood he was teaching then but I don't know where, 

Mr. Tavenner. You say you knew him in the State of Washington ? 

Dr. Patten. I knew him in the State of Washington as a Com- 
munist and at that time he was working for the Federal Government 
in the survey of employment or population mobility, or something of 
that nature. I worked for him. 

Mr. Tavenner. You worked for him ? 

Dr. Patten. Yes, on a part-time basis when I was doing other jobs. 

Mr. Tavenner. Then you met him here later ? 

Dr. Patten. That is right. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was he affiliated with and a member of the Pro- 
fessional Section here? 

Dr. Patten. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. You were a teacher yourself. You have explained 
that you were on the college level and that you did not know much 
about the activities of this teachers' group. You indicated at one 
point in your testimony that you withdrew from teaching here in the 
State of California. What was the reason for that ? 

Dr. Patten. I don't know whether you could exactly call it a with- 
drawal. To put it bluntly, I was fired by the State as superintendent 
of schools for not having signed the loyalty oath as required by the 
recently passed Levering law in the State. There were several of us 
teaching who did not sign that loyalty oath and were subsequently 
fired. 

Mr. Tavenner. When did that take place ? 

Dr. Patten. Most of them, I would say, was in October through 
November of 1950 that we were given our letters of dismissal. Natural- 
ly, since this was the first time that this act had been in effect, it took 
some time for the school authorities consulting with their counsel 
to determine the proper method of taking care of these firings, so 



HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1161 

I was discharged, I believe, on Xovember 9 at San Francisco State 
College, others were discharged on November 8. However we had 
not been paid for the month of October after we had failed to sign the 
loyalty oath. 

Mr. Tavenner. The effective date of the act was 1948, was it not? 

Dr. Patten. I don't believe you are right. If you will check, you 

will find it was 1950. The act may have been passed in 1948 although 

that seems a long time for them to prepare the machinery for its 

operation. 

Mr. Tavexner. Did it require a statement of Avhether or not a per- 
son had been a member of the Communist Party in the year 1948? 
Dr. Patten. It required a statement that was originally written 
as 3 years and I think it was changed to 5 years and then it was 
changed back before it was finally passed to 3 years. 

In other words, one had to sign a statement saying that he had not 
belonged to the Communist Party, and it described other organizations 
seeking the overthrow of the United States Government, for the 3 
years prior to the signing, which would actually put it back, Mr. 
Tavenner, to 1947. 
]\Ir. Ta'\'ekner. I see. That answers my question. 
At the time that you refused to sign the loyalty oath, were you a 
member of the Communist Party ? 
Dr. Patten. No, I was not. 

Mr. Ta\tenner. Your testimony was that you had withdrawn some 
time before that ? 

Dr. Patten. That is right. However, to have signed it would have 
placed me in jeopardy because the law provided for a penalty up to 
14 years imprisonment for perjury, so that was one reason that made 
it necessary for me to refrain from signing. However, I might point 
out that I could have signed and put in an exception which was pro- 
vided for in the oath and that exception could have been Communist 
Party. This was done by John Mass of City College. 

I understand from what I have read in the newspapers and what I 
have been told that he did sign stating such an exception and was 
kept on in his employment until he was released some time later, re- 
leased or resigned. I heard that he had been released from his teach- 
ing duties. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did the Professional Section of the Communist 
Party take any action or engage in any activity with regard to the 
Levering Act ? 

Dr. Patten. Now, you will recall that I was not a member of the 
Communist Party so I was looking in from the outside to anything 
that was being done. 

I do know of many of those who did not sign the Levering Act, 
several of them were known to me to be Communists when I was a 
Communist. There were organizations established by those who did 
not sign the Levering Act with the assistance of other people who were 
interested. 

Mr. Ta^t:nner. That is, people who had not been members of the 
Communist Party ? 

Dr. Patten. Or people who were not concerned with the loyalty 
directly because they were not teaching. They were concerned with 
the issue, and there was a decided feeling among teachers as w^H as 
other people, a feeling of oi^position to the Levering Act. This was 

94343— 57— pt. 1 7 



1162 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 

put into effect at a time when loyalty oaths were being required 
pretty much throughout the United States and in many of the States. 
Some of them had had them since the States were first formed, but 
there were a great many loyalty oaths passed at that time on the 
east coast — Maryland, New York, and so on, in various other States 
including California. 

One of the objections raised was that originally, when this matter 
of loyalty oath first came up, it was the requirement of the regents 
of the State of California, which did not affect me at all. What the 
regents required was later ruled out by the supreme court of the State 
or a lower court, but I believe it was the supreme court and those peo- 
ple at the University of California who had failed to sign were rein- 
stated. The Levering Act was not ruled out by the courts and it did 
not single out teachers but anyone in State, county, or municipal em- 
ployment, which covered a great many people. So, one of the objec- 
tions to its being directed solely at teachers was removed when the 
Levering Act was enacted by the legislature of this State requiring 
any State, county, or municipal employee to sign such a statement. 
Afterwards, just by way of clarification for the committee, I remem- 
ber committee members from the State — I would like to give the rest 
of the history of the act. 

It was put into the constitution as a constitutional referendum and 
it was an amendment of the constitution of the State of California 
after it had been enacted by the legislature. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did that have any effect upon your ultimate deci- 
sion in regard to the signing of the oath ? 

Dr. Patten. It had an effect on me personally. I do not know 
that it had an effect on any other person. I withdrew my appeal 
before the State personnel board through notifying the personnel 
board and the attorney who was representing such people and let the 
thing drop. I signed the loj^alty oath for subsequent part-time em- 
ployment for the State and school districts, having allowed the 3-year 
period since I might have still been a member to have elapsed and 
thereby taking the precaution of not leaving myself open to a charge 
of perjury. After the act had been made a part of the constitution, 
the courts had upheld the legislative act, I could see no point in con- 
tinuing. 

I would like to interject here, Mr. Tavenner, one point, too, that 
I mentioned — the fact that there were Communists who did not sign 
the oath. It would have been difficult for a Communist to have 
signed it but some may have. They would have been taking a chance. 
But I also want to point out that there were many sincere people 
throughout the State, some of whom I know in this area and some of 
whom were my colleagues in teaching in this area who did not sign, 
and I am quite sure were not members of the party but objected to 
the oath by its own nature. 

I do not want to imply in any way that not signing the Levering 
Act oath was any indication of a person's membership in the Com- 
munist Party. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you observe any particular activity on the part 
of Professional Section members of the Communist Party other than 
teachers in connection with this matter ? 

Dr. Patten. I do not recall right now that I did. There was 
naturally enthusiastic support within the Communist Party but I 



HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1163 

can't right now recall Professional Section members of the Connnii- 
nist Party other than teachers who were active in this campaign. 

The Chairman. Mr. Tavenner, would this be a good place for a 
break ? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. The committee will stand in recess. 

(Brief recess) 

The Chairman. The committee will be in order. 

Proceed, Mr. Tavenner. 

Mr. Tavenner. Dr. Patten, in looking back now upon the fight that 
was made against the Levering Act here in San Francisco, can you 
enlighten the committee in any way as to what use the Communist 
Party made, if any, of that issue which was intended or hoped to be 
an advancement of Communist interest generally ? 

Dr. Patten. I think action was typical of what you find over and 
over again whenever people are sincerely interested in what people 
feel to themselves is a legitimate cause; that widespread Communist 
support is forthcoming, to be followed by efforts on the part of the 
Communist Party members to use that cause and the people who are 
behind it toward gaining further support for other things not di- 
rectly or even sometimes related to the issue at hand. 

In other words, there were two organizations formed in opposition 
to the Levering Act. One was the Federation for the Repeal of the 
Levering Act, and the other was called by some such name as Joint 
Action Council for the Eepeal of the Levering Act, or something like 
that. The first one mentioned, the federation, was formed as I 
recall by individuals, some of us being people who had not signed the 
Levering Act and others being citizens at large who were in sympathy 
with what Ave were trying to do, and that organization, as far as I 
could see and being temporarily a part of its lesser leadership, I would 
say it functioned pretty well to keep the issue clear on the question of 
the Levering Act. 

The other organization which I believe was formed by a couple of 
unions of leftwing color made every effort to broaden the issue of the 
Levering Act, to include anything that might possibly be or remotely 
be connected with this campaign, 

I can explain it in a little more detail but I am speaking now of mass 
organizations, but I want to point out that there was obvious activity 
on the part of Communists in trying to ]3ush these organizations. 

We had, in addition to these, several meetings of those who did not 
sign the loyalty oath here in the city, and I attended those meetings. 
It was obvious to me, nobody had to tell me that other meetings were 
being held. It was quite clear that plans were made by Communist 
Party members to direct those meetings and to push these other or- 
ganizations in certain directions. They were not quite successful, as 
long as I was around, pushing the federation too far in many direc- 
tions to meet their own ends, but they were certainly successful with 
the Joint Action Council. 

I recall a mass meeting that was held under the auspices of the Joint 
Action Council in some hall in Van Ness. I do not recall who the 
speakers were, but without exception the speakers tried to relate the 
passage of loyalty-oath legislation throughout the United States to 
political issues nationally and internationally. We were told repeat- 



1164 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 

edly that one could not isolate the drive for loyalty oaths in the coun- 
try from the efforts of the United States Government to further its 
military activities in Korea. This was the time when the Korean mili- 
tary activities were goino; on between United Nations forces, particu- 
larly the forces of the United States, and the North Korean and Chi- 
nese forces. 

It was done rather blatantly in this method as well as from conver- 
sations one would hear from Commun,ists, to the extent that you were 
almost told that your support in this issue was of no value if you were 
merely supporting the cause — supporting the liberal cause of not 
signing the loyalty oath, but you had to support all of these other 
things including the then campaign for the cessation of hostilities. 
I objected to this with people to whom I talked and I am sure they 
revealed to the Communists my lack of sympathy with what they were 
trying to do, because I had a feeling that they, under the guise of as- 
sisting us, were actually helping to put us out on such a limb that we 
could not possibly get good support for the cause which we believed in. 

This is just one example of the many types of things that have been 
done continually by the Communist Party members when operating 
in a unit that way. I must assume that it is a decision that they have 
reached or that they are operating on the direction of others above 
them in the Communist Party to utilize these campaigns in that par- 
ticular way. 

I do not need to go on any further, I believe, for members of this sub- 
committee, because I think that they have seen ample evidence of this 
sort of thing over and over again in the past 15 to 20 years in the United 
States. 

The upshot of it is that, as I indicated yesterday, liberal causes are 
frequently lost but the unwanted and strange bedfellows which one 
picks up inadvertently when championing some liberal cause which 
he believes to be just. 

Mr. Tavenxer. That is another typical example of the propaganda 
use made by the Communist Party of issues. 

Is it not also true to say that the raising of issues and the use of them 
in that manner was done for the purpose of recruiting members who 
are interested in those issues into the active work of the Communist 
Party? 

Dr. Patten. Undoubtedly that was one of the objectives. Another 
was to try to sneak support for causes behind that in which a person 
might be primarily interested. I could never understand the value of 
the tactic. Certainly it has defeated a lot of good things, that is, good 
in the opinion of liberally minded people, and it serves generally to 
diminish rather than to increase one's friends and supporters in the 
case of a particular issue. Because the American people don't swallow 
that as much as one might think. 

Mr. Tavenxer. Dr. Patten, you referred in your earlier testimony 
to another professional group of the Communist Party made up of 
members of the legal profession. Did you have an occasion at any time 
to meet with the legal professional group ? 

Dr. Patten. No; I didn't, Mr. Tavenner, but at times — this I am 
specific about — there were times when certain members of the legal 
profession did not have their own club and were members of other 
professional clubs throughout the city. At one time I think there were 



HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1165 

three professional clubs, the North Side, the South Side, and I don't 
know what the other one was. There may have been only two, but these 
were made up of people who included professional people, including: 
the lawyers who did not then apparently have a club of their own. 
So, I had occasion to be in meetings with a number of those people. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you give us their names, please ? 

Dr. Pattex. I had been in branch meetings with Benjamin Dreyfus, 
Robert Treuhaft, Aubrey Grossman. Doris Marasse. 

Mr. Tavenner. Let's go back now and spell these names so there 
cannot be any misunderstanding. 

Dr. Patten. D-r-e-y-f-u-s. 

Mr. Tavenner. That is Benjamin Drej^fus. 

Dr. Patten. Treuhaft. I think it is T-r-e-w-h-a-f-t, but it could 
be T-r-e-u-h-a-f-t. I am sorry, I do not know the spelling. 

Mr. Tavenner. These persons were lawyers where ? 

Dr. Patten. In San Francisco. 

Mr. Tavenner. Then you said Aubrey Grossman. 

Dr. Patten. Aubrey G-r-o-s-s-m-a-n. 

Mr. Tavenner. He was a member of the legal profession ? 

Dr. Patten. That is right. After I returned from my second ex- 
perience in the Army I believe it was at that time that he had stopped 
practice as far as I can tell, and was operating and educational director 
for the County Communist Party. There was a young lady by the 
name of Doris Marasse. 

Mr. Tavenner. Doris Marasse? 

Dr. Patten. Doris Marasse. A young man Leigh, L-e-i-g-h, 
A-t-h-e-a-r-n. Charles Garry, G-a-r-r-y. 

Mr. Tavenner. Go ahead. 

Dr. Patten. Charles Garry. There are others with whom I at 
one time or another attended meetings of an educational nature or 
gatherings within the Professional Section and whether or not they 
were ever members of the particular club of which I was a member 
I cannot say. Those people are Harold Sawyer, Bertram Edises, 
E-d-i-s-e-s, Richard Gladstein, G-1-a-d-s-t-e-i-n, I think, George An- 
dersen, Ewing Sibbett, S-i-b-b-e-t-t. 

Mr. Tavenner. Can you tell the committee what Communist Party 
members of the legal profession were expected to engage in at that 
time? 

Dr. Patten. Wlien they had a branch of their own, I would have no 
way of knowing what they were expected to engage in and when the}^ 
were in clubs with other professional people, then what they would 
be supposed to engage in would be the same things that other members 
of that club would engage in, supporting different campaigns that the 
party is supporting, and so forth. 

There was frequent discussion among them about matters concern- 
ing the legal profession and they meant little to me because they were 
not within my particular realm of interest, but I could distinguish 
them from doctors whom I heard discussing. I never heard a doctor 
discussing any infiltration campaign or activity within the Medical 
Society, nationally or locally, but I did hear lawyers discuss efforts to 
be made within the local organization of the lawyers guild. 

Mr. Tavenner. By that you mean the National Lawyers Guild ? 



1166 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 

Dr. Patten. That is right, and I believe, if I am not mistaken, 
some of these people held office at one time in the local chapter of the 
National Lawyers Guild. I think Dreyfus was an officer of that 
organization at one time. 

Mr. Tavexner. You have no knowledge of the activities at this 
time of the Professional Section of the Communist Party consisting 
solely of lawyers ? 

Dr. Pattex. Today ? 

Mr. Ta\txxer. Yes. 

Dr. Pattex. No. 

Mr. Tavexxer. Now, you have described to the committee what 
you referred to as, I believe, the miscellaneous and multiprofessional 
cell of the Communist Party in which we find artists, musicians, the 
teachers that you have described and others. Can you be more specific 
and break tliat down into categories and give us the names of those 
who were members of this professional cell from the various occupa- 
tions as far as you can recall tliem and identify them by occupations? 

Dr. Pattex. To some extent, yes; and in other cases, no. Some 
people that I remember merel}' by their presence at meetings, and I 
am not too well acquainted with what they did, other than activity 
within the particular club. 

Mr. TA^^:xxER. Go ahead. 

Dr. Pattex. I recall two artists who at one time had been at one 
time or another members of the branch of which I was a member. 
One artist, Victor Arnautoff, A-r-n-a-u-t-o-f-f, was frequently in the 
same branch as I was in. 

Mr. Tavexxer. He has appeared before this committee on previous 
occasions but has refused to coo])erate, relying on the fifth amendment. 

Dr. Pattex. And Ray Burrell was another artist I knew when I 
first came into the party in San Francisco. 

Mr. Ta^t:xxer. What is that last name ? 

Dr. Pattex. B-u-r-r-e-1-1. 

Mr. Tavexxer. And the first name ? 

Dr. Pattex. Ray. There was an architect by the name of Harold 
Dow. 

Mr. Tavexxer. How do you spell the last name ? 

Dr. Pattex. D-o-w. 

Landscaping Architect Garrett Ekbo. E-k-b-o. In some cases I say 
I have no knowledge of what people did. Some of them were 
active in teaching perhaps at the California Labor School or some- 
thing like that. They were removed pretty much from my sphere of 
knowledge other than the fact that they were members of the branch 
or I knew them in the party in some way, or else I have forgotten now 
what activities they carried on. 

Mr. Tavexxer. But they were in each instance members of the Pro- 
fessional Section of the Communist Party; is that correct? 

Dr. Pattex. That is right. 

There were two musicians, Frances Shorr and Lev Shorr, husband 
and wife. She is a violinist and he is a pianist. Another violinist, 
Mary Burrell, the wife of Ray Burrell. 

Mr. Tavexxer. Would you spell that last name, please? 

Dr. Pattex. B-u-r-r-e-l-l. 

Occasionally musicians were called upon to assist the Communist 
Party — I mean the small branch — in some entertainment they were 



HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1167 

putting on perhaps to raise funds. The same was true sometimes 
of artists. Artists might give a painting to be auctioned off to raise 
money. 

Mr. Tayenner. I am very sorry. I was giving a message to my 
associate here and I did not hear your last statement. 

Dr. Patten. I said sometimes musicians were used to entertain at 
party functions, and sometimes a painting by an artist would be do- 
nated to be auctioned off. I won a painting by Victor Arnautoff for 
25 cents. 

Mr. Tavenner. You have spoken of the musicians. You spoke of 
the musicians and people in the entertainment field. Were they used 
in any way by the Communists in connection with the holding of 
Communist Party causes and Communist Party meetings ? 

Dr. Patten. Beyond what I have just said? 

Mr. Tavenner, Again I will have to apologize because I was en- 
gaged in something else. Maybe you covered it. 

Dr. Patten. I said they were used to entertain for party parties, 
social functions held by the Communist Party which were held for 
the purpose of raising funds and bringing people closer to the party 
for possible recruitment. 

From here on I am unable to classify names which I have recalled 
to my mind and jotted down. They are more or less different people 
in different activities, different professional or semiprof essional activi- 
ties or occupations. 

For example, two wives of people whom I had previously mentioned 
who were members of branches of which I was a member were Hilda 
Eshorn and Aline Pockman. 

Mr. Tavenner. Give us the name again, please, and speak a little 
louder. 

Dr. Patten. Aline — I don't know how to spell the first name, 
P-o-c-k-m-a-n, the wife of Leonard Pockman. Attended movies with 
Louise Garry, the wife of the attorney. Sometime in my member- 
ship, Isaac Folkoff was a member of the same branch of which I was 
a member. He was an elderly gentleman exceedingly well read in 
Marxist literature, who frequently conducted educational sessions with- 
in the branch. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was he considered to be a functionary of the Com- 
munist Party ? 

Dr. Patten. Not to my knowledge. He was a small-business man 
and he may have been a functionaiy prior to my being there. He 
may also have been a functionary unlisted and unknown to me as such. 
He was certainly well thought of within the organization. There was 
Dorothy Jeffers, a social worker. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know how she was employed ? 

Dr. Patten. Wlien I knew her she was at the Booker T. Washington 
Institute here in San Francisco. It is a social service organization, I 
believe, for young people. 

Norman C-a-n-r-i-g-h-t, I believe is the correct spelling, and when 
1 first knew him he was employed by a Federal organization which, 
if my memory serves me correctly, handled the purchasing for Army 
post exchanges. He later stopped that work and went to work for the 
Daily People's World. 



1168 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 

When I first became a member of tlie party here in San Francisco, 
there was in the branch, a Rikee, R-i-k-e-e, and I don't know the real 
name, E-1-s-e-s-s-e-r. I do not know what her occupation was. 

Mr. Tavexner. Do you recall her first name? 

Dr. Patten. No. This was what she was known as to me. 

There was a young lady, the wife of Robert Treuhaft, whose nick- 
name was Decca Treuhaft. I think the first name was correctly 
Jessica, but I cannot be certain on that. 

There was Marjorie Leonard who was in the branch where I was 
at one time. It strikes me that she had a connection with the legal 
profession and either was an attorney or was the wife of an attorney. 

Frances Watson, the wife of Morris Watson. Whether she had 
any other occupation other than housewife, I don't know. 

There was a young lady by the name of Ann Wolf. I think she 
was a Government employee when I first knew her. 

Estelle Brisker — 

Mr. Tavenxer. Will you spell that last name ? 

Dr. Pattex. B-r-i-s-k-e-r, the wife of Sydney Brisker. I was a 
member of a branch with her. 

In addition, I have met either at the party office or elsewhere, or 
under circumstances where I know these people can be — it gives me 
reasonable assurance that they were members of the Communist Party. 
I met such people as Peggy Sarasohn, who was on the stand here 
yesterday. 

You heard of the California Labor School. I have seen her there 
and I have seen her at Communist Party headquarters. 

There was another young man in the club to which I belonged by 
the name of M-o-r-r-i-e Halperin. I do not know anything about him 
other than that and that he was literature director for a while of the 
branch of which I was a member. 

Mr. Tavexx'er. He was not an attorney, was he ? 

Dr. Pattex^. I don't think so. 

At an educational meeting within the section I saw the wife of — 
I saw Mrs. Lawrence L-e-v-i-t-a-n. I knew Ellis Colton in the Inter- 
national Book Store. 

Mr. Tavenx'er. What do you mean by knew him in the bookstore? 

Dr. Pattex^. He ran the bookstore, worked in it and he was used 
as literature director from time to time and I used to go to see him 
from time to time to get literature from him for me to take to a branch 
meeing to dispose of by sale or handing it out, materials to be used 
as a part of the literature educational drive in that particular branch. 

Mr. Tavexx'er. What was the name of this bookstore ? 

Dr. Pattex. I believe it was named the International Book Store. 
It was located when I knew it up on Market Street where Fell inter- 
sects Market. I think that was the corner. It was just a block before 
Van Ness. 

Mr. Tavexner. It might be well for you to explain at this time the 
function that the Communist bookstore performed in the operation of 
the organized cells of the Communist Party and particularly the 
professional cells here in San Francisco. 

Dr. Pattex. Both here and in the State of Washington I found 
that bookstores were considered to be highly important outlets for 
party materials and literature, a necessity almost in any center, any 
city where the party would function. Materials could be purchased 



HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1169 

there by someone coming in off tlie street and some bookstores run by— 
the party tried to sell best sellers and so on to pick up the extra money 
and also to lure people in. 

In other words, you might see a book that is in the public eye right 
now is a best seller in the window and you go in to get it and before 
you are finished you might buy another book that might be advan- 
tageous for the party to sell. This is not always the case, because there 
is always certain financial risk when one expands in that direction. 

Literature contained in bookstores, including the International 
Book Store here in San Francisco, was some of its American-published 
materials, some of it classical Marxist literature, and sometimes or al- 
ways as far as the time that I was concerned, they also sold literature 
published in the Soviet Union, magazines such as Soviet Kussia Today 
and Soviet Literature, and so on. 

Mr. Ta\t:nner. Wlien you went there to get the Communist Party 
literature which was required at a particular meeting of the profes- 
sional cell, did this man Colton seem to have any previous knowledge 
of the type of Communist Party literature that was required for the 
particular occasion ? 

Dr. Patten". Yes. Sometimes it would be particular pieces of litera- 
ture, the sales of which would be pushed by the party at a particular 
time. It might be a book or pamphlet in connection with a campaign 
that the party had on, either a broad campaign or an internal cam- 
paign within its own organization. It would be such literature as that 
that he would know to give to me. 

Mr. Ta\t:nner. Were all of the Communist Party cells in the com- 
munity supplied in the same manner from the same Communist book- 
store ? 

Dr. Patten. As far as I know they were. I do not see why there 
would have been any exception. I know that the bookstore kept 
records of accounts which the different branches ran with the book- 
store, because I would go there, maybe a meeting was Tuesday night, 
and I would go there Tuesday afternoon and pick up the literature 
and maybe not bring in the money or the balance until later on in the 
week. Those accounts were kept and I am sure that Mr. Colton knew 
exactly what was doing as far as literature sales were concerned in 
the various branches. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know anything about the source of that ma- 
terial which he supplied for use by Communist Party professional 
cells? 

Dr. Patten. No, other than it was ordered and, I assumed, pur- 
chased from various publishers. There was sometimes mimeographed 
party material which was given out at the same time and particularly 
an education directive, something like that, an educational outline to 
be handed out there. 

Mr. Tavenner. Have you exhausted recollection regarding the 
members ? 

Dr. Patten. I believe I have, Mr. Tavenner. 

Mr. Tavenner. Is there anything else that you desire to say to the 
committee regarding the circumstances under which you got out of the 
party, the fact that you broke completely from the party ? 

Dr. Patten. By way of amplification, I might say that I do not 
think that when I first dropped out I realized the extent to which I 
felt antagonism toward the methods and principles of the organiza- 



1170 HEARINGS HELD EST SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 

tion. It may not have been only a partial revulsion that I felt until 
later when I saw, as an outsider, tlie functioning of Communists, 
people "whom I had known previously as Communists, when I saw 
their functioning during the loyalty fight, I was thoroughly disgusted 
then. It may have taken that long. I do not think a person in the 
Communist Party wakes up one morning with a clear head and says, 
"•I no longer feel as I have felt." This takes time, from the Commu- 
nist standpoint there would be a dialectical process taking place at 
which at a certain point would bring about a recognition of the total 
change in a person's thinking and beliefs which might not have been 
recognized at first. 

I think this experience of mine should be of value to other people, 
if you do not mind my saying just a few words along that line, Mr. 
Tavenner. 

Mr. Tavenner, I think it is quite appropriate that you do. 

Dr. Patten. I am sure that there are people who dropped out of 
the Communist Party membership merely because they felt they dis- 
agreed with this or that or for security reasons — that felt they wanted 
to drop out or they were tired and wanted to divorce themselves from 
such activity. As time passes, I am sure that these people have more 
and more realized that they are not only no longer in sympathy with 
the objectives of the organization but that they are opposed to it, and 
yet they lack the impetus to speak before a committee such as this 
subcommittee and tell what they know. I think they should examine 
their own thoughts on the subject and find out whether they really 
believe what they used to believe or if they are free of that type of 
belief, and if the latter be their decision, then I think they should speak. 

I cannot see that there should be fear on the part of anyone for loss 
of prestige or employment through doing something of this nature, 
and once they have arrived at the point where they realize that they 
are in opposition to what the Communist Party has tried to do as far 
as I knew it and what they are trying to do today, then they should 
be able to come out and speak freely. I can assure them of a couple 
of things. One is that this has not been a pleasant, or is not a pleasant 
experience for me now. I would much rather have stayed home, but 
it was something that I felt had to be done. It is done. 

Everything is clear, open, aboveboard as far as I am concerned. 
If I have made myself some extra enemies as a result of this, then I 
trust that those are good people to have as enemies, and I trust that 
I have compensated for that by perhaps making a few good friends 
in the process. 

I want to emphasize again that I do not intend to hurt anyone. 
I would like to personally urge anyone that I referred to to speak 
out clearly, and I think that they will find that it is much more pleasant 
rather than to go around harboring a feeling of guilt for what they 
may have done in the past, because one made a mistake there is no 
reason why one sliould perpetuate tliat mistake. They might do much 
better by recognizing that it was a mistake, and giving evidence to 
anyone who cares to know that they have a deep feeling of loyalty 
to their Government and that they no longer feel as they felt. 

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

The Chairman. I cannot let this opportunity pass without telling 
you that you liave made a greater contribution to the preservation 
of our great Republic than you probably realize. You say it is not 



HEARmGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1171 

pleasant for you to sit there. Well, it is certainly far from pleasant 
for us Members of the Confess who have been selected to do this 
very distasteful job to sit where we are. I know of nothing that I 
would rather do less than what I am doing at this moment, but in 
the light of the boasts that have been made by Communist leaders in 
recent days, I think a challenge has been presented to people like your- 
self — people who can't escape the fact that since Korea there need 
be no question what the objective of the Communist Party is. 

I was in Austria while the revolution was taking place. I talked 
with the young students, the disillusioned workers who revolted, and 
I want to say to you that if the stories told by those young people 
were broadcast in this land, there would be no workers or students 
interested in the philosophy of communism. 

Yesterday, according to the editorial in San Francisco's leading 
newspaper, Dorothy Healey Connelly, the former chairman of the 
Communist Party in Los Angeles, rejoiced in what she termed "The 
greatest victory the Communist Party in America has ever received," 
referring to the decision of the Supreme Court. As a quotation, "It 
will mark a rejuvenation of the party in America. We have lost some 
members in the last few years,"' and mark you — this is the rest of 
the quote, "but now we are on our way." 

I repeat, there is the challenge, and I trust that educated people 
such as you will accept that challenge, and they will say "We have 
examined communism just as the students and the workers in Hungary 
examined communism. We know what it is — a cruel, ruthless form 
of dictatorship, and we are going to enlist in the cause of preserva- 
tion of this Republic of ours." 

I want to thank you on behalf of not only the members of the com- 
mittee, but of the Congress of the United States. 

I do not feel that I am presumptuous when I say that because when 
the appropriation for this committee was voted on at this session of 
Congress, there was not one single vote against the appropriation 
which made it possible to continue this work. Xot one single member, 
Democrat or Republican, voted against the continuation of this work. 

I think that the Communists are going to be disappointed. The 
decision of the Supreme Court presents a setback for the moment, 
but in the light of the fact that in 37 instances the Supreme Court 
changed the law of the land, this decision did not come as too great a 
surprise to those of us who are charged with the responsibilities in 
the field, and I want to say to the Communists that we have accepted 
the challenge, and that we are going to press for the kind of legis- 
lation that even the Supreme Court will understand. 

You are discharged with the thanks of this committee. 

The committee will stand in recess until 2 o'clock. 

(Whereupon, at 11 : 50 a. m., the committee was recessed, to re- 
convene, at 2 p. m., the same day.) 

AFTERNOON SESSION— WEDNESDAY, JUNE 19, 1957 

(Committee members present: Representatives Walter, Scherer, 
and Mcintosh.) 
The Chairman. The committee will be in order. 
Mr. Tavenner, will you call your first witness, please ? 
Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Morton Elkins. 



1172 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 

The Chairman. Will you raise your right hand, please? Do you 
swear the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole 
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Elkins. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF MORTON L. ELKINS, ACCOMPANIED BY 
COUNSEL, LLOYD E. McMURRAY 

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

Mr. Elkins. My name is ^Morton L. Elkins. 

Mr. Ta\t:nner. Are you commonly addressed as Mort Elkins? 

Mr. Elkins. Well, possibly some people might call you Bill, some 
people call me Mort. That is a short rendition of my name. 

Mr. Ta-\^nner. You are frequently called by the name of Mort, 
are you not ? 

Mr. Elkins. Yes, quite of ten. 

Mr. Ta\t:nner. It is noted that you are accompanied by counsel. 
Will counsel please identify himself for the record ? 

Mr. McMuRRAY. Loyd E. McMurray, 85 Market Street, San 
Francisco. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Elkins, when and where were you born? 

Mr. Elkins. I was born in 1911 in Philadelphia, Pa. 

Mr. Tavenner. Where do you now reside ? 

Mr. Elkins. I live in Eichmond, Calif. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long have you lived in the State of California? 

Mr. Elkins. I have lived here since 1946. 

Mr. Ta^^enner. Have you lived in Richmond, Calif., during that 
entire period ? 

Mr. Elkins. No ; I have not. 

Mr. Tavenner. Where else have you lived in the State of Cali- 
fornia ? 

Mr. Elkins. I have lived only in San Francisco with the excep- 
tion of some summers away from San Francisco. 

Mr. Ta\^nner. Will you give us the dates, please. 

Mr. Elkins. I lived in San Francisco from 1946 until September 
of 1956 and I have lived at Richmond, Calif., since then. One or two 
summers I lived temporarily near Palo Alto, Calif. 

Mr. TA^^:NNER. "\^^iat is your trade or profession ? 

Mr. Elkins. I am a warehouseman. 

Mr. Ta\t:nner. Have you practiced any other trade or profession 
since you came to California ? 

Mr. Elkins. Yes; I have been a teacher, I have been a punch- 
press operator and a carpenter. 

Mr. Ta\'enner. For what period of time were you engaged in the 
teaching profession, and where ? 

Mr. Elkins. I taught in the years 1948 and part of 1949 as a sub- 
stitute teacher in the San Francisco public school system and also a 
teacher in the adult night schools for one year, 1948 and part of 1949. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee, please, what your for- 
mal educational training has been ? 

Mr. Elkins. I received a bachelor of arts in Temple University 
in Philadelphia, in 1933, and I received a master of arts from Stan- 
ford University in September of 1949. 



HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1173 

Mr. Tavexner. Will you tell the committee, please, liow you have 
been employed in California other than the employment that you have 
already stated ? 

Mr. Eleins. Mr. Counselor, I do not understand how a question 
about any of the other occupations which I might have had would 
be pertinent to your line of inquiry. Will you specify 

Air. Tavenner. You consider that your employment as a teacher 
is pertinent, but your other employment is not. Is that what I under- 
stand you to say ? 

Mr. Elkins. I do not understand how any other question about 
employment is pertinent. 

Mr. Ta^'enn'er. We will let it rest for the moment, as it stands, that 
you have been employed for several periods of time in the teaching 
profession. Was that here in San Francisco ? 

Mr. Elkins. That was here in San Francisco. 

Mr. Ta\^nner. The latest date of that employment was — you said 
you taught from 1948 and 1949 and then I understood you to say at 
some later date, but I am not sure of what you said. 

Mr. Elkins. I taught at no later date. My occupation as a school- 
teacher — I am not certain about the date — ended in November or 
December of 1949. 

Mr. Ta^t:nner. I understood you to say you engaged in some type of 
night teaching after 1949. 

I\Ir. Elkins. I say, I do not make myself sufficiently clear. That 
position was done concurrently. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee, please, whether or not 
you know of the existence, that is, of your own personal knowledge, of 
the existence of a professional cell of the Communist Party in San 
Francisco at any time until the date that you left San Francisco in, 
I believe, 1956, to go to Richmond to live? 

Mr. Elkins. Mr. Counsel, I must in all conscience decline to answer 
this question for this reason: I believe that no governing body can 
compel any citizen to state how he thinks, talks, or who he associates 
with in the field of public discussion. 

These rights are his own personal business, it seems to me, and so 
guaranteed by the first amendment to the Constitution, which states, 
and I quote : 

Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, 
or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government 
for redress of grievances. 

That is my answer, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Let me explain that I have not asked you any 
question as to what you think or what you talk about or what you dis- 
cuss in public discussions or who you associate with. I am asking you 
whether or not you know of the existence of a secret group of the 
Communist Party known as the Professional Section of the Communist 
Party in this city. 

Let me repeat the question. Do you know of the existence or did 
you know of the existence of an organized group of the Communist 
Party known as the Professional Section of the Communist Party in 
San Francisco at any period prior to your departure in 1956 to take 
up your residence at Richmond ? 

Mr. Elkins. Are you asking me if I have personal or direct knowl- 
edge? 



1174 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes. I am not asking about hearsay. I am asking 
if YOU have direct knowledge. 

Mr. Elkins. Look, in light of m}^ statement, I would like to ask you, 
Aren't you asking me who I have l3een associating with? 

Mr. Tavenner. No, that was not the question. I am asking you if 
you know of the existence of such an ordinary group of the Com- 
munist Party. 

Mr. Elkins. I have difficulty in understanding actually, Mr. Coun- 
sel, your question. I have already stated that I would not answer 
any questions about any people I have associated with politically 
in the field of public discussion and it seems to me your question is 
perfectly relevant to the objection I have raised and it seems my 
answer still stands . 

Mr. Tavenner. You are indicating that you do not understand. I 
want to be certain tliat you do understand. I am asking you in plain 
language if you know of the existence of an organized secret group 
of the Communist Party in the city of San Francisco within the 
period that I previously mentioned. There should not be any diffi- 
culty on your part in understanding a simple question like that. 

Mr. Elkins. Mr. Counsel, how could I know of the existence of 
such a group unless I had an association with that group and knew 
the people in it ? 

Mr. Ta\tenner. Do you mean unless you were a member of it ? Is 
that what you mean to say ? 

Mr. Elkins. No; I am merely saying how can anybody have any 
evidence of any relevancy except that they had direct associations 
with them, which I think your question is implying I had. 

Mr. Tavenner. In order to remove any possible confusion in your 
mind as to the character of the question, let me put the question on 
this basis : Were you a member of the Professional Section of the Com- 
munist Party in the city of San Francisco at any time prior to 1956, 
the time wdien you left to take up your residence at Richmond, Calif. ? 

Mr. Elkins. Mr. Counsel, I want to decline to answer that ques- 
tion both on the grounds which I just read to you, and I want to 
further explain why I am not going to answer your question. As I 
understand it, the vrork of the committee is supposedly to investigate 
un-American and subversive acts, ideas, subversive acts and ideas and 
associations to see if a certain organization ought to be outlawed 
and look into tlie subversive influences and intellectual life in the Bay 
Area. To me that has no legitimate purpose in asking me about my 
ideas or associations. It is because you think they are evidence that 
I have been engaged in subversive acts or harboring subversive ideas. 
You have no legitimate interest in asking me about acts which you 
consider acceptable or patriotic, so it is not possible for me to discuss 
these matters with you no matter how much I want to. This is not 
a free forum for ideas. Suppose I do discuss any of the activities 
you may ask me about, if you feel they are subversive I may have to 
face the expense and danger of a Federal prosecution for subversive 
activity. If you have some informers' testimony other than mine I 
may be prosecuted for perjury. 

I must therefore use tlie protection which the Constitution affords 
me for the innocent as well as the guilty, the protection of having to 
give testimony that may be used against myself. 



HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1175 

Mr. Tavenner. Since you have put your answer that way, I will ask 
you the question : Did you hear the testimon.y of Dr. Patten in which 
he identified you as a member of that group at a period around pos- 
sibly 1946-48, in that general period? My question was: "Dicl you 
hear it?" 

Mr. Elkins. Yes ; I heard him testify. 

Mr. Tavenner. You heard him identify you as a member of the pro- 
fessional group ? 

Mr. Elkins. I did. 

Mr. Ta\t:nner. Was he telling us the truth or not ? 

Mr. Elkins. I feel, Mr. Counsel, I have already answered that ques- 
tion by the statement I have read and on both grounds. 

Mr. ScHERER. It is not clear, Mr. Chairman, whether he is invoking 
the amendment or not, so I ask you to direct him to answer whether 
he is or not. 

The Chairman. I understand him to mean that he declines to an- 
swer the questions because of the reasons given. 

Mr. Elkins. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. Scherer. The reasons he gave are not clear. Ask him the ques- 
tion so the record is clear. 

Witness, are you refusing to answer the questions on the basis of 
the fifth amendment? 

Mr. Elkins. Mr. Scherer, I tried to make my answer clear. If it is 
not clear, would you ask the reporter to read it back, please. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Chairman, that would be a complete loss of 
time. The witness can answer the question in three words. 

Mr. Elkins. Well, Mr. Scherer, I am sure that as a lawyer you know 
in what clause this language appears, and if you want me to specif- 
ically name the number of the clause of the Bill of Rights, it is No. 5 
in the Bill of Rights. 

Mr. Scherer. I am sorry. This time I did not hear you. 

Mr. Elkins. I believe that you know that there is no other clause 
in the Constitution which contains this language except No. 5 of the 
Bill of Rights to the Constitution. 

The Chairman. The section which protects a person against testi- 
fying against himself in a criminal proceeding, is that it? 

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

Mr. Scherer. That is all I wanted to know. 

The Chairman. I would like to remind you that this is not a crim- 
inal proceeding, nor are you being tried. 

Mr. Tavenner. The committee has been endeavoring to ascertain 
the extent, character, and objects of the Professional Section of the 
Communist Party here in California as of the present time as well as 
far enough back to indicate to this committee the progress that is being 
made and the extent of Communist Party work. You moved away 
from San Francisco in 1956. Have you any knowledge of Com- 
munist Party activities since you moved to Richmond, and remem- 
bering the question that you raised as to the meaning of that, I would 
change it and state. Have you been a member of the Communist Party 
at any time while you have been a resident at Richmond? 

Mr. Elkins. Mr. Counsel, the same answer I made to your previ- 
ous question about Communist Party membership is still applicable 
here as far as I am concerned. 

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



1176 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 

Mr. Elkins. The same answer, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you a member of the general executive board 
of Local G of the ILWU, and if so, when ? 

Mr. Elkins. I am a little puzzled, Mr. Counsel. Is this com- 
mittee investigating the International Longshoremen's and Ware- 
housemen's Union ? 

Mr. Tavenxer. Not at all, sir. We are investigating the Profes- 
sional Section of the Communist Party. We have evidence here that 
you were a member of this Professional Section of the Communist 
Party. I have information that you occupied the position that I 
just mentioned on the executive board of Local 6. I want to know 
and you are in a position to say what Communist Party activity, if 
any, you attempted to carry on in that position. I am not accusing 
the ILWU of taking any action on anything that you attempted to 
do, but I think we have a right to know what it is that this Profes- 
sional Section is attempting to do. 

Mr. Elkins. As a member of the general executive board, I must 
preface my answer that this committee has come to San Francisco 
several times, and in 1953 it subpenaed the president and treasurer- 
secretary of Local 6, and its last subpena was issued to the secretary- 
treasurer of the International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's 
Union. I can only conclude that this committee is hostile to the 
ILWU and as a member of the general executive board I must for 
that reason decline. 

Mr. Tavenner. Then I ask he be directed to answer. 

The Chairman. You are directed to answer that question. 

Mr. Elkins. Mr. Counsel, what specific question? Would you 
mind repeating ? What are you asking me ? 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you read him the question, please. 

(Question read by the reporter.) 

Mr. Elkins. I detected, I think, Mr. Counsel, at least two ques- 
tions. Would you give me a single question ? 

Mr. Tavenner. Which one would you rather have first ? 

Mr. Elkins. That is your job as counsel. 

The Chairman. I must remind the audience that you are here 
as the guests of the committee, and we will not tolerate any demon- 
strations of any sort. 

Mr. Tavenner. If you want to answer the question in each small 
detail, I will start by asking you this: When were you on the execu- 
tive board of Local 6 of the itWU ? 

Mr. Elkins. Upon grounds previously stated I decline to answer 
that question. 

Mr. Tavenner. Very well, since you have answered that part of my 
question, let's go to another part. 

Did you attempt in any manner to carry a Communist Party pro- 
gram into the ILWU ? 

Mr. Elkins. Well, I must say that the word "program" covers an 
extremely broad range of subjects. Could you ask about one specific 
part or some narrow and final part ? 

Mr. Tavenner. You are in a better position to know the answer to 
that. 

Mr. ScHERER. May I interrupt. Did you carry any part, no matter 
how small, of the Communist program into the union? 

Mr. Elkins. Mr. Counsel, I do not know whether to direct my 
question to you or Mr. Scherer. 



HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1177 

Mr. Tavenner. To the Congressman, I yield to the Congressman. 

Mr. Elkins. What are the Communist programs that we are talking 
about ? 

Mr. ScHERER. I ask that the chairman direct the witness to answer 
the question. 

The Chairman. You are directed to answer the question. 

Mr. Elkins. I decline to answer on the grounds previously stated. 

Mr. Tavenner. JNIr. Elkins, the committee at this hearing and at 
numerous previous hearings has inquired into the Communist Party 
activities in the San Francisco Labor School. Information has come 
to our attention that you attended that school under the GI bill of 
rights. Is that correct ? 

Mr. Elkins. Mr. Counsel, in light of the interests of this committee 
in that organization and in the light of the testimony given concerning 
that organization, I believe I must decline to answer on the same 
grounds. 

Mr. Tavenner. The committee has been concerned about the use of 
Federal funds in the education of young men who have joined the 
Communist conspiracy and are undertaking to carry on their work at 
Communist-supported and manned schools. Did you receive Federal 
Government assistance while in attendance at that school? 

Mr. Elkins. The same answer, sir, 

Mr. Tavenner. Why did you not inform the committee as to your 
period of enlistment at that school when I asked you to give us an 
account of your formal educational training? 

Mr. Elkins. I understood, sir, that by formal you meant study 
leading to accredited degrees and diplomas. 

Mr. Tavenner. That is interesting. You did not consider that that 
was that type of school. Then tell us what type of a school it was. 

Mr. Elkins. I believe I have already clearly indicated in my reply 
to that, and my reasons for that, and I repeat that I decline to answer 
on the previously stated grounds. 

Mr. Tavenner. I have no further questions. 

The Chairman. Mr. Scherer? 

Mr. Scherer. At the beginning of your examination, Mr. Counsel, 
you asked the witness about other employment. You indicated that 
you were coming back to that. Do you want to pursue that further ? 

Mr. Tavenner. You may go ahead. 

Mr. Scherer. Witness, what other employment did you have other 
than that which you gave us in your initial testimony ? 

Mr. Elkins. Mr. Congressman, I am still not enlightened as to the 
pertinence of this question to this inquiry. 

Mr. Scherer. Mr. Chairman, I ask you to direct the witness to 
answer the question with respect to what other employment he had, 
other than what he told us in his initial interrogation by counsel for 
this committee. 

The Chairman. It seems to me a preliminary question and I direct 
you to answer the question. 

Mr. Elkins. I can only remark, Mr. Chairman, that as a preliminary 
question it is coming rather at the close of the testimony, but I would 
like to decline to answer that on the same grounds as I have already 
given. 

Mr, Scherer. Did you ever receive any compensation directly or 
indirectly from the Communist Party ? 

94343— 57— pt. 1 8 



1178 HEARINGS HELD IK SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 

Mr. Elkins. The same answer as before, sir. 

Mr. ScHERER. Were you ever employed by the Communist Party? 

Mr. Elkins. The same answer. 

Mr. SciiERER. I haA^e no further questions. 

The Chairman. The witness is excused. 

Mr. Tavenxer. IVfr. Thomas D. Hardwick, will you come forward, 
please. 

The Chairman. Will you raise your right hand, please. 

Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, 
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? 

Mr. Hardwick. I do. 

The Chairman. Proceed, Counsel. 

TESTIMONY OF THOMAS (D.) HARDWICK, ACCOMPANIED BY 
COUNSEL, LLOYD E. McMURRAY 

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

Mr. Hardwick. My name is Thomas Hardwick. 

Mr. Tavenner. Spell your last name. 

Mr. Hardavick. H-a-r-d-w-i-c-k. 

Mr. Tavenner. It is noted that you are accompanied by tlie same 
counsel as the former witness. 

"Wlien and where were you born, Mr. Hardwick ? 

Mr. Hardw^ick. I was born in Chicago, 111., 1908. 

Mr. Tavenner. Where do you now reside ? 

Mr. HardW'ICK. Richmond, Calif. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long have you lived in Richmond ? 

Mr. Hardwick. I would say about 3 or 3I/2 years. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long have you lived in the State of California ? 

Mr. Hardwick. If my memory is correct, since December of 1945. 

Mr. Tavenner. Where have you lived in California since December 
of 1945 ? 

Mr. Hardw^ick. When I was discharged from the Army I lived 
previously in Los Angeles and then I moved to San Francisco. 

Mr. Tavenner. A^Hien did you move to San Francisco? In what 
year ? 

Mr. Hardwick. In the early or middle part of 1946 if I remember 
corectly. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long did you remain in San Francisco ? 

Mr. Hardwick. If my memory is correct, a few months and then 
I moved to Berkeley, Calif. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long were you a resident of Berkeley ? Just 
take it from there and bring it on up to the time that you moved to 
Richmond. 

Mr. Hardwick. I ma}^ be off a month or two. I am trying to remem- 
ber approximately. I moved to Berkeley, Calif., and lived there, I 
should say, about 2 years. 

Mr. Taa-enner. That would be 1946 to 1948, approximately? 

Mr. Hardwick. Yes, approximately. 

I then moved back to San Francisco and lived there until — ^Wliat 
date do you have now ? 

Mr. Tavenner. You said vou were in Berkeley between 1946 and 
1948. 

Mr. Hardwick. That is approximately. 



HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1179 

Mr. Tavenner. While you were there, what was your employment 
in Berkeley during that period of time. 

Mr. Hardwick. I was working in San Francisco. I was working 
for a trade union. 

Mr. Tavexner. A trade union ? 

Mr. Hardwick. That is right. 

Mr. Tavexxer. "What trade union ? 

Mr. Hardwick. United Office and Professional AVorkers. 

Mr. Tavexxer. Let ms ask you this : In what capacity ? 

Mr. Hardwick. Not during that complete time, however. Part of 
that time or approximately the last year or 9 months when I was living 
in Berkeley I was attending the University of California as a student. 

Mr. Tavexxer. What was the nature of your employment by the 
United Office and Professional Workers of America ? 

Mr. Hardwick. I was working there. 

Mr. Tavex^xer. Proceed. 

Mr. Hardwick. After leaving San Francisco, I moved back to San 
Francisco; I am pretty sure it was in 1948, and I lived in San Fran- 
cisco until some time in 1950. 

Mr. Ta\t:xxer. What was your employment during that period ? 

Mr. Hardwick. I was a school teacher. 

Mr. Ta\-exxer. Where ? 

Mr, Hardwick. The Burlingame High School, Burlingame, Calif. 

Mr. TA^^:x'XER. That brought us up to 1950. Just proceed. 

Mr. Hardwick. You are talking about residence now ? 

Mr. Tavexx^er. Yes. 

Mr. Hardwick. It may have been the latter part of 1950 or the early 
part of 1951 I moved, re-moved, to Berkeley, Calif. 

Mr. Tavexxer. How long did you remain there ? 

Mr. Hardwick. I would say a year, possibly between a year and 
a year and a half. 

Mr. Tavexxer. So that would be between 1952 or 1953. Where did 
you go from Berkeley ? Just a moment. 

Before you answer that question, what was your employment in 
Berkeley this second period from 1950 or 1951 to 1952 or 1953? 

Mr. Hardw^ick, I was a student at the University of California. 

Mr. Tavexxer. T\Tiere did you go from Berkeley ? 

Mr. Hardwick. I know where I went but I am not sure of the 
months. I may have lived about another 6 months more in Berkeley 
than what I told you, approximately, and I then moved to San Fran- 
cisco. I lived in San Francisco, I should say 6 or 7 months. 

Mr. Tavexxer. How were you employed in San Francisco on that 
occasion ? 

Mr, Hardwick. No, I was employed in San Francisco. 

Mr. Tavexxer. How were you employed while you were in San 
Francisco ? 

Mr. Hardwick. Are you referring to this latter period ? 

Mr. Tavexxer. This latter period of 6 or 7 months ? 

Mr. Hardw^ick. I was working in a factory in East Bay, in Emery- 
ville or Oakland. 

Mr. Tavexxer, You were employed in a factory ? 

Mr, Hardwick, Yes, 

Mr. Ta\t:xxer, Did you leave there and go to Richmond or did you 
go some other place first ? 



1180 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 

Mr. Hardwick. No ; I was living in San Francisco and working in 
the East Bay, and I then moved to Richmond. 

Mr. Taa-enner. That is what I asked. Very well. 
Tell the committee, please, Mr. Hardwick, briefly what your educa- 
tional training has been. You have given us part of it. You may have 
covered all of it but it would be better to state it more succinctly. 

Mr. Hardwick. I graduated from grammar school in Wilmette, 111. 
T graduated from high school in Illinois and I graduated from North- 
western University in Evanston, 111. I graduated from the University 
of Chicago, Chicago, 111. I returned to Northwestern University for 

graduate work 

Mr. Tavenner. ^^-lien was that ? 

Mr. Hardwick. I would say in 1933. Let me check that date a 
moment. 

As I remember, I returned one semester in 1932 to Northwestern and 
then later in 1934 I returned again for graduate work at Northwestern. 
I have taken courses at the New York School of Social Work. I 
suppose they would be called graduate courses. I have taken courses 
at the University of California, one semester in the school of education 
which I suppose would be termed "graduate work" and I believe an- 
other full year of graduate work in the graduate school of arts and 
sciences. I believe that covers it. 

Mr. Ta-v^exner. I understood you to say that you served in the 
Armed Forces of the United States. 
Mr. Hardw^ick. Yes; I did. 
Mr. Tavenner. Over what period of time ? 

Mr. Hardwick. From April of 1941 until December of 1941 and 
from February of 1942 until December of 1945. I believe that makes a 
total of 52 months. 

Mr. Tavenner. You remember that right to the month. Is there 
anything about your military service that you desire to mention ? I 
will give you the opportunity to do so. I am not asking you to. I am 
just merely giving you an opportunity to do so. 

Mr. Hardwick. Well, after 29 months overseas I wanted to come 
home, of course. 

Mr. Tavenner. I notice it was not long after you came home until 
you came to California. 

Mr. Hardwick. As a matter of fact, there was no break. I was dis- 
charged from the Army in California and with the exception of short 
vacation periods I believe I have not been out of the State since then. 
Mr. Ta\t3nner. Since that time, since you were discharged from 
the Army up until the pi'esent time, have you been aware of the 
existence of an organized group of the Communist Party, a secret 
group, Icnown as the Professional Section of the Communist Party 
in San Francisco or other places in California ? 

Mr. Hardwick. I must decline to answer that question. Counsel, be- 
cause I feel the question is in an area where Congress is forbidden by 
the first amendment to legislate and where I feel that this committee 

or any other committee 

Mr. TA^^NNER. Excuse me. You say you think Congress is forbid- 
den to legislate in the field of Communist Party activities? We have 
had on our statute books since 1950 the Internal Security Act. Of 
course the constitutionality of it is still being tested but it is within 
the field of congressional action. 



HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1181 

Mr. Hardwick. I get from what you say, Mr. Counsel, that you are 
saying that there is a variety of views on this subject. You have stated 
one and I have stated another. 

Mr. Tavenner. Very well, will you proceed to answer. 

Mr. Hardavick. I must decline to answer the question on the ground 
that I do not believe that this committee or any other can properly 
inquire into matters dealing with freedom of speech, association, and I 
further decline to answer the question on the basis that I do not feel 
that I have to testify against m.yself, and I mean by that the fifth 
amendment, which in my lay understanding, the gist of the portion I 
am referring to means that if someone is out to get you, you don't have 
to tell them. 

Mr. Tavenner. You also take the view that you will not help your 
country to determine what the extent of Communist Party intrigue is 
in this country. Is that what I understand you to mean ? 

Mr. Hardwick. I am afraid, Mr. Counsel, that this question is one 
that I can only reply to as I replied to previous questions. 

The Chairman. In other words, you decline to answer the question 
for the reasons that you gave in declining to answer the last question ? 

Mr. Hardwick. That is right. 

Mr. Tavenner. You are now living and have lived for 3 years at 
Richmond. Have you been a member of a professional cell of the 
Communist Party during any of that period of time, that is, the 3 
years that you have been at Richmond ? 

Mr. Hardwick. I am afraid, Mr. Counsel, I must decline to answer 
that question also on the same grounds that I previously stated. 

Mr. Tavenner. Prior to that you were in San Francisco for a period 
of 7 to 8 months. Were you a member of the Professional Section of 
the Communist Party in San Francisco at any time during that period ? 

Mr. Hardwick. My answer to that question, Mr. Counsel, is the 
same as my previous answer, and on the same grounds. 

Mr. Tavenner. You were in Berkeley, Calif., between 1950 and 
1953. Were you a member of a professional cell of the Commu- 
nist Party in Berkeley during that period ? 

Mr. Hardwick. I must decline to answer that question, Mr. Counsel, 
on the same grounds as I have previously given. 

Mr. Tavenner. Between 1948 and 1950 you were engaged as a school- 
teacher in San Francisco. You have been identified while being a 
teacher as having been a member of the Professional Section of the 
Communist Party by Dr. Patten. I assume you heard his testimony. 
Was that identification of you correct or was it wrong? 

Mr. Hardwick. May I get your question, Mr. Counsel, a little more 
clearly because I have never taught school in San Francisco. 

Mr. Tavenner. Where did you teach school between 1948 and 1950 ? 

Mr. Hardwick. I believe I said in Burlingame, Calif. 

Mr. Tavenner. In a high school there ? 

Mr. Hardwick. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. During that period of time were you a member of 
the Professional Section of the Communist Party in San Francisco? 

Mr. Hardwick. If I may, sir, I think in clarifying your original 
question as to where I taught, I got the impression that you were ask- 
ing me about the testimony of the previous witness. 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes, Dr. Patten. 

Mr. Hardwick. I heard that testimony, sir. 



1182 HEARINGS HELD IX SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was it true or not? 

Mr. Hardwick. As I heard the testimony, the witness testified that 
he was in need of psychiatric care. 

Mr. Taa-exxkr. -Fust a moment. Will you answer the question? 

Mr. Hardwick. I would therefore, sir, decline to answer the ques- 
tion on the grounds which I have previously stated. 

Mr. Tavenxer. Because of that and not because it is truthful or 
untruthful but for this other reason that you have mentioned? 

Mr. PIardwick. I must decline to answer the question on the grounds 
which I have alread}' stated. 

The CiiAiRMAx. Do you mean the fifth amendment ? Is that what 
you mean, plus the other grounds I Let him answer the question. 

Mr. Hardwick. To clarify that, on all of the grounds that I have 
previously stated. 

Mr. Tavexx'er. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairmax. Mr. Scherer? 

Mr. Scherer. You were in the Army from 1941 to 1945 with the 
exception of a few months. Were you a member of the Communist 
Party at the time you were in the Army of the United States ? 

Mr. Hardwick. I must, ]\Ir. Congi'essman, decline to answer that 
question on the same grounds as I have previously stated. 

Mr. ]\fcIxT0SH. Are you a member of the Communist Party as of 
today? 

Mr. Hardwick. If I answered that question, iMr. Congressman, that 
I am not now a member of the Communist Party, I feel that I would 
be admitting your right to ask that question, and I do not admit that 
right and because the principle of free speech and free association and 
free ideas are more important than my individual answer. I decline to 
answer on the basis of the first amendment and the fifth amendment 
that I do not have to testify against myself. 

The Chairmax-^. The witness is excused. 

Proceed, Mr. Tavenner. 

Mr. Tavexx'er. George Hitchcock. 

The CiiAiRMAX'. Do you swear that the testimony you are about to 
give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so 
help you God ? 

Mr. Hitchcock. I do. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

TESTIMONY OF GEOKGE HITCHCOCK, ACCOMPANIED BY 
COUNSEL, CHAELES SOLOMON 

Mr. Tavexxer. Will you state your name, please. 

Mr. Hitchcock. George Hitchcock. 

Mr, Tavexxer. Will counsel accompanying the witness please iden- 
tify himself for the record. 

Mr. SoLOMOX. Charles Solomon, ?>8 Pacific Avenue. 

Mr. Tavex'^x'er. "^Mien and where were you born, Mr. Hitchcock ? 

Mr. Hitchcock. I was born early on the bright June 2, 1914, in 
Hood River, Oreg., where the delicious apples come from. 

Mr. Tavexxer. Where do you now reside? 

Mr. Hitchcock. San Francisco, Calif. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long have you lived in San Francisco ? 

Mr. Hitchcock. Twenty -two years. 



HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1183 

Mr. Tavenner. What is yoiu' occupation or profession ? 

Mr. Hitchcock. My occupation is a gardener. 

Mr. Tavexner. What is your profession ? 

Mr. Hitchcock. My profession is a (gardener. I do underoround 
work on phmts. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Hitchcock, upon tlie change of the jjropaganda 
issued from Moscow, this committee invited a number of specialists 
who luive had experience in foreign countries and in this country in 
the field of Communist activities to give this committee their views 
regarding the objects and purposes of vhe change in the Communist 
Party line. The committee issued a pamphlet, a symposium on these 
matters entitled "The Great Pretense.'' I believe there are as many as 
39 people who contributed to it, and it is significant that a number of 
those who did contribute to it were of the opinion that the Communist 
Party which had refused prior to that time to accept the Trotskyites — 
in fact, they w^ere at war with the Trotskyites — and who had refused 
to accept Socialists, because they thought Socialists were mere re- 
formers are now endeavoring to form a united front to take in those 
wliich had been its former enemies. 

For instance, Harry Schwartz stated : 

World communism is now embarked upon the most skillful and seductive 
foreign policy in its history. It appears to the world wearing a mask of friend- 
ship, benevolence, and love of peace as never before. It stretches out the hand of 
friendship to Socialists, ignoring the past Communist attacks upon and murders 
of Socialists. It appeals to every element in every country that can possibly 
be induced to turn against the United States. 

Another prominent individual in this field, Mr. Anthony Bouscaren, 
stated this: 

The leaders of the Soviet Union have launched a new tactical maneuver which 
is fraught with dangers for the United States. As a result of the February 195f5 
meeting of the Communist Party of the Soviet Unidu, the forces of international 
communism have adopted new tactics to accomplish three objectives: (1) Ap- 
peasement of discontent within the Soviet sphere: (2) extension of neutralism 
abroad through a united front with socialism; (3) weaken and di-scredit anti- 
Communists within the United States. 

x^nother, Mr. Gerhart Neimeyer, stated that among the new lines 
Avhich Khrushchev's announcement portrayed is this : 

* * * the idea of cooperation with other Socialists and especially Socialist 
Democrats. 

Now, there has come to my attention an article from the Militant, 
dated March 10, 1957, at page 3, which is an official organ of the 
Socialist Workers Party, and I read : 

San Francisco. The third meeting of the organizing committee of the In- 
dependent Socialist Forum was held last month. Chairman was George Hitch- 
cock, a playwright connected with the Interplayers Theaters Group of San 
Francisco. Mr. Hitchcock is recognized as the chief organizer of the In- 
dependent Socialist Forum. 

Were you the chairman of the Independent Socialist Forum at the 
time that I mentioned, March 10, 1957? 

Mr. Hitchcock. Yes. 

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

Mr. Hitchcock. On this question I should like to say first that I 
am not now a member of the Communist Party, as the committee well 



1184 HEARINGS HELD EST SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 

knows, and all my friends know. However, I shall decline to answer 
any further questions of my past associations or political beliefs on 
the following grounds: 

The first ground is under the protection afforded me by the first 
amendment which stipulates that Congress and committees shall 
pass no laws interfering with my privileges for free speech and 
rights of assembly and the like. 

The second is the ground of the fifth amendment which says 
that I may not be forced to testify against myself, and the third is 
the grounds that this hearing is a big bore and a waste of the public's 
money. 

The Chairman. That is the biggest audience 3^ou have ever played 
before. 

Go ahead, Mr. Tavenner. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Hitchcock, you say you are no longer a mem- 
ber of the Communist Party. Were you a member of the Communist 
Party in February 1956 ? 

Mr. Hitchcock. Counsel is not so naive to expect me to answer the 
question. I have already given my grounds. 

Mr. ScHERER. I ask that the chairman direct the witness to answer. 

Mr. Hitchcock. I must decline to answer the question on the 
grounds previously stated which involve my protection under the 
first amendment and the fifth amendment and any other amendments 
that may be relevant. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you aware of any plan of the Communist Party 
to propagate the line which these specialists have stated in their opinion 
it was the purpose of the Kremlin to accomplish, namely, to unite 
with the Communist Party Socialists, the Trotskyites, or we may say 
the Socialist Workers Party in a united front with the Communist 
Party? 

Mr. Hitchcock. Really, Counsel, you do not expect me to answer 
that one, either, do you ? 

The Chairman. You are directed to answer the question. 

IMr. Hitchcock. I must decline to answer the question on the 
grounds already stated, including the first amendment and the fifth 
amendment. 

I may further add as an Irishman though 

Mr. McIntosh. As a matter of curiosity, you said with the rather 
broad gesture that all of your friends know you are not a Communist 
today. How would they gain such knowledge? 

Mr, Hitchcock. I must decline that one, Mr. Congressman, also 
on the same grounds. 

Mr. ScHERER. When was it that this article said he was chairman 
of this Socialist group ? 

Mr. Tavenner. March 10, 1957. 

Mr. ScHERER. Were you a member of the party on March 10, 1957 ? 

Mr. Hitchcock. Am I directd to answer that question ? 

The Chairman. Yes; you are directed to answer the question. 

Mr. Hitchcock. Congressman, I must decline to answer that ques- 
tion on the same grounds as I have already indicated, the first, second, 
third, fourth, fifth, and other amendments. 

Mr. ScHERER. Did you resign from the Communist Party so you 
could assume the chairmanship of this Socialist Party group ? 

Mr. Hitchcock. Am I directed to answer that question ? 



HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1185 

The Chairman. Yes ; you are so directed. 

Mr. Hitchcock. I must decline to answer that question on the 
oTounds ah'eady cited including the 1st, 2d, 3d, 4th, 5th, 6th, Tth, 
8th, 9th, and 10th amendments, including the 5th. 

Mr. Ta^t:nner. You have posed a very interesting situation here. 
You say that you and your friends know that you are not a member 
of the Communist Party now, but you decline to state whether or not 
you were on March 10, 1957, just a few months ago. 

Mr. Hitchcock. Counsel knows perfectly well — — 

Mr. Tavenner. Wait just a minute. What has occurred or trans- 
pired since March 10, 1957, that would cause you to make such wide 
and divergent answers as to those two dates ? 

Mr. Hitchcock. Counsel knows perfectly well that this type of 
questioning is an attempt at entrapment and I have no intention of 
answering. 

Mr. ScHERER. I think the testimony of what these men said in the 
symposium is true. 

Mr. Hitchcock. That is your inference, Congressman. 

Mr. ScHERER. Were you a member of the Communist Party yester- 
day ? You said you are not today. 

Mr. Hitchcock. That is a delightful question. Am I directed to 
answer it ? 

The Chairman. You are directed to answer it. 

Mr. Hitchcock. I must decline ; I wish to decline ; I do decline. 

Mr. Tavenner. The article I referred to states that this was the 
third meeting of the organizing committee of the Independent Social- 
ist Forum. Will you tell me when the other two meetings occurred?' 

Mr. Hitchcock. I don't remember the specific dates but they were 
earlier this j^ear, prior to that. 

Mr. Tavenner. Your position calls for further questioning about 
this. When you became active in this work apparently your position 
in the Communist Party changed. 

Mr. Hitchcock. That is an inference. 

Mr. Tavenner. Just a moment. 

Mr. Scherer. Is his inference incorrect ? 

Mr. Hitchcock. Am I directed to answer that ? 

The Chairman. Yes, you are. 

Mr, Hitchcock. I must decline to answer that question on the 
grounds of the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth amendments. 

Mr. Tavenner. I think it is of interest and importance to know 
where the leadership of the Communist Party here in San Francisco 
fell out with you over your work in the Socialist Party or that they 
were unwilling to go along with international communism, the line of 
which was pretty well indicated by Khrushchev. 

Mr. Hitchcock. That is a statement. You said it. It would be 
interesting. I don't doubt it. 

Mr. Tavenner. You can supply the answer to it, can't you ? 

Mr. Hitchcock. I shan't. 

Mr. Tavenner. You said you shan't ? 

Mr. Hitchcock. I shan't if I could. You are putting hypothetical 
questions in my hand — I mean in my mouth. 

Mr. Tavenner. What did happen between you and the Communist 
Party? 

Mr. Hitchcock. Am I directed to answer that ? 



1186 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Hitchcock. I must decline to answer on the grounds of the 
first, second, third, fourth, and fifth amendments. 

Anything more? 

The Chairman. Be patient. 

Mr. Tavenner. Prior to your taking the position of chairman of 
the Independent Socialist Forum, did you have a considerable period 
of training within the ranks of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Hitchcock. Really, Counsel, that is a naive question. You do 
not expect me to answer. 

Mr. ScHERER. I ask that you direct the witness to answer. 

The Chairman. Have you completed the question ? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hitchcock. I must decline to answer the question on the 
grounds previously stated. 

Mr. Tavenner. Is this information regarding you correct? It ap- 
pears from the "Western "Worker, the issue of July 12, 1937, as early as 
that date, you were elected the educational director of the Young Com- 
munist League. 

Mr. Hitchcock. You are certainly going a long way back, aren't 
you. Congressman, Senator ? 

Mr. Tavenner. We would like to know how experienced you are 
in the field. 

Mr. Hitchcock. Am I directed to answer it? 

The Chairman. You are directed to answer it. 

Mr. Hitchcock. I decline to answer it on the grounds of the first, 
second, third, fourth, and sixth amendments. 

Mr. Scherer. What is the third amendment ? 

Mr. Hitchcock. I am not a lawyer. I leave that to you. I just 
tiirow it in. 

The Chairman. I must again remind the audience that you are 
here as guests of the committee. This is serious committee business. 
You may tliink it is funny, but we do not. 

Go ahead, Mr. Tavenner. 

Mr. Tavenner. In the year 1937 while a member of the Young 
Communist League were you editor of New Frontiers, the official 
yearbook of the Young Communist League ? 

Mr. Hitchcock. I again have no intention of answering it. Are 
you directing tliat I answer? 

Tlie Chairman. Yes : you are directed. 

Mr. Hitchcock. I must decline to answer on the grounds of the 
first, second, third, fourth, and fifth amendments. You are going 
a long way back, Senator. 

Mr. ScTTERER. We come up to date. I put it to you as a matter of 
fact, and ask you to affirm or deny if it is not a fact, at the direction 
of the Communist Party in accordance with its new programs out- 
lined by these writers, you did not resign from the Communist Party 
and accept the cliairmanship of tlie Independent Socialist Forum. 

Mr. Hitchcock. Am I directed to answer tliat question ? 

The Chairman. Yes; you are directed to answer the question. 

Mr. Hitchcock. I must decline to answer that question on the 
grounds of the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth amendments. My 
attorney just told me that the third amendment has to do with the 
quartering of soldiers during time of war. 



HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1187 

Mr. Ta\'enxer. According to the investigation that the committee 
has made, you have been very experienced in the field of education, 
of a certain character. For instance, according to the People's World 
of September 4, 1946, it is reported that you had been appointed 
trade-union director of the California Labor School. Is that correct? 

Mr. Hitchcock. Am I directed to answer that question ? 

The Chairman. Yes ; you are directed to answer the question. 

Mr. Hitchcock. I must decline to answer that question on the 
grounds previously stated, including the first and fifth amendments. 

Mr. TA^'ENNER. We find that the 1947 catalog of the California 
Labor School lists you as a member of the staff of that school during 
that year ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Hitchcock. Am I directed to answer that question. Congress- 
man ? 

The Chairmax. Yes ; you are so directed. 

Mr. Hitchcock. I must decline to answer it on the grounds pre- 
viously stated. 

Mr."^ Ta^^nner. The Daily People's World of February 6, 
1948, discloses that you had evidently changed your position at the 
California Labor School and were now teaching comparative 
philosophy at that school and, according to the issue of April 6, 1948, 
of the same paper, you were still teaching at that school, your subject 
being modern philosophy. According to the issue of June 7, 1948, 
of the same paper, there were a number of seminars to be held by that 
school and, on August 13 and 14, you were part of a panel. An issue 
of the same paper printed announcement of the summer program 
for 1948 and that, on August 6, 7, and 8, you were to participate on 
a panel organized by it, and then again on December 28, 1949, and 
in January 1950 you were tO' conduct courses at the California Labor 
School. Is that record of your teaching at the California Labor 
School substantially correct ? 

Mr. Hitchcock. I think, learned Counsel, I would decline to answer 
that on the grounds previously stated. 

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

The Chairman. What is this Independent Socialist Forum, Mr. 
Hitchcock ? 

Mr. Hitchcock. It is a forum devoted to nonsectarian and non- 
partisan discussions and education around Socialist questions. The 
members of the committer are welcome to be of any political ]>ersua- 
sion on the left. We try very carefully to see that it is not controlled 
bv any party or oi'ganization on the left. It is sinq^ly a forum for 
discussion for people who are interested in radical ideas in the city 
of San Francisco to get together in public and discuss those ideas 
for any audience that cares to come. We would be happy to invite 
you Congressmen, if you would like to come. 

Mr. McIntosh. Has your forum had occasion to discuss the recent 
announcement of the Chinese Communist dictator of the liquidation 
of some 800,000 Chinese citizens between 1949 and 1954? 

Mr. Hitchcock. That has not come up yet, but there is no reason 
why it should not be. 

Mr. McIntosh. Is it on the agenda ? 

Mr. HrrcHcocK. I did not say it is on the agenda, but people have 
full opportunity to discuss any point of view, the only general limita- 



1188 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 

tioii bein<:^ that they be of interest to the Socialist public or people 
interested in ideas. We entertained as our guest, for your informa- 
tion, at a very recent meeting, the M'est-coast director of the National 
Association of ]\Ianufacturers who wished to discuss the question of 
socialism — against — and that is the sole function of this organization. 

It is completely public, and if you would care to appear on the plat- 
form I am sure you w^ould be very welcome to appear. That is all. 
There is nothing else. We don't take any stand and we don't have any 
position apart from that. 

Mr. ScHERER. When Mr. Tavenner asked about your occupation you 
said you are a gardener. 

Mr. Hitchcock. That is correct. 

Mr. ScHERER. Do you have any other occupation ? 

Mr. Hitchcock. I have hobbies. It was released to the newspapers 
that I am an actor but if I am supposed to be a pillar of the entertain- 
ment business in San Francisco, they are barking up the wrong tree. 
I have acted in the theater occasionally for the fun of it. 

Mr. McIntosh. We pay $9 a day for it. 

Mr. Hitchcock. I thought I would get some in on the television 
people. 

The Chairman. The witness is excused. 

The committee will stand in recess. 

(Brief recess.) 

The Chairman. The committee will be in order. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Sidney Kubin, will you come forward, please. 

The Chairman. Raise your right hand, please. 

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

Mr. Rubin. I do. 

The Chairman. Proceed, Mr. Tavenner. 

TESTIMONY OF SIDNEY KUBIN, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 
LAWRENCE SPEISER 

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

Mr. Rubin. Sidney Rubin. 

Mr. Tavenner It is noted that you are accompanied by counsel. 
Will counsel please identify himself for the record ? 

Mr. Speiser. Lawrence Speiser, attorney-at-law, 690 Market Street, 
San Francisco. 

IVIr. Tavenner. Spell your name, please, sir. 

Mr. Rubin. R-u-b-i-n. 

Mr. Tavenner. When and wdiere were you born, Mr. Rubin ? 

Mr. Rubin. December24, 1913, Pueblo, Colo. 

Mr. Ta\':enner. Where do you now reside, Mr. Rubin. 

Mr. Rubin. Marin County, Calif. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long have you lived in California ? 

Mr. Rubin. This latest period approximately 5 years. 

Mr. Tavenner. You indicate that you have lived in California 
on more than one occasion. 

Mr. Rubin. Three occasions — four, to be exact. 



HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1189 

Mr. Tavenker. Tell us when you first came to California and give 
us the periods of your residence and the location of your residence 
during each period. 

Mr. EuBiN. I attended the University of California at Los Angeles 
in 1933 and 1934. I returned to San Francisco in 1939. I should not 
say returned. I came to San Francisco in 1939. I accepted employ- 
ment and remained here for approximately 6 months in 1939. 

Mr. Tavexneu. What was the type of employment that you had ? 

Mr. EuBiN. I was the supervisor on tlie WPA research project. 
Next I returned to California, also again to San Francisco in 1943, 
January. I remained here until September of 1946. 

Mr. Tavenner, What was the nature of your employment during 
that period ? 

Mr. Rubin. I was employed by the National Labor Relations Board 
until 1944 at which time I returned to school to take my doctor of 
philosophy at Berkeley. 

Mr. Tavenner. That brings you up to September 1946 ? 

Mr. Rubin. That is correct. I lived in Oregon for 6 years — from 
1946 until 1952. 

Mr. Tavenner. Since 1952? 

Mr. Rubin. I have lived in Marin County. 

Mr. Tavenner. IVliat was the nature of your employment in Oregon 
from 1946 to 1952? 

Mr. Rubin. I was associate professor of economics at the Oregon 
State College. 

Mr. Tavenner. Then you say beginning with 1952 you returned to 
California? 

Mr. Rubin. Correct. 

Mr. TA^^NNER. Where have you resided since then ? 

Mr. Rubin. In Marin County. 

Mr. Tavenner. And your employment ? 

Mr, Rubin. I am an accountant. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee, please, briefly, what 
your education, your formal educational training has been. I know 
that would include some of the matters you have already mentioned, 
but repeat them, please. 

Mr. Rubin. I have a bachelor of arts from the University of Wash- 
ington, doctor of philosophy from the University of California — all 
economics. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you spend a period in the armed services ? 

Mr. Rubin. I did not. 

Mr. Tavenner. Where is Marin area with reference to San Fran- 
cisco ? 

Mr. Rubin. Marin County is north of San Francisco County. I 
answer that question that way because I lived in San Raphael area 
when I first moved to California and I now live in an incorporated 
area. 

Mr. Tavenner. How far is that from San Francisco? 

Mr. Rubin. I would surmise 13 miles. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Rubin, were you a member of a professional 
cell of the Communist Party in San Francisco at any of the pe- 
riods of time that you worked there or in a nearby area ? 

Mr. Rubin. In respect to the question, I wish to make the follow- 
ing objections : One, the committee's authorizing resolution and the 



1190 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 

subject of the hearings as announced by the committee are vague and 
indefinite in that they fail to inform me of the nature and purpose 
and the extent and limitations of the hearing, or the matters about 
which I have been called to testify. Therefore, the question posed is 
not pertinent or relevant to any legitimate, valid, definite legislative 
purpose and thus violates my rights under the due process clause of 
the fifth amendment as held by the United States Supreme Court in 
United /States v. Watkini^, decided this week. 

The first amendment prohibits the Congress from passing any laws 
infringing on freedom of speech, conscience, and assembly. The man- 
dates of this committee and the purposes announced at this hearing 
are unconstitutional in attempting to authorize it to investigate into 
an area for which the Constitution forbids it to legislate. 

Questions asked of me concerning my political beliefs and associa- 
tions under the circumstances of these hearings abridge my rights of 
freedom of speech and association protected by the first amendment. 
The inquiry of the committee and the purposes of this committe are 
inquiries into private affairs unrelated to any valid legislative pur- 
pose under Article I of the Constitution and are solely designed for 
the purpose of exposing myself and others to publicity and ridicule. 

This committee's summoning of me is for the purpose of placing 
me on trial without any of the rights guaranteed me by the due process 
clause of the fifth amendment, and the sixth amendment which afford 
me the right of notice of adequate time to prepare defense, the right 
of cross-examination, and the presumption of innocence. 

This committee's inquiries infringe on the rights under the 9th and 
10th amendments. The hearing and the committee's inquiries are 
unconstitutional infringements by the Legislature into the jurisdiction 
of the judiciary which has the sole power to place me on trial and 
inquire into my personal conduct. 

I have objected to the questions for these 7 stated reasons. 

The Chairman. Do you decline to answer the question? 

Mr. Rubin. I also decline to answer the questions for these stated 
reasons in addition to the right not to be compelled to testify against 
myself as guaranteed by the fifth amendment of the Constitution. 

The Chairman. As I understand it, then, you objected to the ques- 
tions for the reasons stated, and you declined to answer under the 
provisions of the fifth amendment ? 

Mr. Rubin. For the reasons stated and the fifth amendment. 

Mr, Tavenner. Mr. Rubin, the committee is endeavoring to ascer- 
tain the present activities of the secret group of the Communist Party 
within the professions in San Francisco and the nearby area. It is 
understood that you live within 13 miles at the present time of the 
city of San Francisco, so I want to ask you if you have any knowledge 
of the operations of a secret professional group of the Communist 
Party as of this time. 

Mr. Rubin. I object to the question for the reasons previously 
stated. 

The Chairman. You are directed to answer the question. 

Mr. Rubin. I decline to answer the question for the reasons previ- 
ously stated, including the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you a member of the Professional Section of 
the Communist Party in San Francisco at this time ? 



HEARENGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1191 

Mr. Rubin. I object to the question for the reasons previously 
stated. 

Mr. Tavenner. While living in Seattle, Wash., were you a mem- 
ber of a branch of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. RuBix. I object to the question for the reasons previously 
stated. 

Mr. Tavenner. May I have a direction ^ 

The Chairman. You are directed to answer the question. 

Mr. Rubin. I decline to answer the question for the reasons previ- 
ously stated. 

Mr. Tavenner. You stated that you were employed by the Na- 
tional Labor Relations Board. Over what period of time were you 
so employed ? 

Mr. Rubin. From 1942 into 1944. 

Mr. TA^'ENNER. Where did that employment take place? 

Mr. Rubin. Denver, Colo. ; Kansas City, Mo. ; San Francisco, Calif. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you acquainted with Philip Reno? 

Mr. Rubin. I decline to answer the question for reasons previously 
stated. 

]Mr. TA^'ENNER. Were you acquainted with Prof. Fuchs ? 

Mr. Rubin. Repeat the name. 

Mr. TA^'ENNER. Fuchs, Prof. Herbert Fuchs. 

Mr. Rubin. I object to the question for reasons previously stated. 

The Chairman. You are directed to answer the question. 

Mr. Rubin. I decline to answer the question for reasons previously 
stated. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you a meml)er of a Communist Party group 
organized within the Government consisting of employees of the Na- 
tional Labor Relations Board in Denver and including also several 
people who were not in the National Labor Relations Board ? 

Mr. Rubin. Would you mind clarifying the question ? It seems to 
me to be somewhat indefinite. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you a member of an organized group of the 
Communist Party while you were employed by the National Labor 
Relations Board in Denver, Colo. ? 

Mr. Rubin. I presume you have knowledge of such a group ? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes, there has been considerable testimony regard- 
ing such a group organized, and the testimony is, that group was 
organized by attorneys from Washington who had been transferred 
from the National Labor Relations Board to Denver where this 
group was reorganized and others admitted. Prof. Herbert Fuchs 
was one of those who was a member of that group. 

Mr. SciiERER. And that is while all of them were employees of the 
Government of the LTnited States. 

Mr. Ta\tnner. My question is whether you were affiliated with 
that group in Denver. 

Mr. Rubin. Is that question within the scope of this particular 
hearing ? 

Mr. Tavenner. The chairman of the committee in his opening state- 
ment made reference to the fact that the committee would hear any 
matters relating to Communist activities which may develop during 
the course of this hearing that is within the jurisdiction of the com- 
mittee. That matter is not only within the jurisdiction of the com- 
mittee but it is a matter which has been under investigation since 



1192 HEARINGS HELD EST SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 

December 1955 and has been the subject of hearings in at least half a 
dozen different places in the United States and which has divulged 
the existence of at least 10 Communist Party cells within Government 
agencies. 

Mr. KuBiN. Would you inform me what year you refer to ? 

Mr. Tavenner. I am referring to the period of time when the work 
of the National Labor Relations Board began in Denver, which ac- 
cording to my recollection was certainly as early as 1944 and probably 
earlier. 

Mr. Rubin. "Would you repeat the question ? 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you really want it repeated ? 

Mr. Rubin. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. My question was whether or not you were a member 
of a group of the Communist Party organized at Denver, Colo, con- 
sisting chiefly of members who were employees of the National Labor 
Relations Board during the period that you were employed by that 
Board in Denver. 

Mr. Rubin. On the basis of your statement that that question is 
within tlie scope of the hearing, I must object to the question. I 
object. 

The Chairman. Do you decline to answer the question ? 

Mr. Rubin. I decline to answer the question for reasons previously 
stated. 

Mr. ScHERER. Has this witness been asked whether he is in the 
employ of the Government of the United States ? 

Mr. Tavenner. He testified that he was employed by the National 
Labor Relations Board between 1942 and 1944. That is my recollec- 
tion. Am I correct ? 

Mr. Rubin. That is correct. 

Mr. Ta\tenner, What was the precise period of time that you were 
employed in Denver ? 

Mr. Rubin. January 1942 to September 1942. 

Mr. Tavenner. Actually Prof. Herbert Fuchs was not there in 1942. 
Was Philip Reno there ? 

Mr. Rubin. I object to the question for reasons previously stated. 

Mr. Tavenner. What was the character of your employment by 
the National Labor Relations Board while you were in Denver ? 

Mr. Rubin. I was a field examiner. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you transferred from Denver to 

Mr. Rubin. To Kansas City. 

Mr. Ta\^nner. To Kansas City ? 

Mr. Rubin. That is right. 

Mr. Ta\t:nner. How long a period of time were you in Kansas City ? 

Mr. Rubin. Three months. 

]\Ir. Ta\^nner. During that period of time, did you learn of the 
employment there of any persons known to jou to be members of the 
Communist Party ? 

Mr. Rubin. I object to the question for the reasons previously 
stated. 

Mr. Ta\t;nner. May I have a direction ? 

The Chairman. Yes ; you are directed to answer the question. 

Mr. Rubin. I decline to answer the question for reasons previously 
stated. 



HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1193 

Mr. Tavenner. From Kansas City where were you transferred ? 

Mr. Rubin. San Francisco. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee whether any of the em- 
ployees of the National Labor Relations Board in San Francisco were 
known to you to be members of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Sciierer. Other than himself. 

Mr. Ta\'enner. I will accept that amendment ; other than yourself. 

Mr. Rubin. I object to the question for the reasons previously st«ted. 

Mr. Tavenner. May I have a direction ? 

The Chairman. You are directed to answer the question. 

Mr. Rubin. I decline to answer the question on the grounds previ- 
ously stated. 

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

Mr. Rubin. I object to the question for reasons previously stated. 

The Chairman. You are directed to answer the question. 

Mr. Rubin. I decline to answer the question for reasons previously 
stated. 

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

The Chairman. The witness may be excused. 

Call your next witness. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Dave Sarvis. 

The Chairman. Will you raise your right hand. Do you swear the 
testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and 
nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Sarvis. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF DAVID SARVIS, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 
LLOYD E. McMURRAY 

Mr. Tavenner. What is your name, please ? 

Mr. Sarvis. David Sarvis. 

Mr. Tavenner. Spell your last name. 

Mr. Sarvis. S-a-r-v-i-s. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will counsel accompanying the witness please iden- 
tify himself for the record. 

Mr. Sarvis. Lloyd E. McMurray, 785 Market Street, San Francisco. 

Mr. Ta\'enner. When and where were you born, Mr. Sarvis? 

Mr. Sarvis. I was born in Nanking, China, of missionary parents, in 
1913. 

Mr. Tavenner. Where do you now reside ? 

Mr. Sarvis. San Francisco. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long have you lived in San Francisco ? 

Mr. Sarvis. Since 1948. 

Mr. Tavenner. Prior to that time where did you live ? 

Mr. Sarvis. In Los Angeles. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long did you live in Los Angeles ? 

Mr. Sarvis. From the time of my discharge from the Armed Forces 
m 1946 until 1948. 

Mr. Tavenner. Approximately how long did you serve in the 
Armed Forces of the United States ? 

Mr. Sarvis. Approximately three and a half or 4 years, Mr. Taven- 
ner. 

Mr. Tavenner. Is there any comment you desire to make about your 
military service ? If so, you may feel free to make it. 

94343— 57— pt. 1 9 



1194 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIT. 

Mr. Sarvis. Thank you, but I do not think it was any different from 
anyone else. I Avas in the Pacific in the Marine Corps. I survived as 
a captain. It is said if you survived enough battles you received a 
bronze star, and I survived that, but there is no distinction between 
that as to what would be put in this record. 

Mr. Tavenner. You entered the service when ? 

Mr. Sarvis. I entered the service in June, I believe, of 1942. 

Mr. Tavennek. Prior to that where did you live ? 

Mr. Sarvis. Prior to that I lived in Albuquerque, N. Mex. 

Mr. Tavenner. For how long a period ? 

Mr. Sarvis. For 1 year. 

Mr. Tavenner. What was your employment there ? 

Mr. Sarvis. I was a teacher at the University of New Mexico. 

Mr. Tavenner. Is teaching your principal profession or occupation ? 

Mr. Sarvis. Did you say "was it" ? 

Mr. Tavenner. Or is it ? 

Mr. Sarvis. Not at present. 

Mr. Tavenner. What is it now ? 

Mr. Sarvis. At present I lead sort of a double life. Like most people 
in the theater profession in the bay area, I occupy one job as a means 
of paying the rent and groceries and I pursue my primary profession 
of directing plays. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long have you been engaged in that type of 
work? 

Mr. Sarvis. Except for the period of service in the armed services, 
I have been engaged in that type of work ever since I was in college. 

Mr. Tavenner. I understand you were a teacher at Albuquerque, 
N. Mex., so you have taught for a period 

Mr. Sarvis. The theater has to be taught, too. I taught theater 
courses and directed plays at the university there. 

Mr. Tavenner. Have you engaged in teaching elsewhere? 

Mr. Sarvis. Excuse me just a moment. 

In the theater, Mr. Tavenner, almost everyone who ever serves as a 
director or leading actor conducts classes for younger people at various 
times, and I would be hard put to it to describe in detail all of the 
teaching that I have done in this field. I have taught off and on since 
my days in college in graduate school, in various minor capacities. I 
have not taught at any formal recognized academic institutions offer- 
ing a degree except for the University of New Mexico. 

Mr. Tavenner. Have you taught at any institutions which are not of 
the formal character you have described and which do not award 
degrees ? 

Mr. Sarvis. I am advised to inquire, Mr. Tavenner, whether you 
have some specific institution in mind when you ask that. 

Mr. Tavenner. You certainly know more than anyone else does 
about the places you have taught. In your previous answer you quali- 
fied it by stating that you liad tauglit at certain places, that you could 
not recall all of the places at which you taught, that you considered 
formal schools those in which diplomas were awarded. This was an 
indication to me that there were other schools at wliich you tauglit 
which did not award diplomas. 

Mr. Sarvis. Naturally you are at liberty to draw what inferences 
you like, but it appears to me to ask what the relevancy or pertinency 
of this line of question is to the purposes of the committee. 



HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1195 

Mr. Tavexxer. Are you reluctant to advise the committee of all of 
the schools at which you have taught ? 

Mr. Sarvis. I am reluctant, Mr, Tavenner, to participate in any 
activity here which is not within tlie proper function of Congress, so 
I am asking you, if I may, what the pertinency of this inquiry is. 

]Mr. Tavexner. I think if you are honestly in doubt as to that I shall 
try to explain it to you. 

This committee is investigating the activities of professional groups 
of the Communist Party in San Francisco particularly, and in the area 
generally, secret cells of the Communist Party within the professions. 
It is inquiring as to the extent, character, and objects of Communist 
Party activities within those groups now, at this time and prior to 
this time. 

The reason it is inquiring into that, the reason that the committee 
has, is that it has been considering- for quite a period of time whether 
or not the need exists for outlawing the Communist Part}'. It feels 
that it will be called upon b}- Congress to furnish it with all of the 
information that it can give on that important subject. It has been 
doing that for a period of time. It feels that the period is critical at 
this time and that it must weigh and evaluate the activities of these 
groups. 

It has come to the attention of the committee that the California 
Labor School, in San Francisco, has been very active in carrying 
out the work of the Communist Party. During the course of this 
hearing, considerable evidence has been received regarding the part- 
time employment or at least occupation of members of the professional 
cell of the Communist Party in San Francisco at that school. We 
want to know to what extent— and I think the question is pertinent 
in that it should be developed through your testimony what Com- 
munist Party influences have been exerted on the public through 
that school, on that school through the professional cell of the Com- 
munist Party here. 

In the view of the committee it is all linked up together. That 
represents, I think, the thinking of the committee on that subject 
if I may be presumed to speak for it, and members of the committee 
may desire to enlarge upon it, but that in the main establishes the 
pertinency of my inquiry from you as to the institutions at which you 
have taught. 

Mr. Sarvis. There is a little thing hanging in the air, Mr. Tavenner. 
You prefaced that extended explanation with the phrase "if you 
were honest," of "if you were giving honest answers." 

Just to clear the air, let me inquire if you are bringing to this 
hearing any preconception that I might not be honest or that you have 
any attitude on this score. 

Mr. Tavexner. I do not think I indicated any idea that you would 
be dishonest in anything that you have stated. 

Mr. Sarvis. Fine, thank you very much. 

Mr. Tavexxer. I\Iy reference to honesty was your honest under- 
standing of the pertinency and of the question. That is my recollec- 
tion of it. I trust you will tell this committee honestly and I am sure 
if you attempt to tell it, you will tell it honestly, in these matters that 
I want to inquire about. 



1196 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 

Mr. Sarvis. Mr. Tavenner, you have indicated that you are in- 
terested in the California Labor School and in some sort of Com- 
munist activities that exist there, or might have existed there 

Mr. Tavenner. In connection with the activities of the professional 
group of the Communist Party here in San Francisco. 

Mr. Sakvis. That part of the question does not concern me so much 
from a legal standpoint, but the fact of the matter is that my name 
and my activities in the bay area, especially since they are in the field 
of the theater, are matters of public knowledge. They are activities 
of which I am proud in varying degree, depending on the success with 
which they met. My name appears as the director of plays on pro- 
grams. It appears in the catalogs of the institutions at which I have 
taught. However, in view of the way that you have brought the 
California Labor School into these hearings, it is apparent that you 
viewed this institution as one which had either subversive intent or 
subversive activity in it. Well, I protest, to begin with, and in a 
blanket way against any inquiry which delves into or threatens legisla- 
tion against any kind of a school, assembly, or any of the other forms 
of human communication and interchange of ideas which are guaran- 
teed by the first amendment. 

I would like very much to tell you my record or what I have done, 
what I have taught and where, but counsel advises me tliat it would 
place me in extreme jeopardy to do so, on the following grounds : That 
no matter what I say, it would require only one false witness, presum- 
ably hypothetically before a grand jury, to bring any type of perjuri- 
ous testimony or any kind of testimony to involve me in extensive liti- 
gation, possibly put my family under a cloud — and these are things 
that have happened to many people — as a result of this inquiry. And 
I am not able to undertake such prospects. Therefore, I have no alter- 
native but to stand upon the fifth amendment in declining to answer 
that question. 

Mr. Tavenner. When you started out to answer that question, you 
spoke of your name and your activities being a matter of public 
knowledge in the community. I have not asked any question of you 
regarding the normal activities of an individual. What I had asked 
about was a secret organized professional group of the Communist 
Party. That is something that is not known and open to everybody 
in the community, as is quite apparent from this hearing. 

Mr. Sarvis. I thought you asked me where I taught. That was your 
last question. 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes, and in asking for the explanation I told you 
of the importance of it in connection with the activities of this secret 
group. If that is the way you meant it, I will withdraw further com- 
ment on that. 

Let me ask you this, were you a member at any time or are you now 
a member of the Professional Section of the Communist Party in San 
Francisco or at any other place ? 

Mr. Sarvis. Mr. Tavenner, you can believe me that I would like 
nothing more than to answer that question candidly and clear up the 
type of suspicion, smearing, and character — what shall I call it, char- 
acter assassination, if you like — surrounding such hearings that takes 
place such as this. I would like to answer the question, but my counsel 
advises me, as I have just told you. that any answer yes, no, or side- 



HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1197 

ways would put me in extreme jeopard^^ of some type of litigation 
which I am not content to face. 

Mr. Tavenner. I am not trying to interfere with advice given 
you by your counsel, but I point out to you that there has never been 
a prosecution in the years that this committee has been in existence 
of anyone who has admitted his Communist Party membership and 
has helped the committee in ascertaining the facts about Communist 
Party activities. 

If people have testified and committed perjury, that is a different 
matter. I am speaking of where they testified truthfully. 

I think I should clarify this for the record. You stated that you 
were born in China. You are an American citizen, are you not? 

Mr. Sar\t:s. I am. My birth was duly registered. 

Mr. Tavej^tner. Therefore, there is no question about your citizen- 
ship and I wanted the record to show that. 

I think I should continue with the first part of my interrogation 
which I did not finish. 

"\\'Tiat was your training ? Had you finished with all of your edu- 
cational training? I interrupted you and I do not think you 
finished. 

Mr. SAR\^s. I do not think I even got started on my educational 
training. 

Mr. Ta\^xner. I would like to have that in the record. 

Mr. Sarvis. I graduated from high school in a small Ohio town, 
got my bachelor's degree at Antioch College in Ohio. 

Mr. Tavenner. "\Yhat was the date ? 

Mr. Sar\t[s. The date, I can only give you the year, but obvious- 
ly it was June sometime in 1938. I took postgraduate work at Yale 
University and got a master of fine arts degree there in 1941 and my 
education has continued ever since. 

Mr. Ta\tenner. In 1938 at Antioch College, there was in existence 
a group of the Young Communist League composed of members of 
the student body, not a large number. A man by the name of John 
Reed, a professional organizer of the Communist Party and not in 
any way connected with the Antioch College, was the organizer of 
that group and continued in his attendance at the group meetings 
for purposes of the education in Communist theory of its members. 

Were you acquainted with John Reed while you were in attendance 
at Antioch College ? 

Mr. SAR^^s. It must have been in the fall of 1938. I graduated 
in the spring. 

]Mr. Ta%tenner. Then you knew nothing about those operations, 
is that correct ? 

Mr. Sar\t[s. I am not sure whether I should even answer such a 
question in view of my understanding of the first amendment, Mr. 
Tavenner. 

Mr. Scherer. I ask the chairman to direct the witness to answer 
the question as to whether he knew John Reed. 

Mr. Sar\t[s. Is there a question before me now ? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Sarvis. Wliat is the question? 

Mr. Tavenner. The question is whether or not you knew John Reed. 

Mr. Sarvis. Was I directed by the Chair ? 

The Chairman. You are directed now to answer whether or not you 
knew John Reed. 



1198 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 

Mr. Sarvis. Not knowing what the committee has on John Eeed or 
associations, I again feel as if I am getting into jeopardy. 
Mr. Tavenner. I told you who he was. 

Mr. Sarvis. Excuse me. In that case, again, I am obliged to 
stand upon the fifth amendment and protect myself from possible 
implications. 

Mr. Tavenner. It developed from extensive testimony that after 
these young students left Antioch College who had been affiliated with 
this Young Communist League group there, the activity of which was 
not very significant, that John Reed followed them up and in many 
instances he was successful in getting those young people whom he 
had indoctrinated in that group to enter into the Communist Party 
and become active Communist Party workers, particularly in the field 
of labor. 

Did you acquire any knowledge of that character regarding the 
activities of JTohn Reed ? 

Mr. Sarvis. Mr. Tavenner, this is the first time I ever heard of any 
of this. 

Mr. Tavenner. Very well. It is all right, but from the nature of 
your answers I thought I was duty bound because it is a matter to 
which this committee has devoted a great deal of time and it is a very 
important matter. 

Mr. ScHERER. Were you a member of the Young Communist League 
while you were at Antioch ? 

Mr. Sarvis. I am obliged once again to stand upon the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. Tavenner. I would like to say to you that our files of the Daily 
People's World, although I do see one issue of the Daily Worker in 
New York, indicate various activities of yourself at the California 
Labor School, and I will mention these to you and then I will ask you 
whether or not these records are wrong in any particulars. 

The People's World of July 21, 1948 carries an article stating that 
you joined the staff at that time of the California Labor School. In 
the issue of September 13, 1948, it carries an article relating to you 
regarding the California Labor School planning of People's Theater. 
Then the issues of December 31, 1948, and April 21, 1949, refer to 
different programs you put on in connection with the theater of that 
school. 

January 5, 1950, there is an article 

Mr. Sar^^s. What programs, ISIr. Tavenner, may I ask ? 
Mr. Tavenner. The first one of December 31, 1948, the program was 
Stevedore. Is that correct? 

Mr. SAR^^:s. Will it be all right with you, Mr. Tavenner, to just com- 
plete the list ? 

Mr. Tavenner. No. I would like to ask you now if that is correct, 
since you have asked me. 

Mr. SARv^s. What is the question again ? It had something to do 
with Stevedore. 

Mr. Tavenner. You asked me what program was put on, and I 
replied it was Stevedore, and I am asking you if that is correct. 

Mr. Sarvis. The plays that I have directed are obviously a matter 
of public record. You have a public record right in front of you, but 
I can't help viewing this as being an inquiry into the freedom of 
speech, since the theater is certainly a medium of speech and expres- 



HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1199 

sion, and above all other areas, I feel it has to be kept free from any 
kind of interference or censorship, Mr. Tavenner. The theater is de- 
pendent upon popular judgment as is no other form of propagation. 
If the audience does not like what is put out in the theater they kill 
it off. 

Mr. Tavenner. I was not criticizing the content of the play. I 
was trying to determine what your activity was there. 

Mr. Sarvis. Excuse me, Mr. Tavenner. 

Mr. Tavenner. Then on January 5, 1950, there appears an article 
stating that Sarvis teaches social history of the theater. 

January 6, 1950, Sarvis announces the program of the California 
Labor School. 

The issue of October 30, 1950, gives us an account of Sarvis' pres- 
entation of Some Subversive Evening. 

January 17, 1952, carries an article that Sarvis is directing the 
Graphic Arts Work Shop. 

March 3, 1953, announces the beginning of the California Labor 
Theater. 

What is the California Labor Theater ? 

Mr. Sarvis. Why do you ask that question. Counsel ? 

Mr. Tavenner. Because I don't know. 

Mr. Sarvis. I don't know whether it is proper for me to answer 
such a question. Will you advise me of the pertinency of it? 

Mr. ScHERER. I ask that the witness be directed to answer the ques- 
tion. 

The Chairman. Explain the pertinence. 

Mr. Sarvis. I did not hear the Chairman. 

The Chairman. I was not addressing you. 

Mr. Sarvis. I am very much concerned about the competence of this 
committee to inquire into what plays are put on and by whom, Mr. 
Tavenner, because it seems to me to be a fabulous stretch of the imagi- 
nation to imagine that there could be anything threatening the na- 
tional security in the production of plays which are open to the pub- 
lic and for which anyone could pay admission and walk in. I cannot 
help but feel this whole line of inquiry is definitely an invasion of 
the guaranties of the first amendment and I would respectfully re- 
quest that you either drop this line or develop for me and for my 
guidance a real argument as to the pertinency of asking such ques- 
tions as to whether I directed such a play called Stevedore. 

Mr. Tavenner. All of these questions are related to alleged activity 
on your part at the California Labor School. These questions are 
not directed at the character of the play. You wanted the play named 
so you could probably recall something about it, and I read the plays 
at your suggestion. I am not interested and the committee is not 
interested in the type of performance. It is interested in whether or 
rot you were active as a member of the Communist Party in the func- 
tioning of the California Labor School. 

That explains the pertinency of this question. Unless the commit- 
tee thinks it should be further explained, I would ask that he be di- 
rected to answer. 

The Chairman. Yes; you are directed to answer that question. 
Mr. Sarvis. Did you say was active as a member of the Commu- 
nist Party of the California Labor School ? 



1200 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 

Mr. Tavennek. I asked you whether at the time — what I was allud- 
ing to involves the pertinency — whether or not at the time that you 
were active according to this information which I have read, at the 
California Labor School, you were a member of the Communist 
Party — the Professional Section of the Communist Party. 

Mr. Sakvis. You will excuse me, Mr. Tavenner, if I am so legally 
uncertain that I have to consult to this extent. I have already an- 
swered — well, you have two questions, apparently, there. I am not 
sure that I can sort them out. One has to do with time and one has 
to do with membership in the Communist Party. Now, the former 
is on record which you are reading which I have no comment on be- 
cause I feel that the comment on it is to violate the first amendment; 
the latter I have already answered. I pointed out as much as I would 
like to answer such a question ; the jeopardy in which it would place 
me no matter what answer I gave, on the advice of my counsel, forbids 
me to answer it and requires me to decline to answer it on the grounds 
of the fifth amendment. 

I cannot help feeling also a certain sense, as a theater man, that you 
coupled the production of plays with membership in the Communist 
Party. You say that you are not concerned with the content of the 
plays and yet you endeavor to establish by the way your question was 
framed some sort of a link between plays— — 

Mr. Tavenner. Not at all. You established the link yourself when 
you asked me to name the plays. I told you and I told you several 
times that the only purpose was to connect your own activities as a 
member of the Communist Party with its activity. 

Mr. Sarvis. I must object to this phrase which you keep injecting 
into what appears to be a reasonable question, or a reasonable answer, 
"your activities as a member of the Communist Party." It seems to 
me that this intrusion of this kind of phraseology into a hearing of 
this kind can serve no purpose except to serve to prejudice my name 
and reputation in the community, to threaten my employment where 
I work just by raising a suspicion in the way that you introduce it 
as an aside. 

Mr. ScHERER. Do you say that that is a suspicion on the part of Mr. 
Tavenner that you were a member of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Sarvis. I can only construe it as a conclusion from the way he 
speaks. 

Mr. SciiERER. Will you affirm or deny that you were active in the 
Communist Party ? 

Mr. Sarvis. Twice within the last 5 minutes I have made my posi- 
tion clear. It is a position which I take on advice of counsel to protect 
myself; counsel advises me that I would be in trouble regardless of 
how I answer this question, that I must take the fifth amendment and 
any further questioning or implications along this line obviously are 
only going to find the same answer from me and could only serve 
the purpose I have mentioned, public embarrassment and threat to 
employment. 

Excuse for getting heated. I will try to cool down and be calm. 
I am an indignant citizen. 

Mr. Tavenner. You were identified in testimony by Ernestine 
Gatewood in hearings before the Subversive Activities Control Board 
regarding the California Labor School as a member of the Communist 
Party ; did you know that ? 



HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1201 

Mr. Sarvis. No, sir ; I did not. 

Mr. Ta VENDER. That was her testimony. 

The Chairman. Do you know Ernestine Gatewood ? 

Mr. Sarvis. What can a man answer to such a charge? I am not 
able to confront the witness to disprove her credibility because of the 
immunity she has as a witness here she is beyond the reach of any civil 
suit that I may care to bring against her so I am helpless. 

The Chairman. Do you know the lady ? 

Mr. SAR\^s. Mr. Chairman, I do not believe it is proper for me under 
the first amendment to speak of my associations or similar matters. 

Mr. ScHERER. I ask that you direct the witness to answer the 
question. 

The Chairman. Yes. You are directed to answer the question of 
whether you know this lady. 

Mr. Sarvis. I decline on the grounds of the fifth amendment. But 
for the real reasons that I have stated, in addition. 

Mr. ScHERER. Then the fifth amendment is not your real reason ? 

Mr. Sarvis. That is your interpretation. 

Mr. ScHERER. That is what you said. 

Mr. Tavenner. I have no further questions. 

The Chairman. Are there any questions ? 

Mr. ScHERER. When Ernestine Gatewood testified under oath be- 
fore the Subversive Activities Control Board as to your Communist 
Party membership, was she lying or was she telling the truth? 

Mr. Sarvis. I am reminded that I have already answered the basic 
question behind what you are asking me, Mr. Scherer. It is also my 
impression, however, that very few informers of this character who 
have testified in this fashion are entirely free from suspicion of per- 
jury. In fact, some of them, as you know, have admitted as much in 
publications. 

Mr. Scherer. Whether she was an informer or not, I am asking you 
to tell us now whether she was lying or telling the truth when she, 
under oath, testified before the Subversive Activities Control Board 
of the Government of the United States about your Communist Party 
membership ? 

Mr. Sarvis. I have answered the question three times. 

Mr. Scherer. You did not answer this question once yet. You did 
not answer my question. 

Mr. Sarvis. I have told you three times already in response to this 
question 

Mr. Scherer. Then tell us once again. 

Mr. Sarvis. I will tell you once again that although I would like 
very much to answer honestly and candidly in this regard, legal 
advice warns me that to answer yes, no, or in any other way would 
be to place me in jeopardy of extremely painful, costly, lengthy liti- 
gation, and that therefore in self-defense I am obliged to stand on the 
fifth amendment. 

The Chairman. Mr. Tavenner, what were the dates of those per- 
formances ? 

Mr. Tavenner. They began in 1947. The documents that I read 
began in 1947 and continued practically each year through 1950. It 
began in 1948, if you will pardon me, and through the year 1952. 

Mr. Sarvis. You should have read some of the other press announce- 
ments. 



1202 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 

The Chairman. "We are directing your attention just to this specific 
thing. During that period were you a member of the Professional 
Section of the Communist Party? 

Mr. Sarvis. I repeat the same answer which I have jireviously given 
to the same question. 

Mr. McIntosii. If this committee were to go through the procedures 
of requesting an order from Federal court granting you immunity 
would you thereupon testify freely and fully of your knowledge of 
any Communist activities, since you indicate you would very much 
like to answer these questions ? 

Mr. Sarvis. This is something of which I have insufficient legal 
knowledge to answer. 

Mr. McIntosh. Discuss it with your counsel. 

Mr. Sarais. I am advised, Congressman, that in view of the un- 
clarity still lingering around the Supreme Court's recent decision 
regarding the first amendment, this raises certain questions that have 
to do with the proposition that you make. However, if I were to be 
given a court order of the kind that you suggest by which time pre- 
sumably there would be some clarification on the recent decision, I 
would then be in a position to decide. 

Mr. McIntosh. You do not indicate one way or the other what you 
would be willing to do. Do you care to at this time, having given some 
rather lengthy remarks about your eagerness to testify if the possibility 
of criminal prosecution can be removed, I ask you, if it can be removed 
satisfactorily and through legal process then will you testify freely 
and fully about anything that you know about Communist activities ? 

Mr. Sarvis. If I have given the impression that I am eager to testify 
in front of this committee under, I must say, duress or coercion and 
in a fashion which I as a private citizen, nonlegally and so forth, be- 
lieve is extremely alien to the first amendment and personally rather 
hostile to everything I believe in — if I have given the impression that I 
would be willing to testify in this kind of a hearing, it is a mistaken 
impression. I mean to give the impression that I am proud of my life 
and my work and my beliefs, humble as they are. 

Mr. McIxTOSH. Could I sum up your answer as "Xo?"' Is that a 
fair answer? 

Mr. Sarvis. Xo, sir. By now I have kind of lost track of the ques- 
tion and I would not like to have you sum up my answer, nor would 
I like to do so now without further clarifying questions. 

The Chairman. The witness is excused. 

Call your next witness. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Robert Nissen, will you come forward, please. 

The Chairman. Will you raise your right hand, please. Do you 
swear the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole 
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Nissen. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF ROBERT (J.) NISSEN, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 
HAROLD A. GALLOWAY 

Mr. Tavenner. What is your name, please ? 
Mr. XissEN. Robert Nissen, N-i-s-s-e-n, 

Mr. Taatnner. Will counsel accompanying tlie witness please 
identify himself for the record ? 



HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1203 

Mr. Galloway. I am Harold A. GalloAvay. 68 Post Street, San Fran- 
cisco, a member of the California Bar. 

Mr. Tavenner. When and where were you born, Mr. Nissen ? 

Mr. NissEN. I was born in Salina, Kans., April 7, 1928. 

Mr. Tavexxer. Where do 3'ou now reside ? 

Mr. NissEX. San Francisco. 

Mr. Ta%'exxer. How long have you lived in the State of California ? 

Mr. Xissex. Since 1951. 

Mr. Tavexxer. What is your occujjation or profession ? 

Mr. Xissex. I am a television and electronics engineer. 

Mr. TA^'EXXER. Will you tell the committee, please, what your for- 
mal educational training has been ? 

Mr. Xissex. After finishing Lutheran Parochial School I went to 
high school in Oregon. I attended the University of Colorado, 
Columbia, the University of Bombay, a degree from Oregon State 
College, a bachelor of science degree with major work in physics. Also, 
I have a diploma from the Xew York School of Radio and Television. 

Mr. Tavexxer. Did you have a period of service in the Armed 
Forces of the United States ? 

Mr. Xissex. Yes, sir ; I was in the JNIarine Corps. 

Mr. Tavexxer. Over what period of time ? 

Mr. Xissex. From 1946 until 1954. 

Mr. Tavexxer. To 1954 ? I probably was mistaken. I understood 
you had been living in ( 'alifornia since 1951. 

Mr. Xissex. Yes, I was in the Inactive Reserve. I presumed you 
meant that also, until 1954. 

Mr. Tavexxer. You were in the Active Armed Forces from 1946 
to 1951, is that correct ? 

Mr. Xissex. Until 1950, I think it was. I was a midshipman. I 
was under the training program then from the Xavy. In 1948 I trans- 
ferred to the Marine Corps. 

ISIr. Tavexxer. Excuse me. Will you break that down. I did not 
quite understand you. 

Mr. Xissex. In 1946 I went in, and this was in the Xavy under the 
Xaval Reserve Officer Training Cor])s. 

Mr. TA^'ENXER. Where were you living then ? 

Mr. Xissex. This was in Oregon, Oregon State College. 

]\Ir. Tavexxer. Yes. 

Mr. Xissex. In 1948 I transferred to the Marine Corps, which was 
the prerogative of all midshipmen at that time, and I think also at 
the present time, and was commissioned in 1950 and went on Inac- 
tive Reserve at that time. 

Mr. ScHERER. Were you Xaval ROTC while you were at Oregon ? 

Mr. Xissex. Yes, it is under the XROTC program. 

Mr. ScHERER. You finished Oregon when ? 

Mr. Xissex. In 1950 when I got my degree and commission at 
the same time. 

Mr. ScHERER. You were in the armed services then while you were 
at college ? 

Mr. Xissex. That is right. 

Mr. Tavexxer. When did you receive your discharge ? 

Mr. Xissex. I received the discharge in 1954, I believe it was, sir. 

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



1204 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 

Mr. NissEN. I object basically to this line of questioning. 

The Chairman. You are directed to answer the question. 

Mr. NissEN. This will take a little longer. The direction here, 1 
think, under direction, I claim the rights as you gentlemen well know, 
it will take a bit longer, but I think everything I have to say here is 
quite pertinent to everything that is going on in this room, and I hope 
that it is not regarded, simply because it is written down here, any- 
thing of rote. I mean every single word of it. 

The Chairman. Will you answer the question, please ? 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Chairman, it is quite apparent that the gentle- 
man is preparing to make a speech rather than answer the question, 
or state legal grounds for refusing to do it. 

Mr. NissEN. I am prepared to do it. 

I am preparing at this time, sir, to state the legal grounds for the 
objection and I simply am interjecting that I hope you will go along 
with it. 

I wish to inform the committee that I will refuse to answer any 
questions concerning past membership in any organization, past 
association or associates. Nor will I discuss with the committee 
neither my present nor my past political or philosophic beliefs and 
opinions. I do this on the following grounds. 

No. 1, under our Constitution all congressional investigation is sub- 
ject to the command that Congress shall make no law abridging the 
freedom of speech, press, or assembly. The mandate of this committee 
is unconstitutional in that it authorizes inquiry into areas in which 
Congress is forbidden by the first amendment to legislate. 

Questions asked of me concerning my political beliefs and associa- 
tions are violative of my rights of speech and assembly which are 
beyond the reach of congressional investigating committees by virtue 
of this first amendment and this I emphasize most strongly. 

Two, inquiry of the committee and the announced purpose of this 
committee are not related to any valid purpose, nor in furtherance 
of a legitimate task of Congress, but are exposing me to public stigma, 
scorn, and economic deprivation. 

An additional purpose of this committee in summoning me here 
is to place me on trial without informing me of the nature and cause 
of the accusations, without allowing me the effective aid of counsel 
and without benefit of the presumption of innocence without due 
process of law, all of which rights are guaranteed me by the fifth 
and sixth amendments of the Constitution of the United States. 

This committee's inquiry further infringes on the rights retained by 
the people of the United States, including me, under the ninth 
amendment. 

Were I to cooperate with this committee in naming names of friends 
and associates, I have reason to believe that this committee might 
hound them to the point of suicide. I will not have that responsibility 
weighing on my shoulders as it is on the shoulders of this committee, 
and, finally, I wish to state that I am innocent of any crime ; in fact 
if any of you know of any crime that I am guilty of, I would suggest 
that you turn it over to the proper prosecuting authority and let them 
take care of it. 

The Supreme Court recently affirmed that an honest man ma;^ affirm 
that his answers may incriminate him. The past history of this com- 
mittee and the witnesses who have appeared before it, for some reason 



HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1205 

unknown to me, prosecution might be anticipated. Innocent men 
have the right which I now assert, to provide evidence which could 
be used by the prosecutor in building a chain of circumstantial evi- 
dence around me in a situation in which I know that I shall not be 
allowed to defend myself nor be afforded the usual safeguards by which 
evidence against me is tested for its truth. 

Therefore, and because under our Constitution no person shall be 
compelled to be a witness against himself, and for each and all of the 
reasons enumerated, I respectfully refuse to answer the questions. 

Mr. Tavenner. You do mean refuse ? 

Mr. NissEN. Excuse me, I do mean refuse. There is no water here 
and I am dry. It is hot here and this is probably the hottest seat in 
the house. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was your discharge which you received in 1954 a 
discharge under other than honorable conditions ? 

Mr. NissEN. A very peculiar thing happened, Mr. Tavenner, which 
I think you will be interested in. 

The Chairman. Will you answer the question ? 

Mr. NissEN. I certainly will, and I am doing so and I think you al- 
ready know. 

The Chairman. No, I don't know. I have never seen you before 
and never heard of you before. 

Mr. NissEN. If you will let me tell you, I will certainly let you hear 
of me. I think, as some of you certainly heard about, there were many 
discharges about 2 or 3 years ago under other than honorable condi- 
tions. These were not dishonorable. They had a category where they 
had to put people if they did not like what they believed. I have an 
other than honorable discharge and I have never been able to figure out 
why I have it. 

The Chairman. Why don't you appeal ? 

Mr. NissEN. We went to a board, there were no witnesses, in fact, it 
was similar to this hearing. There was no cross-examination. There 
was no possibility of testing the veracity of unknown witnesses. We 
appealed most strongly, sir 

The Chairman. What reason was given to you for giving you the 
discharge other than honorable ? I am asking you and not your coun- 
sel. 

Mr. NissEN. You are depriving me of legal counsel. 

The Chairman. No, but you did not seek advice. You were jerked 
over there before you had a chance to answer my question. 

I will withdraw the question. 

Go ahead, Mr. Tavenner. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you a member of the Communist Party dur- 
ing the period of time that you were in the service from 1946 to 
1954? 

Mr. NissEN. I think that my answers previously given certainly 
covered this and on that basis I refer to all of my previous reasons for 
refusing to answer that question. 

Mr. SciiERER. Does that include the fifth amendment ? 

Mr. NissEN. This includes each and every single thing that I have 
said. 



1206 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 

Mr. ScuEKEK. I don't recall, you said so. 1 am asking you ii" you 
included the fifth amendment. 

I ask, Mr. Chairman, that you direct the witness to answer. 

Mr. NissEN. If the grounds, Mr. Scherer, are unclear to you or 
confused in your mind, I would be happy to read it again or have the 
recorder read it. 

Mr, Scherer. I merely asked you if the grounds included the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. NissEN. And I repeat once again that I stand on all of those 
grounds and if you did not pick it up — 

The Chairman. Including the fifth amendment ? 

Mr. NissEN. I stand upon the statement I made. 

Mr. ScEiERER. I ask that you direct the witness to answer. 

The Chairman. You are directed to answer the question of whether 
or not your refusal is based upon the fifth amendment. 

Mr. NissEN. I stand upon the grounds I have previously stated. 

The Chairman. Go ahead, Mr. Tavenner. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Nissen 

Mr. Nissen. I would like to read something here. 

The Chairman. Mr. Tavenner is about to ask you a question. Go 
ahead, Mr. Tavenner. 

Mr. Tavenner. Is it a fact that in 1951 during the Korean conflict 
you offered your services to the Soviet Union ? 

Mr. Nissen. Mr. Tavenner, I think it is pretty apparent that that 
question also requires the use of all of my previously stated grounds. 

The Chairman. In other words, you decline to answer for the rea- 
sons given before, all of the reasons ? 

Mr. Tavenner. Is it not a fact that you wrote a letter to the Soviet 
Union offering your services in any capacity, either in tlie United 
States or abroad ? 

Mr. Nissen. I once again object to the line of questioning. I ob- 
ject to the use of this committee of this sort of question and I certainly 
rely upon all of the previously stated grounds, plus the following 
amendment, even though the inquiry — these questions are an improper 
invasion in the rights in the field in which Congress is by the first 
amendment forbidden to enter. Chairman Walter, I believe, this 
morning at 11 : 50 expressed his and the committee's intention to press 
for further legislation in this field, even though the members of this 
committee are sworn to defend and protect the Constitution of the 
United States, as interpreted by the Supreme Court. Chairman 
Walter can only be interpreted as intending further to abridge the 
Constitution and my rights as a loyal citizen of the United States. 

The chairman deprived me of my rights to express my opin- 
ion under the first amendment. On that additional ground and the 
additionally stated Watkins opinion, and the additionally stated 
grounds, I refuse to answer. 

Mr. Tavenner. Now let's get back to the question. Isn't it true 
that you did w^rite such a letter ? 

Mr. Nissen. Mr. Tavenner, you evidently believe that average men- 
tality of the adult in television is 12 years old. I think they can see 
through this line of questioning. I think they can see that the only 
purpose is to embari-ass me in front of television, in front of tlie news- 



HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1207 

papers, and I think that it is obviously unfair if not legally out of line. 

The Chairman. Just a minute. Answer the question, 

]\Ir. NissEx. I refuse to answer on all the grounds I stated previ- 
ously. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you still maintain that you did not know why 
you received a discharge other than honorable? 

Mv. NissEN. In answer to that question, I would say somewhat in 
explanation that in that hearing none of the witnesses appeared, they 
were untested in any way, and for tliis reason I again stand on my 
rights. 

Mr. Tavenner. In other words, you refuse to answer the question 
1 posed, that as a matter of fact you did not know what was the reason 
for your receiving a discharge under other than honorable conditions ? 

Mr. XissEN. The reasons that were given in the hearing, the pre- 
sumed reasons tliat were given in the hearing. 

Mr. Tavenner. That is not my question. 

Mr. Nissen. Then I did not understand your question. 

Mr. Tavenner. My question is. Do you still contend that you did 
not know the reasons why you received a discharge under other than 
lionorable conditions? 

Mr. Nissen. Mr. Tavenner, I know what the stated reasons were in 
the hearing, but I considered those — I simply could not understand 
them. There are reasons put down on paper, but in my opinion these 
made no sense. 

]Mr. Tavenner. Does the writing of a letter of the character that 1 
described make sense to you ? 

Mr. NissEN. I refuse to answer that, sir, on the same grounds that 
1 previously stated. 

Mr. ScTiERER. Mr. Tavenner, may I ask you a question ? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SciTERER. Am I correct that the legal definition of treason is 
giving aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war ? 

Mr. Tavenner. In time of war; yes, sir. 

The question I asked you regarding your Communist Party mem- 
bership was during the period of your military service and in 1954 
at the time of your discharge. Will you tell the committee whether 
or not you have been a member of a professional group of the Com- 
munist Party in San Francisco at any time since 1954? 

Mr. NissEN. I once again, sir, refuse to answer that on the basis of 
all of my previously stated grounds. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you a member of a professional group of the 
Communist Party in California now? 

Mr. NissEN. I once again utilize the benefits of the congressional 
support which I have in the Supreme Court and I think that I can 
stand very solidly on all of the decisions and the Bill of Rights itself, 
including the Watkins decision this Monday. 

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

Mr. ScHERER. I have one question. 

Witness, when you joined tlie armed services of the United States 
you took an oath to defend tliis country against all enemies of the 
United States, did you not ? 

Mr. NissEN. Mr. Interrogator, yes I did take this oath. 



1208 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 

Mr. ScHERER. I ask you as a matter of fact and ask you to affirm 
or deny that while you were a member of the armed forces you wrote 
a letter in time of war to the Russian Government offering your 
services. 

Mr. NissEN. I refuse to answer that, sir. 

The Chairman. The committee is adjourned, to meet tomorrow 
morning at 9 :30. 

(Wliereupon, at 5 p. m., the committee was recessed, to reconvene 
at 9 :30 a. m. the following day, Thursday, June 20, 1957.) 

X 



BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY 



3 9999 05706 3172 



*< 



I.. 



d 
e 

% 

ti 
i 



uy'b 


5^ pU 1^ ^ 






Ji^ 


C<^*'it>»1««^lt?vc»> ^/— ^ 







I