Full text of "Hearings held in San Francisco, Calif., June 18-21, 1957. Hearings"

//( 2^

HARVARD COLLEGE
LIBRARY

tas

GIFT OF THE

GOVERNMENT
OF THE UNITED STATES

HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO,
CALIF., JUNE 18-21, 1957— PART 2

HEARINGS

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES
HOUSE OF EEPRESENTATIYES

EIGHTY-FIFTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JUNE 20 AND 21, 1957

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

INCLUDING INDEX

UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
94343 WASHINGTON : 1957

HARVARD COLLEGE II58ARY
DEPOSITED EY THE

COMMITTEE ON UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES

United States House of Repkesentatives

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

RiCHAED Aeens, Director

CONTENTS

PART 1

Pag«s

Synopsis VII

June 18, 1957: Testimony of —

Irving Kermish 1096

Angela Ward 1099

Jay A. Darwin 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 1143

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 ■ 1188

David Sarvis 1193

Robert (J.) Nissen 1202

PART 2

June 20, 1957: Testimony of—

Dorothy (M.) Jeflfers 1210

Ellis Colton 1220

Afternoon session:

Harvey Richards 1245

Mary Thygeson (Scott) Shepardson 1252

Evelyn Siris (Mrs. Lawrence 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

Dorothy (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 1 326

Rebecca L. (Bea) Melner 1332

Benjamin Dreyfus 1335

Index i

Public Law 601, 79th Congress

The legislation under -which the House Committee on Un-American
Activities operates is Public Law 601, 79th Congress [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

RlTLE X

SEC. 121. STANDING COMMITTEES
It ***** m

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) The Committee on Un-American Activities, as a whole or by subcommittee.
Is authorized to make from time to time investigations of (i) the extent, char-
acter, and objects of un-American propaganda activities in the United States,
(ii) the diffusion within the United States of subversive and un-American propa-
ganda that is instigated from foreign countries or of a domestic origin and
attacks tlie principle of the form of government as guaranteed by our Constitu-
tion, and (iii) all other questions in relation thereto that would aid Congress in
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 OVEKSIGHT BY STANDING COMMITTEES

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

RULES ADOPTED BY THE 85TH CONGRESS

House Resolution 5, January 3, 1957
*******

Rule X

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.
*******

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 propaganda activities in the United States,
(2) the diffusion within the United States of subversive and un-American propa-
ganda that is instigated from foreign countries or of a domestic origin and
attaclis the principle of the form of government as guaranteed by our Constitu-
tion, and (3) all other questions in relation thereto that would aid Congress in
any necessary remedial legislation.

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

For the purpose of any such investigation, tlie 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 i-elated 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.

HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.,
JUNE 18-21, 1957— PART 2

THURSDAY, JUNE 20, 1957

United States House of Kepresentatives,

Subcommittee of the
Committee on Un-American Activities,

San Francisco^ Calif.

PUBLIC HEARING

The subcommittee of the Committee on Un-American Activities
met, pursuant to recess, at 9 : 30 a. m., Hon. Francis E. Walter (chair-
man) presiding.

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

Staii' members present: Frank S. Tavenner, Jr., counsel; William
A. Wheeler, investigator.

The Chairman. The committee will be in order.

Call your first witness, Mr. Tavenner.

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Chairman, before calling the first witness, I
would like to call one matter to your attention.

Dr. Patten in the course of his testimony yesterday identified a
member of the Professional Section of the Communist Party by the
name of Halperin. A gentleman has come to see me by the name of
Mr. Morris Halperin, who is not the person referred to; but because
of the similarity of names, I thought it was the only proper thing to
do to call the witness' attention to it and let it appear in the record
that jNIr. Morris Halperin, whose residence is 3014 Shattuck Avenue,
Berkeley, is not the individual referred to by Dr. Patten.

The Chairman. I would like to state that I had my attention called
a moment ago to a photograph in the San Francisco Call Bulletin,
Wednesday, June 19, with a headline "Communist Probers Hear Fifth
Amendment Invoked," under which appeared the photographs of
six people, among them Jay Darwin. I think this is indeed unfor-
tunate. It was not done deliberately because Mr. Darwin is one of
those union leaders who made great contributions in getting the
Communists out of the CIO, and certainly there should not be any
implication that he invoked the fifth amendment.

Mr. Ta^\enner. He was a voluntary witness, Mr. Chairman, as
you recall.

I would like to call at this time Mrs. Dorothy Jeffers.

Will you come forward, please.

The Chairman. Will you stand, please, and 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 ?

Mrs. Jeffers. I do.

1209

1210 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.

TESTIMONY OF MRS. DOROTHY (M.) JEFFERS

Mr. Tavenner, You are Mrs. Dorothy Jeffers ?

Mrs. Jefi-ers. Yes.

Mr. Tavenner. Will you spell your name, please.

Mrs. Jeffers. J-e-f-f-e-r-s.

Mr. Tavenner. I wonder if you could move your chair a little to
your right. It is difficult to hear you.

It is noted, Mrs. Jeffers, that you are not accompanied by counsel.
The committee makes it a practice to advise every witness that he or
she is entitled to counsel if desired.

Mrs. Jeffers. I felt that I did not need counsel.

Mr. Tavenner. Wliere were you born, Mrs. Jeffers ?

Mrs. Jeffers. In Chicago, 111.

Mr. Tavenner. Where do you now reside ?

Mrs. Jeffers. In San Francisco.

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

Mrs. Jeffers. I would say since 1929.

Mr. Taa-enner. Will you briefly outline to the committee, please,
what your formal educational training has been?

Mrs. Jeffers. Yes. Since high school, I graduated from the Uni-
versity of Nebraska and have had some graduate courses at San
Francisco State College. I was in high school in Nebraska.

Mr. Tavenner. Will you give the committee, please, a brief outline
of your employment record ?

Mrs. Jeffers. I taught school for 3 years before I married and after
graduation, then I was not employed until 1942 when I was employed
by the Washington Community Center in San Francisco as first a
secretary and then counselor and social worker.

Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee, please, whether you
have had an opportunity over a period of time to be familiar with the
workings of the professional groups of the Communist Party in San
Francisco ?

Mrs. Jeffers. I feel that I have had such an opportunity ; yes.

Mr. Ta\t:nner. What opportunity did you have ?

Mrs. Jeffers. Well, shall I start from the beginning ?

Mr. Ta\t;nner. Just as you please.

Mrs. Jeffers. I was a member of the Communist Party. I became
a member of the Communist Party at the request of the Federal Bureau
of Investigation.

Mr. Tavenner. Wlien was that, approximately ?

Mrs. Jeffers. I would say approximately 1942 or 1943.

Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee, please, under what cir-
cumstances you entered the Communist Party ?

Mrs. Jeffers. First I was contacted by a member of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation who asked me if I would work with them for
the Bureau and I agreed to do so. In the meantime, I had become
acquainted with a person who I later learned was a member of the
Communist Party. She came to the community center for meetings
to be held there on the subject of housing for Negroes. I worked with
her committee informally in assisting her in clerical work, lists of
names ; we exchanged lots of conversation on the subject of Negroes
and women in employment, and we became acquainted in this way.

HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1211

She asked me at one point if I would like to become a member of
the party since I seemed to be interested in Negro rights. Having
already had contact with the Federal Bureau, I told her yes.

Mr. Tavenner. Who was that person ?

Mrs. Jeffers. Her name was Mary Shepardson.

Mr. Tavenner. Was she married at that time ?

Mrs. Jeffers. I think that she was not married at that time. She
later married — at this moment I do not recall who.

Mr. Tavenner. Do you recall what her maiden name was ? Maybe
you said ; I am not certain.

Mrs. Jeffers. I did not say. I think her married name was Shep-
ardson. At this moment I can't tell you.

Mr. Tavenner. Was it Mary Scott ?

Mrs. Jeffers. Mary Scott. That is how I knew her, as Mary Scott,
and then as Shepardson.

Mr. Tavenner. Preparatory to your being interviewed by any
functionary or member of the Communist Party other than her, were
you given anything by Mary Scott to study in preparation for your
admission to the Communist Party?

Mrs. Jeffers. I was given a volume called, I believe, History of the
Communist Party of the Soviet Union, or History of the Socialist
Party in the Soviet Union. Something to that effect.

Mr. Tavenner. Who gave that to you ?

Mrs. Jeffers. That was given to me by Mary Scott Shepardson.

Mr. Tavenner. Was her name signed in that book ?

Mrs. Jeffers. The name Mary was signed.

Mr. Tavenner. I will ask you to later produce the book. You still
have it, have you not ?

Mrs. Jeffers. Yes, I still own it. I did not return it to her.

Mr. Tavenner. What was the next step in your admission to the
Communist Party ?

Mrs. Jeffers. After the first formal interview and invitation, or
during that. Miss Scott said that someone else would come to see me.
Within a period of a week or 10 days, perhaps 2 weeks, Leonard Pock-
man came to see me.

Mr. Tavenner. Leonard P-o-c-k-m-a-n ?

Mrs. Jeffers. That is right.

Mr. Tavenner. Can you further identify Mr. Pockman ?

Mrs. Jeffers. At that time I did not know his work. I later
learned that he was an instructor or a professor of physics at the State
college.

Mr. Tavenner. Can you recall at this time any of the conversation
that you had with Mr. Pockman ?

Mrs. Jeffers. He asked me what purpose I felt would be served by
joining the party. He asked me what I had read along the lines of
socialism or communism. Very naively I said I read the Nation, which
is not Communist literature but is a liberal magazine, but I thought
I was being very inviting.

Mr. Tavenner. Where did this discussion take place ?

Mrs. Jeffers. He came to see me at my place of work at the com-
munity center, and we went across the hall to the library where we
could be alone. He had then told me — I do not think he told me at
the time where I was to go for the first meeting but someone got in

1212 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.

toucli with me and told me where the first meeting would be held which
I would attend.

Mr. Tavenner. Was the question of Negro rights mentioned at that
first interview ?

Mrs. Jeffers. Yes. This was an important facet of my entering
the party.

Mr. Tavenner. What was the nature of that discussion he had
with you regarding Negro rights ?

Mrs. Jeffers. The party was working very strongly to gain full
rights, political and economic, for Negroes and I would be very help-
ful in advancing the cause by joining the party.

Mr. Tavenner. Then you were subsequently accepted into the
party ?

Mrs. Jeffers. Yes.

Mrs. Tavenner. About how long after this conversation with Mr.
Pockman did that occur ?

Mrs. Jeffers. I attended my first meeting, I would say, within 2
or 3 weeks, within the month, I can be sure, of my interview with
him.

Mr. Tavenner. Do you recall the circumstances surrounding that
first meeting ? I am speaking of the first meeting of the Communist
Party which you attended.

Mrs. Jeffers. I was given an address and a first name only. I was
to go to a certain address. I believe that it was on Clay or one of
those streets parallel with Clay Street, and I was to ask for Mary.

Mr. Tavenner. You were to ask for Mary ?

Mrs. Jeffers. Yes.

Mr. Tavenner. At that time did you know who Mary was?

Mrs. Jeffers. No.

Mr. Tavenner. After you met Mary did you recognize her at that
time as any person you had known ?

Mrs. Jeffers. I had not known her.

Mr. Ta\^nner. Did you learn that this meeting was held at the
home of the person called Mary ?

Mrs. Jeffers. It was ; yes.

Mr. Ta\"enner. Did you later through activity in the Communist
Party learn to know who Mary was ?

Mrs. Jeffers. I did.

Mr. Tavenner. Who was she ?

Mrs. Jeffers. Her name was Mary Burrell.

Mr. Tavenner. Will you spell the last name ?

Mrs. Jeffers. I think B-u-r-r-e-1-1.

Mr. Tavenner. Do you recall in what occupation or profession she
was engaged ?

Mrs. Jeffers. I later learned that she was a musician. I did not
learn that immediately. I think she was with the San Francisco
Symphony.

Mr. Tavenner. You think with the San Francisco Symphony?

Mrs. Jeffers. Yes.

Mr. Tavenner. Did you attend Communist Party meetings at her
home on more than one occasion ?

Mrs. Jeffers. I did.

HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1213

Mr. TA^'ENNER. Can you describe for us or give us a general idea
of the number of meetings that were held or how frequently you at-
tended meetings at her home ?

Mrs. Jeffers. That is a little difficult for me to say. I should say
more than several. I also attended meetings with her elsewhere.

Mr. Tavenner. But there were more than several meetings at her
home ?

Mrs. Jeffers. That is correct.

Mr. Tavenner. What type of club or group of the Communist Party
was this to which you were first assigned ?

Mrs. Jeffers. It was called a professional club. Professional clubs
were set up, I later learned, for the purpose of preserving the security
of professionals who entered the party or who were members of the
party. So, they would not meet with the general public or people in
other walks of life who might not be so security conscious.

Mr. Tavenner. In other words, their identity was to be kept secret
from other members of the Communist Party ?

Mrs. Jeffers. To all intents and purposes, yes, except upper func-
tionaries who might meet with them on occasion for conference and
soon.

Mr. Tavenner. Can you recall what professions were represented
in this group ?

Mrs. Jeffers. I barely at that time fitted into the professional group
because I was a clerical worker, but I made it clear I did not want to
go into an open club. There were doctors, lawyers, social workers, I
believe. There was an artist or two, the musician whom I have just
mentioned. There was a newspaper person — how many have I named ?

Mr. Tavenner. Five or six, I think,

Mrs. Jeffers. There were also miscellaneous people such as house-
wives who were not employed.

Mr. Tavenner. Do you recall whether this professional club to which
you were assigned was known by any name other than just a profes-
sional group or cell ?

Mrs. Jeffers. I think there was more than one professional group
in the San Francisco party. I believe that when I first entered the
party it was called North Side Club.

Mr. Tavenner. But that was a professional group ?

Mrs. Jeffers. That was a professional group. I was in no other than
the professional group.

Mr. Tavenner. Did it change its name at any time ?

Mrs. Jeffers. I think at one time we became a miscellaneous club,
a Richmond Club, New Eric Club, and Christopher Caldwell.

Mr. Tavenner, Christopher Caldwell ?

Mrs. Jeffers. Yes.

Mr. Tavenner. What was the significance of giving the professional
club a name of that kind ?

Mrs. Jeffers. I think this was the name of a socialist writer. I have
read nothing that he has written. I was unfamiliar with the name.
It was suggested by a member whom I don't recall at the moment. His
name was suggested. He was a writer of literature in line with the
party thinking, an English writer.

Mr. Ta\t:nner. Do you know the names of other professional clubs
of the Communist Party ?

1214 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.

Mrs. Jeffers. When I first entered the party, there were some law-
yers in our f^roup. Later the lawyers formed a club of their own
which was known as Haymarket.

Mr. Tavenner. That was the lawyers professional group ?

Mrs. Jeffers. That is right. I believe the doctors later formed a
professional group, but I do not recall the name of their club.

Mr, Tavenner. Can you give the committee an idea of the strength
of the membership in the club when you first became a member of it?

Mrs. Jeffers. The club was a large club. There were probably 30
to 35 people in the club.

Mr. Ta^t:nner. Can you recall the names of the officers of that club
when you first became a member of it ?

Mrs. Jeffers. When I first became a member of the party, the club
which I entered had as its president Mr. Harold Sawyer.

Mr. Tavenner. What was his occupation ?

Mrs. Jeffers. He was an attorney.

Mr. Tavenner. Can you recall the names of any other officers?

Mrs. Jeffers. I believe that the secretary was Kikee Elsesser.

Mr. Tavenner. Kikee Elsesser. Spell it.

Mrs. Jeffers. E-1-s-e-s-s-e-r, I believe.

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know anything about the occupation of
Rikee Elsesser ?

Mrs. Jeffers. She was employed at Mount Zion Hospital. I think
she was in the personnel department.

Mr. Tavenner. Earlier m your testimony, you referred to a book
that was given you prior to your admission to the party by Mary Scott.
I hand you a book and ask you to examine it and tell the committee
whether or not that is the book you referred to.

Mrs. Jeffers. History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.
Yes, this is her name. This name was in it when she gave it to me.

Mr. Tavenner. The name Mary, M-a-r-y, appears on the flyleaf?

Mrs. Jeffers. Yes.

Mr. Tavenner. Did you see her write the name? Do you recall?

Mrs. Jeffers. I would not say that. I do not recall that I did.

Mr. Tav-enner. Did the book have the name Mary in it when it was
given to you ?

Mrs. Jeffers. Yes.

Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee the approximate date
you ceased your activity within the Communist Party on behalf of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation ?

Mrs. Jeffers. 1952.

Mr. Tavenner. During your experience in the Communist Party,
did you take any special course of training as a part of your Commu-
nist Party duties?

Mrs. Jeffers. Yes, I went to one series of classes conducted by
Harold Sawyer, held at the home of Alice Miggs.
Mr. Tavenner. M-i-g-g-s ?

Mrs. Jeffers. Yes, I think so. The subject of the course as I re-
member it was imperialism. At least that was the content of the
course. That was probably a month or 6 weeks, once a week.

Mr. Tavenner. You said these meetings took place in the home of
Alice Miggs. Was Alice Miggs known to you as a member of the
Communist Party ?

HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1215

Mrs. Jeffers. I really did not know her. I was given the address
and in passing I was told it was Alice Miggs' home.

Mr. Tavenner. You were in her home, but you are not testify-
ing that you knew that Alice Miggs was a member of the Communist
Party ?

Mrs. Jeffers. That is right.

Mr. Tavenner. I want the record to be clear that you are not
identifying her as a member of the Communist Party,

Do you know anything about the circumstances under which the
use of her home was obtained for this purpose ?

Mrs. Jeffers. No, I don't know.

Mr. Tavenner. About how many persons attended this school?

Mrs. Jeffers. That was a comparatively small group, perhaps 6
or 8 people, representatives from other professional clubs, you know,
of the 3 or 4, perhaps 1 or 2 from each club. I was directed to attend.

Mr. Tavenner. You were asked to attend ?

Mrs. Jeffers. I was asked to do so and was told it would be good
for increasing my knowledge.

Mr. Tavenner. How soon was that after your entry into the Com-
munist Party? Was it early or late in your experience?

Mrs. Jeffers. I would say probably in my first year.

Mr. Tavenner. Was anyone else present from your immediate
club of the Communist Party or were you the only representative
from your professional group ?

Mrs. Jeffers. As I remember, only Mr. Sawyer, the instructor.

Mr. Tavenner. And yourself?

Mrs. Jeffers. And myself.

Mr. Tavenner. These other persons you stated were from other
professional groups of the Communist Party ?

Mrs. Jeffers. I think so, because it was a course given for the Pro-
fessional Section.

Mr. Tavenner. Can you recall at this time the names of any other
persons who attended this school ?

Mrs. Jeffers. I cannot. They were not known to me and one
did not introduce one's self or ask names of people. It just was
not the thing to do, so I do not know who it was.

Mr. Tavenner. If you showed any particular interest in learning
the identity you would have been suspected ?

Mrs. Jeffers. Exactly so.

Mr. Tavenner. Did you have occasion to see these people later?

Mrs. Jeffers. I can't recall.

Mr. Tavenner. As a result of your activity in the Communist Party,
the professional group of the Communist Party, did you hold any
office or offices ?

Mrs. Jeffers. The first office which I held in the party was as litera-
ture director for my club.

Mr. Tavenner. Did you hold any other office ?

Mrs. Jeffers. I became the dues secretary, and later membership
secretary, and finally I became chairman of the club group.

Mr. Tavenner. Your first office, you say, was that of literature di-
rector ?

Mrs. Jeffers. Yes,

Mr. Tavenner. "What were your duties and functions as the litera-
ture director ?

1216 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF,

Mrs. Jeffers. I was instructed to pick up literature for use of the
club for sale to the club members, bearing; in mind the educationals
Avhich we planned for the immediate future, perhaps for the next week
or perha])s for the next month plus other readinjj matter, books, or
pamphlets bearinp: on political events or economic problems of this
country or other countries, the international situation, all of these I
should say were interpreted from the Marxist point of view.

Also I ])icked uj) from time to time Marxist classics, the Little Lenin
Libraries, the writings of Lenin or Stalin, that sort of thing. Occa-
sionally the bookstore had publications of Communist Parties in other
countries, from England, from France.

]\Ir. Tavenxer. You say. Communist Party documents from other
countries?

Mrs. Jeffers. Publications, yes, from Russia, from China.

Mr. Ta'stenner. Were those publications which imparted Com-
numist Party propaganda for use in this country?

Mrs. Jeffers. Sometimes, not always. Sometimes it was an ex-
planation of what was going on in that respective country, you see.
For example, we had a numbar of pamphlets from China explaining
the farm program in China hy Mao Tse-tung, We had pamphlets
from France with respect to trade unions in France,

Mr. Tavenxer. Don't you concede that those documents were made
available to members of the Communist Party in this country for
propaganda purposes ?

Mrs. Jeffers. Yes.

Mr. Tavenner. Where did you get this material ?

Mrs. Jeffers. I picked up literature from the International Book
Store, Inc., on Market Street, which was — it was the first block below
Van Ness on the corner. It was in the 1400 block. It was a triangular-
shaped building.

Mr. Tavenner. Were you directed to procure these documents there ?

Mrs. Jeffers. Yes.

Mr. Tavenner, By the way, I should have asked you a while ago
when you said you were told to attend this school of 7 or 8 individuals,
do you recall who told you to do that, or how you were selected for
that school ?

Mrs. Jeffers. I was probably selected because I was a backward
Marxist. Probably the chairman of the group instructed me that
it would be good for me to attend this school. This is a directive, in
other words.

Mr. Tavenner. Do you now know who was the chairman of that
group at the time when that occurred ?

Mrs. Jeffers. Yes, sir; that would have been Harold Sawyer,

Mr, Tavenner. Proceeding again with this bookstore, when you
went to the bookstore to procure documents for use at your party meet-
ings, how did you know what documents to obtain ?

Mrs, Jeffers. All that I knew was what our educationals were
scheduled to be, the educational discussions. However, the person in
the store was aware of what would be good material for use for these
educationals and also as they would suggest other materials of current
events in the day or current international situation or situations in our
own country. These were suggested to me. One had guidance in the
store.

HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1217

Mr. Tavenner. They would be sold by the person in charge of the
store ?

Mrs. Jeffers. I don't know whether he was in charge of the store,
but he is the person with whom I had contact in the store.

Mr. Tavenner. What was the name of that person ?

Mrs. Jeffers. His name was Ellis.

Mr. Tavenner. He was known to you by the name of Ellis?

Mrs. Jeffers. Yes.

Mr. Tavenner. Over how long a period of time did you know that
person under that name ?

Mrs. Jeffers. A couple of years.

Mr. Tavenner. Several years 'i

Mrs. Jeffers. I would say a couple of years.

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Chairman, testimony has been introduced here
by Dr. Patten that the person operating that bookstore was Ellis Col-
ton. I think we will be able to introduce testimony later showing that
he was the manager of the store.

Mrs. Jeffers. I would say in addition that our transaction of select-
ing literature for the club did not take place in the open store.

Mr. Tavenner. Yes ; tell us about that.

Mrs. Jeffers. We went into the basement where there was a large
library, shelves were lined, so you just did not go into the store and
buy your literature in the regular cash transaction.

Mr. Tavenner. Not right across the counter ?

Mrs. Jeffers. That is right. You went down, and this was more or
less privately done.

Mr. Tavenner. Was this area that you have described open gen-
erally to the public ?

Mrs. Jeffers. No, no.

Mr. Tavenner. It was there in this secret area that you were ad-
vised what to get and given what you should have ?

Mrs. Jeffers. Yes. You paid for the literature that you secured
last week and picked up the literature for this week.

Mr. Tavenner. Do you have any knowledge how this person by
the name of Ellis knew what books to furnish you at the particular
time?

Mrs. Jeffers. I have no knowledge, I can only make an assump-
tion.

Mr. Tavenner. I do not ask you to do that.

But you do state, as I understand, that he knew what you were to
receive ?

Mrs. Jeffers. He knew the educational program of the profes-
sional sections. If we had something special that was not going on in
the other section, then we told him, we want to do an educational on
whatever, and then he would select books for us, but very often the
section was pursuing the same educational course, the same general
training, and he would be familiar with that.

Mr. Tavenner, In the course of your obtaining those books from
time to time in the way that you said you did, did you see literature di-
rectors from other professional sections there ?

Mrs, Jeffers, I do not recall having done so.

Mr. Tavenner. Did you turn over to an investigator of this com-
mittee books and literature which you received from Mr. Ellis at the
bookstore, the International Book Store, Inc. ?

1218 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.

Mrs. Jeffers. Yes.

All of it, however, I did not receive from Mr. Ellis at the book-
store; some of it I did, some of it when I was not literature director
I piircliased at club meetings, but it had always come from the book-
store.

Mr. Tavenner. I referred to Mr. Ellis. I meant a person whose
first name was Ellis.

I will ask Mr. Wheeler, investigator for the committee, to produce
the books. I bel ieve possibly he can assi st better.

I have here a book entitled "The Soviets," by Albert Rhys Williams.
Will you examine it and state whether or not it is one of the books
that you received ?

Mrs. Jeffers. Yes, it is.

Mr. Tavenner. Political Affairs, a magazine devoted to political
affairs and to the theory and practices of Marxism.

Mrs. Jeffers. Yes.

Mr. Tavenner. Editor, Max Weiss ; V. J. Jerome, associate editor.

Mrs. Jeffers. Yes.

Mr. Ta\t:nner. Another volume of Political Affairs of September
1948, the 14th National Convention in the Communist Party, U. S. A.

Mrs. Jeffers. That, too.

Mr. Tavenner. The National Question in the Soviet Union, by M.
Chekalin.

Mrs. Jeffers. Yes.

Mr. Tavenner. The United States and the Soviet Union.

Mrs. Jeffers. Yes.

Mr. Tavenner. A Textbook of Dialectical Materialism, by David
Guest.

Mrs. Jeffers. Yes.

Mr. Tavenner. Wage, Labor, and Capital by Karl Marx, Interna-
tional Publishers, New York.

Mrs. Jeffers. Yes.

Mr. Tavenner. The Proletarian Revolution and Renegade Koutsky,
by V. I. Lenin.

Mrs. Jeffers. Yes.

Mr. Tavenner. On the Party, by Liu, Shao-ch'i, Foreign Language
Press, Peking, 1950. That is one of the Chinese publications you re-
ferred to ?

Mrs. Jeffers. Yes.

Mr. Tavenner. Volume 4 of the Little Lenin Library, What Is To
Be Done, by V. I. Lenin, published by International Publishers.

Mrs. Jeffers. Yes.

Mr. Tavenner. China Fights for Peace, is that another document?
It is edited by the Foreign Language Press, Peking, 1950.

Mrs. Jeffers. Yes.

Mr. Tavenner. The Twilight of World Capitalism, by William Z.
Foster.

Mrs. Jeffers. Yes.

Mr. Tavenner. The 15th National Convention, Communist Party,
U. S. A., Organize a Peaceful Front for the People ; Political Affairs
publication, February 1951.

Mrs. Jeffers. Yes.

Mr. Tavenner. Marxism pamphlet No. 3, George Dimitroff, United
Front Against Fascism.

HEARINGS HELD EST SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1219

Mrs. Jeffers. Yes.

Mr. Tavenner. IMarxist Liberal No. 2, Marxism Versus Liberalism,
by Joseph Stalin.

Mrs. Jeffers. Yes.

Mr. Ta^-enner. V. I. Lenin, Two Tactics of Social Democracy in
the Democratic Revolution.

Mrs. Jeffers. Yes.

Mr. TA^^:x^rER. Volume 29 of the Little Lenin Library, Marxism
and Revisionism, by V. I. Lenin and Joseph Stalin.

Mrs. Jeffers. Yes.

Mr. Tavenner. Foundations of Leninism, by Joseph Stalin.

Mrs. Jeffers. Yes.

]\fr, Tavexner. Outline of Political History of the Americas, by
William Z. Foster.

Mrs. Jeffers. Yes.

Mr. Ta^t:xner. The Constitution of the Communist Party ?

Mrs. Jeffers. Yes.

ISfr. Tavenner. I see here numerous other papers and documents,
another one being On Organization, by J. Stalin, from the Little
Stalin Library, and volume 19 of the Little Lenin Liljrary.

Mrs. Jeffers. Yes.

Mr. Tavenner. I see here another pamphlet entitled "INIutiny — The
Real Story of How the Navy Branded Fifty Fear-Shocked Sailors as
Mutineers"; "America's Post-War Problems"; with a foreword by
William Z.Foster.

Mrs. Jeffers. Yes.

Mrs. Tavenner. How Socialism Works, by John Starchey.

Mrs. Jeffers. Yes.

Mr. Ta^-enner. Numerous editions of Political Affairs ; the Citizen
Writer, by Albert Maltz.

Mrs. Jeffers. Yes.

Mr. Tavenner. Ideas They Cannot Jail, Eugene Dennis.

That is all that I will take time to produce.

Mrs. Jeffers. Yes.

Mr. Tavenner. While we are still on the subject of Communist
Party literature, while you were a member of the Communist Party,
were you instructed to read any particular weekly or monthly publi-
cations of the Communist Party ?

Mrs. Jeffers. We were expected to read regularly the Daily People's
World and Political Affairs, which was monthly.

Mr. Ta^t.nner. Do you know if the Communist Party had an intra-
party paper ?

Mrs. Jeffers. Occasionally there was issued a leaflet, sometimes
mimeographed and sometimes printed by the party, issued by the
party, for educational use, directing our attention to certain problems
and to the direct solution of them according to the party line.

Mr. TA^'ENNER. Did you deliver to the investigator of the committee
several copies of that paper?

Mrs. Jeffers. I think so.

Mr. Tavenner. Will the investigator, Mr. TNTieeler, please hand
them to the witness?

Will you identify those, please, or do you identify them as copies ?

94343— 57— pt. 2-

1220 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.

Mrs. Jeffers. I identify them as material which I received and
which was to be used for educational purposes, published by the party.

Mr, Tavenner. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to introduce these
documents and records in evidence, but I would like to ask the witness,
if it is agreeable to her, if the committee may retain possession of these
documents long enougli to make a study of them.

Mrs. Jeffers. I would say so ; yes ; I have no objection.

Mr. Tavenner. The paper entitled, "The Party Keview," carried on
its first page an article under the heading, "For Trade and Friend-
ship with People's China." You say that these items were to be used
in study work of the Communist Party ?

Mrs. Jeffers. Yes.

Mr. Tavenner. I see here among the papers you have turned over
a paper which appears to be entitled, "Our Party," issued by national
organization and education departments. Communist Party, United
States of America, May 1951.

It seems to be devoted princi])ally to the Negro question.

I think, Mr. Chairman, at this point, that I will ask the witness to
step down and I would like to call another witness.

The Chairman. All right. The witness is excused at the moment.

Mr. Ta\tenner. Mr. Ellis Colton.

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

Mr. Ellis. I so do.

TESTIMONY OF ELLIS COLTON, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL,
NORMAN LEONARD

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

Mr. CoLTON. My name is Ellis Colton.

Mr. Tavenner. Will you spell your last name, please?

Mr. CoLTON. C-o-l-t-o-n.

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

Mr. Leonard. Norman Leonard, 241 Montgomery Street, a member
of the Bar of the State of California and of the Supreme Court of
the United States.

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

Mr. CoLTON. I was born in Chicago, 111.', on December 30, 1915.

Mr. Tavenner. Where do yoa now reside ?

Mr. CoLTON. I now reside in San Francisco.

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

Mr. CoLTON. I have lived in San Francisco since approximately
March 1923.

Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee, please, what your for-
mal educational training has been ?

Mr. CoLTON. Would you kindly advise me, Mr. Chairman, what
your counsel means by formal education ?

Mr. Tavenner. What schools have you attended as part of your
educational preparation ?

Mr. CoLTON. Educational preparation for what, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Tavenner. For any occupation that you may have later decided
that you would enter upon.

HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1221

Mr. CoLTON. The education leading to my college degree was as
follows : I am a graduate of Sutro Grammar School in San Francisco.
I subsequently attended 6 months of Voll High School. I then trans-
ferred to Polytechnical High School in San Francisco from where I
was graduated.

I then attended San Mateo Junior College in San Mateo, Calif.,
where I was graduated ; then the University of California from which
I received bachelor of arts degree. I subsequently took postgraduate
work at the University of California.

Mr. Tavennek. There has been testimony, Mr. Colton, that you
operated the International Book Store, Inc., in San Francisco. The
testimony has been taken at an executive session of the committee
showing that a person acting in behalf of the committee purchased
from the International Book Store on April 2, 1957, this document,
entitled, "Soviet Union, 1957, No. 1 (83) ."

(Document identified as "Committee Exhibit No. 1," was handed to
the witness. )

Mr. Tavenner. Will you examine it please and state whether or
not the International Book Store was engaged in the selling of that
document in April of 1957 or similar documents ?

Mr. CoLTOx. Mr. Chairman, I should like to know the relevancy
of this question and wonder whether it might be a desire on the part
of this committee to introduce legislation into Congress to ban the
sale of books.

The Chairman. No ; that is not the purpose at all.

Proceed, Mr. Tavenner. Explain the relevancy of the question.

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Colton, at the opening of this hearing, the
chairman announced he had made a report to Congress in 1956 at
the end of the session, in fact the report is dated in January of 1957,
with regard to the necessity for strengthening the provisions of the
Foreign Agents Registration Act, so as to afford a more effective
means of counterattacking the schemes and devices used in avoiding
the prohibitions of the act with regard to the flow of political propa-
ganda of a Communist origin into this country.

The chairman announced that that was one of the subjects which
would be considered at this hearing and that is the matter I am
directing to your attention at this time. That is the general subject
of the matter I am inquiring about at the moment.

I do not see why it is necessary that you should question me regard-
ing the pertinency of that document in light of the announcement of
the subject, but if you desire further clarification as to the pertinency,
I will be glad to try to answer your questions about it.

In other words, it seems that I am now the person being questioned
rather than you.

Mr. Colton. It is my understanding from a reading of the Supreme
Court decision in the Watkins case that it is the duty of this committee
to make the purpose of its questions indisputably clear provided the
witness does not understand it.

Mr. Tavenner. Yes; provided the witness does not understand it
and provided the questions are not perfectly plain on their face and
the pertinency does not seem apparent to the witness. Do you still
state that you do not understand the pertinency of the question ?

Mr. Colton. I shall consult with my counsel.

1222 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.

jMr. Tavenner. I want to know whether you understand it, and
not your counsel.

Mr. CoLTON. I want to discuss witli my counsel my legal rights
on that question, sir.

When you have completed your statement of clarification involved,
I will move on to the next problem involved here ; of answering the
question.

Mr. Tavenner. Are you satisfied as to the pertinency of the
question ?

Mr. CoLTON. No, sir. It is not a question of my being satisfied
as to the pertinency of the question at all.

Mr. Tavenner. Then why did you ask me about it, to explain it?
Is this just a game you are playing? I thought you wanted

Mr, CoLTON. Which question do you want me to answer?

Mr. Tavenner, I thought you wanted to know the pertinency of
the question. Now you say it is not a question of your being satisfied
as to the pertinency, so I say I think I am entitled to conclude that you
are just playing a game with the committee.

The Chairman. Proceed, Mr. Tavenner. It is perfectly obvious
what it is.

Mr. CoLTON. I wish to respectfully say that I am not playing any
game. I am merely trying to assert my rights as I understand them
to be.

The Chairman, Maybe I can clarify this situation. We have been
studying for some time the advisability of recommending to the Con-
gress the enactment of legislation extending the scope of the Foreign
Agents Kegistration Act.

The paper or magazine which you have just been shown has come
into the United States in large quantities, literally tons of it along
the Atlantic seaboard. It finds its w^ay into the hands of people
who do not subscribe for it or buy it, and quite obviously it is a prop-
aganda medium.

What we would like to know is whether or not you sold this
magazine, how you got it, where it came from, and whether you had
been distributing it free as is the case in New York, Philadelphia,
Baltimore, and elsew^here.

Now, Mr. Tavenner, proceed with the questioning as to where it
came from and so on,

Mr, Tavenner, With that explanation of the subject matter and
the pertinency of this inquiry, I will ask you whether or not the
International Book Store in April was engaged in the selling of the
magazine that I exhibited to you.

(The witness conferred with his counsel.)

JMr, CoLTON, Sir, I refuse to answer the question on the following
grounds: In view of Congressman Walter's statement that it is for
the purpose of effecting legislation concerning the sale of books or
magazines, I feel that such sale

The Chairman. May I interrupt at that point ?

We are not concerned with the sale of books or magazines. We are
concerned with the distribution of Communist propaganda and noth-
ing else. I hope you have not misunderstood me.

Mr. CoLTON. Sir, the thing that was presented to me was a magazine.
Where it comes from was not the question involved to my mind.

HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1223

The Chairman. Take a shortcut then. Did you ever see this maga-
?;ine before ?

Mr. CoLTON. I have seen it right now, sir.

The CiiAiRiviAisr. Did you ever see it before ?

Mr. CoLTON. Sir, this is a matter of books, which is involved, which
is protected by the first amendment. ^Vliether it is a Communist book
or any other kind of book, it is still a book.

The Chairmax. Did you ever see that magazine before ?

Mr. CoLTON. Sir, I am answering the previous question and with
your indulgence I would like to finish my statement in answer to Mr.
Tavenner's question.

The Chairman. Mr. Tavenner withdrew his question. I am asking
a few questions. Did you sell that particular magazine to anyone ?

Mr, CoLTON. Sir, I object to the question that is being posed to me
for the following reasons : One of the announced purposes of this hear-
ing is to secure evidence as a basis for legislation to outlaw the Com-
munist Party of the United States.

This is clearly an illegal purpose, since article I, section 9 of the
United States Constitution forbids Congress from legislating a bill
of attainder. I will not be a party to a conspiracy on the part of this
committee or any group to gather evidence to perform an illegal act.

Secondly, since the United States Supreme Court in 1945 held, in
the Schneiderman case, that a study of the Communist Party literature
and activities should lead a reasonable person to believe that the Com-
munist Party aims by peaceful, democratic, and constitutional means,
the reference by the chairman of this committee to a Communist con-
spiracy is vague and untrue.

This decision in 1945 has been given additional strength by Judge
Harlan's decision this past ^Monday, freeing 5 California Smith Act
victims and ordering new trials for 9 others.

Thirdly, I challenge the authorizing resolution for this committee,
citing the following statement from Chief Justice Warren's majority
decision in the Watkins case this Monday :

It would be difficult to imagine a less explicit authorizing resolution. Who
can define the meaning of "un-American"'? What is that single, solitary "prin-
ciple of the form of government as guaranteed by our Constitution"?

And further :

Combining the language of the resolution with the construction it has been
given, it is evident that the preliminary control of the committee exercised by
the House of Representatives is slight or nonexistent. No one could reasonably
deduce from the charter the kind of investigation that the committee was directed
to make.

Further, from Chief Justice Warren's decision :

The final source of evidence as to the "question under inquiry" is the chairman's
response when petitioner objected to the questions on the grounds of lack of
pertinency. The chairman then announced that the subcommittee was inves-
tigating "subversion and subversive propaganda." This is a subject at least as
broad and indefinite as the authorizing resolution of the committee, if not more
so.

Fourthly, since the United States Congress is forbidden by the
first amendment of the Constitution from legislating in the fields of
speech, press, assembly, and association, this committee has no au-
thority for investigating in these areas.

1224 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.

I recognize, as did Chief Justice Earl Warren in the Watkins case,
that it is the duty of a citizen to cooperate with the Congress in its
efforts to obtain the facts needed for intelligent legislative action.
However, I also recognize, as the Chief Justice did, and the com-
mittee apparently does not, that this obligation on the part of a citizen
has a correlative obligation on the part of the committee to respect the
constitutional rights of witnesses.

The Chief Justice further said, that :

The Bill of Rights is applicable to investigations as to all forms of governmental
action.

This committee apparently does not recognize the first amendment,
which is the cornerstone of the Bill of Rights. I do, and I insist on my
rights under it. In fact, in considering the powers of this very
committee in the "Watkins case. Chief Justice Warren said :

Nor can the first amendment, freedom of speech, press, religion, or political
belief and association be abridged.

Fifthly, since these hearings are being televised in defiance of the
Rules of the House of Representatives and the opinions of the Speaker
of the House, Hon. Sam Rayburn, I do not wish my answering this
question to involve myself in any conspiracy to violate the Rules of the
House of Representatives.

The Chairman. The Chair is not aware that there is any such rule.

Mr. CoLTON. If the committee is interested in action to subvert the
United States Congress, I suggest they investigate the overt acts of an
intimidation of Negroes in the Southern States.

The Chairman. Now you are directed to answer the question.

Mr. Colton. I understand by your direction, sir, that you do not
accept the first amendment rights as I have indicated them in my brief
statement.

The Chairman. You did not refuse to answer the question. You
merely objected to the question and after having heard your speech, I
directed you to answer the question.

Mr. Colton. I take it, sir, that my objection, sir, has been over-
ruled?

The Chairman. I am directing you to answer the question.

Mr. Colton. In view of the fact that this committee refuses to rec-
ognize the validity of any objections based on the first amendment
to the United States Constitution and refuses to recognize the validity
of a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States and even re-
fuses to recognize that it is violating the Rules of the House of Repre-
sentatives as publicly announced yesterday by Speaker Sam Ray-
burn, I must in order to assure full legal protection to myself rely on
the fifth amendment of the United States Constitution.

Believing myself innocent of any wrong, this privilege is invoked in
full awareness of the United States Supreme Court decision holding
that the use of the fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimina-
tion is a shield for the innocent as well as the guilty.

The Chairman. Then, I understand that you refuse to answer the
question by invoking the fifth amendment; is that right?

Mr. Colton. In view of the fact that this committee refuses to rec-
ognize the validity of any objection based on the first amendment to
the United States Constitution and refuses to recognize the validity of
a decision of the United States Supreme Court and even refuses to

HEAKINGS HELD EST SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1225

recognize that it is violating the Rules of the House of Representatives
as publicly announced yesterday by Speaker Sam Rayburn, I must in
order to assure full legal protection to myself rely on the fifth amend-
ment of the Constitution of the United States.

Believing myself innocent of any wrongdoing, this privilege is in-
voked in full awareness of the United States Supreme Court decision
holding that the use of the fifth amendment privilege against self-
incrimination is a shield for the innocent as well as for the guilty,

Mr. ScHERER. Mr. Chairman, we have in this country and we have
liad for some time the Foreign Agents Registration Act which has been
held constitutional by the courts. The Foreign Agents Registration
Act requires the labeling of political propaganda coming into this
country — foreigTi political propaganda.

The Bureau of Customs which is charged with determining what
constitutes political propaganda under the Foreign Agents Registra-
tion Act, has previously testified before this committee that this partic-
ular magazine, and that is my best recollection of that testimony, comes
under the Foreign Agents Registration Act and must be stamped as
such as required by that act.

I think the committee, Mr. Chairman, is recommending the strength-
ening of that act, because there has been abundance of testimony that
that act has been violated by the Communists throughout this country,
and that there has come into this country literally hundreds and
hundreds of tons of political propaganda from Soviet countries or
Iron Curtain countries that have violated the Foreign Agents Regis-
tration Act, namely, that such literature and propaganda is not labeled
as political propaganda as required by the act. We certainly have a
right to ask this witness whether or not this magazine which he sold
has been sold in violation of that act.

I have looked through that exhibit and it is not labeled in accord-
ance with the present requirements of the Foreign Agents Registration
Act. I am going to ask this witness a question after that explanation :

Would you look at the magazine and tell us whether it is so marked ?

Mr. CoLTON. Mr. Congressman, do you have the compulsion, the
power to compel me to look at an exhibit ?

Mr. ScHERER. I think I do, yes, and I ask that you direct the witness
to look at the magazine which he sold in violation of the Foreign
Agents Registration Act.

The Congress is empowered to investigate and determine whether
the Foreign Agents Registration Act is being violated.

The Chairman. Do not bother. The fact of the matter is, it is not
stamped.

Go ahead, Mr. Tavenner.

Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee, please, from what
source vou acquired the document presented to you which is marked
"Comm^ittee Exhibit No. 1."

Mr. CoLTON. ]\Ir. Chairman, I refuse to answer the question on the
following grounds : One of the announced purposes of this hearing is
to secure evidence as a basis for legislating to outlaw the Communist
Party of the United States.

The Chairman. May I interrupt you at this point? Are you going
to read the same thing you read before ? You can merely say, "I
object for tlie reasons as heretofore stated," without reading it all over.

1226 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.

Mr. CoLTON. Wlien your counsel, Mr. Chairman, insists in asking
questions of a similar character of the one previously asked, which I
answered, I must continue to answer the same question in the full sense
that he asks this question.

The Chairman. Are you going to read that all over again? Go
ahead.

Mr. CoLTON. One of the announced purposes of these hearings is to
secure evidence as a basis for legislation to outlaw the Communist
Party of the United States. This is clearly an illegal purpose since
article I, section 9, of the United States Constitution — will the record
please show that Congressman Scherer has left the stand at this point ?

The Chairman. Let the record show that Congressman Scherer has
left the committee room.

Mr. CoLTON. Thank you. This is clearly an illegal purpose since
article I, section 9, of the United States Constitution forbids Congress
from legislating a bill of attainder.

I will not be a party to a conspiracy on the part of this committee
or any group to gather evidence to perform an illegal act.

Secondly, since the United States Supreme Court in 1945 held in the
Schneiderman case that a study of Communist Party literature and
activities should lead a reasonable person to believe that the Com-
munist Party aimed to achieve its aims by peaceful, democratic, and
constitutional means, the reference by the chairman of this commit-
tee to a Communist conspiracy is vague and untrue.

This decision in 1945 has been given additional strength by Judge
Harlan's decision of this past Monday, freeing 5 California Smith Act
victims and ordering new trials for 9 others.

Thirdly, I challenge the authorizing resolution for this committee
citing the following statement from Chief Justice Warren's majority
decision in the Watkins case this Monday :

It would be difficult to imagine a less explicit authorizing resolution. Who
can define the meaning of "un-American"? AVhat is that single, solitary "prin-
ciple of the form of Government as is guaranteed by our Constitution" ?

And further in Chief Justice "Warren's decision :

Further, from Chief Justice Warren's decision :

The final source of evidence as to the "question under inquiry" is the chair-
man's response when petitioner objected to the questions on the grounds of lack
of pertinency. The chairman then announced that the subcommittee was in-
vestigating "subversion and subversive propaganda."

This is a subject at least as broad and indefinite as the authorizing resolu-
tion of the committee, if not more so.

Fourthly, since the United States Congress is forbidden by the
first amendment of the United States Constitution from legislating in
the fields of speech, press, assembly, and association, this committee
has no authority for investigating in these areas.

I recognize, as did Chief Justice Earl Warren in the Watkins case
that it is the duty of a citizen to cooperate with the Congress in its
efforts to obtain the facts needed for intelligent legislative action.

HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1227

However, I also recognize as the Chief Justice did, and this com-
mittee apparently does not, that this obligation on the part of a citizen
has a correlative obligation on the part of the committee to respect the
constitutional rights of witnesses.

The Chief Justice further said that —

The Bill of Rights is applicable to investigations as to all forms of governmental
action.

This committee apparently does not recognize the first amendment
which is the cornerstone of the Bill of Rights.

I do, and I insist on my rights under it. In fact, in considering
the powers of this very committee in the Watkins case, Chief Justice
Warren said :

Nor can the first amendment freedoms of speech, press, religion, or political
belief and association be abridged.

Fifthly, since these hearings are being televised in defiance of the
rules of the House of Representatives and the opinions of the Speaker
of the House, Sam Rayburn, I do not wish by answering this question
to involve myself in any conspiracy to violate the rules of the House
of Representatives.

Finally, may I suggest that if the committee is interested in actions
designed to subvert the United States Constitution that they investi-
gate the overt acts of murdered and intimidated Negroes in the South-
ern States desiring to exercise their constitutional rights of voting in
Federal elections.

Mr. McIntosh. Mr. Witness, you have been in this hearing room
for several days, have you not? You have been here watching the
proceedings ?

[Witness nods head.]

Mr. McIntosh. Are you aware if you request the television camera
not to take pictures of you that that request is respected ?

Mr. CoLTON. Pardon me, sir ?

Mr. TA^"ENNER. I think the record should disclose the conference
between the witness and his counsel on a question of that type.

Mr. Leoxard. As far as counsel is concerned, counsel has no objec-
tion to the record showing that constant conferences are engaged in
between counsel and client.

Does the committee object ?

The Chairman. Of course the committee does not object.

Mr. Leonard. Then, I take it we may proceed ?

The Chairman. Go ahead.

Mr. CoLTON. First, sir, I wish to state that my name was thrown
on the television and mentioned on the television screen yesterday by
a witness and today by a witness without my being advised or con-
sulted at all. And secondly, according to yesterday's San Francisco
News, when a witness asked to have her picture cut off, the television
camera continued to have her picture on the screen in violation of your
own rules.

The Chairman. That is not the fact.

Mr. CoLTON. Pardon me, sir ?

Mr. McIntosh. In my experience on this committee, to my knowl-
edge, no one has had his picture taken by a television camera who
requested that it not happen. If you so desire now, why do you not
say so now instead of giving speeches about it ?

1228 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.

If you want the cameras taken off you, speak to the cameraman.

Mr. CoLTON. I was subpenaed here by you, Mr. Chairman, by the
committee.

The Chairman. You were subpenaed by the committee. I am
merely an agent of the United States doing what is to me, a very dis-
tasteful job. It is not my committee, and I have nothing to do except
what I am doing now.

Mr. McIntosh. The other comment I would like to make, in direct-
ing you to answer this question, is that the committee has decided that
the pertinency of the question has been adequately explained and we
are defying no one. We are merely making a ruling.

The Chairman. Will you answer the question now? You are di-
rected to answer the question.

Mr. CoLTON. In view of the fact that this committee refuses to
recognize the validity of any objection based on the first amendment
to the United States Constitution and refuses to recognize the valid-
ity of a decision of the United States Supreme Court and refuses to
recognize that it is violating the Rules of the House of Representatives
as publicly announced yesterday by Speaker Sam Rayburn, I must
in order to assure full legal protection to myself, rely upon the fifth
amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

Mr. ScHERER. You said believing yourself innocent of any wrong-
doing. Then tell us why you violated the Foreign Agents Registration
Act and did not label that book.

Mr. CoLTON, I should like to consult with my counsel.

I should like to ask the Congressman who addressed the question
to me as to who said I violated the Foreign Agents Registration Act.

Mr. ScHERER. I said so, because the book does not comply with the
Foreign Agents Registration Act.

Mr. CoLTON. I shall consult with my counsel.

Sir, if it is your belief that I have violated any Federal law, it
is your responsibility to report that to the Department of Justice
for prosecution and not to try me here before this committee.

Mr. ScHERER. We may do that. [Applause.]

The Chairman. May I again remind you that you in the audience
are here as the guests of this committee and that demonstrations one
way or the other cannot be tolerated. If they occur again the hearing
room will have to be cleared.

Maybe I can straighten out something. This is not a trial of any
sort. A congressional committee is endeavoring to obtain informa-
tion for the purpose of determining how we can strengthen our Re-
public against the things tliat are happening in other places at the
moment.

Among other things is this question of the registration under the
law that Mr. Scherer called to your attention. I tell you, as a mat-
ter of fact, that thousands of copies of this particular periodical and
similar ones have gotten into the hands of all sorts of people, and
it may well be that you could give us some information which would
direct us on a course that would prevent information of this sort

HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1229

from getting into the hands of naive people who do not realize what
it is.

If you look at it — and I do not ask you to look at it, but there is
nothing in that beautiful magazine — and it is a beautiful job, to in-
dicate who the editor is, the associate editor, the art editor, the source
of the material.

It is just a beautiful magazine, propaganda 100 percent, and, sig-
nificantly enough, there are no pictures of East Berlin or these other
Utopias in it. These beautiful shots were taken, designed to make
people think that Russia is something that it is not.

You can help us by telling us whether or not you had that maga-
zine, and how it came into your possession.

Mr. ScHERER. The magazine contains no advertising.

May I supplement what you said, Mr. Chairman, namely, that this
committee does not pretend that by law it could prevent or wants to
prevent the circulation of that magazine. The purpose is to compel
compliance with the Foreign Agents Registration Act so that people
who get it and read it know where it comes from.

That is the purpose of the Foreign Agents Registration Act, to
stamp it, so that people know where it comes from and can recognize
it then as propaganda. It gives the reader, then, the opportunity
to know where it comes from and what it is.

The Chairman. That is a very expensive piece of work without 5
cents' worth of advertising in it. Somebody pays for it. Do you want
to answer the question? Did you have that in your possession for
sale?

Mr. Ta\t:nner. ^Ir. Chairman

The Chairman. Let him answer the question, Mr. Tavemier.

Did you have that magazine in your possession ?

Mr. CoLTON. In the first place, sir, you stated that it was not a
trial, but the gentleman on your left accused me

The Chairman. I am going to withdraw the question.

Proceed, Mr. Tavenner.

Mr. Tavenner. I think I should make this comment to you, Mr.
Colton. You read very extensively from the decision of the Watkins
case against the United States, but it is noted that you did not read
the thing that is pertinent to this inquiry. It will be found near the
bottom of page 33. You have read some of the material on that page,
but not this. There, the Court said :

* * * it is the duty of tlie investigative body upon objection of the witness on
grounds of pertinency —

And incidentally, you did raise that objection —

to state for the record the subject under inquiry at that time and the manner in
which the propounded questions are pertinent thereto. To be meaningful, the
explanation must describe what the topic under inquiry is and the connective
reasoning whereby the precise questions asked relate to it.

That is the objection you raised. We explained in great detail the
very items that the Court said should be explained to you and then,
upon the completion of it, instead of your endeavoring to answer the
question or say even that you were satisfied about the question of
pertinency, you take the fifth amendment.

The Chairman. May I add that we feel that we have met the objec-
tion in the Watkins case and we feel that we ought to, in all fairness
to the Supreme Court, let them have another look at that decision.

1230 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.

Mr. Ta\t:nner. Mr. Colton, I hand you and ask you to examine five
other documents which have been shown in executive testimony before
this committee to have been purchased from the International Book
Store on April 2, 1957. That is the bookstore in San Francisco.

Committee Exhibit No. 2 is entitled "A A'illage Moves to Socialism" ;
"Supplement to 'China Keconstructs', No. 10, 1956." The article is by
Sun Tan- Wei. It is published in Shanghai, China.

It does not bear the stamp or label required by the Foreign Agents
Registration Act.

I present to you also. Committee Exhibit No. 3, entitled "Once More
About the Historical Experience of the Dictatorship of the Proletar-
iat." The article is published by a newspaper which I will spell:
J-e-n-m-i-n-j-i-h-p-a-o, December 29, 1956. It is printed by the For-
eign Lanaguages Publishing House, Moscow, 1957.

Mr. ScHERER. Does that bear the Foreign Agents Registration Act
stamp ?

Mr. Tavexner. There is no labeling under that act in this docu-
ment.

The next document. Committee Exhibit No. 4, that I present to you
is a newspaper, an issue of the newspaper, Moscow News, No. 13 (117) ,
Wednesday, February 13, 1957, which was likewise purchased from
the International Book Store in San Francisco. It bears no label as
required by the Foreign Agents Registration Act.

I present to you also Committee Exhibit No. 5, a magazine entitled
"People's China," October 20, 1956, which, according to testimony
taken in executive session of the committee, was acquired in the same
manner. It is published by the Foreign Languages Press, Peking,
China.

I present to you the last document. Committee Exhibit No. 6, entitled
"China Reconstructs," February 1957, volume VI, No. 2. It was
printed in the People's Republic of China. It does not bear any of
the labeling required by the act. There does appear in it this notation :

Please note change of address of our business office to : 40a Tung Huangcheng
Ken, Peiping, China.

Mr. SciiERER. Mr. Tavenner, I have examined these, some of which
were printed in Peking, China, and some of them in Moscow, Russia.

All of the publications are English, obviously not printed for con-
sumption in the countries in which they were printed and, as you say,
none of them bear the labels as required by the laws of this country.

Mr. Tavexxer. Will the Avitness please examine those documents?

Mr. Sciierer. May I also make this observation : None of them has
any advertising in them, so the printing of them had to be subsidized.

Mr. TA^^N^rER. Will you examine those documents and advise the
committee where the International Book Store acquired them?

Mr. CoLTON. Mr. Chairman, am I directed to answer that question ?

The Chairman. You are directed to answer the question ; yes.

Mr. CoLTON. Mr. Chairman, I could repeat my previous statement,
but in consideration of the time element, I would like to merely state
that I rest myself on the privileges and objections previously stated.

The Chairman. Including the fifth amendment?

Mr. CoLTON. The whole, entire group of them.

The Chairman. Includino: the fifth amendment?

HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1231

Mr, CoLTON. Including the first amendment, the fifth amendment.
The Supreme Court decisions.

The Chairman. The committee will recess.

(Brief recess.)

The Chairman. The committee will be in order.

(Members of the committee present: Representatives Francis E.
Walter, chairman, Gordon H. Scherer, and Robert J. Mcintosh.)

The Chairman. Proceed, Mr. Tavenner.

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Chairman, as the witness saw fit to make a part
of this record, a statement that some witness appearing earlier in the
hearing was televised against her wishes after the chairman of the
committee directed that it not be done, I made some investigation
during the period of the recess and I was advised by the parties
responsible for operating the camera that they did not televise that
person while testifying, but after she had left the stand she walked
across in front of the frame. It was through her act and not through
theirs, that it occurred.

Mr. Colton, I hand you a photostatic copy of page 2 of the Daily
People's World of March 17, 1953, and call your attention to an
article called, 400 at SF Rally Honor Stalin as Foremost Champion
of Peace, and underscored in red you will see the name of Ellis Colton,
with a title after his name — that of manager of the International Book
Store.

Was that a correct description of you as of the date of publication
of that paper ?

Mr. Colton. Am I directed to answer that question, Mr. Chairman ?

The Chairman. Yes; you are directed to answer that question.

Mr. Colton. Mr. Chairman, I could read the entire statement I
have read already, but in consideration of the time element, I am
wondering whether you would prefer that I merely indicate that I
stand on all of the privileges, rights previously stated, the first
amendment, the fifth amendment, and the Watkins decisions and all
other pertinent remarks of my own.

Mr. Ta-s^nner. Mr. Colton, it is interesting to note from this ar-
ticle, aside from the question that I asked you, that in March 1953,
after the death of Stalin that this large rally was held here in his
honor.

According to the article. State Communist Party Chairman Wil-
liam Schneiderman set the tone for the meeting by labeling vilifica-
tion of Stalin by the press and radio as "mass production of false-
hood."

He also says "oceans of ink have been spilled to vilify him by a
few detractors, but oceans of tears have been shed by people all over
the world." Numerous other people spoke in endearing terms of
Stalin and in very severe criticism of anyone who would vilify him.
^ According to this article, Ellis Colton, manager of the Interna-
tional Book Store, spoke briefly about Stalin's published writings.

Will you tell the committee please, whether, since the pronounce-
ments in the Soviet Union by Khruschchev vilifying Stalin, the very
opposite of which occurred here in 1953, there has been a similar trend
of opinion within the professional cells of the Communist Party in
San Francisco, if you know ?

Mr. Colton. Mr. Chairman, am I directed to answer that question?

The Chairman. Yes, you are directed to answer that question.

1232 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.

Mr. CoLTON. Mr. Chairman, in reply to the counsel's question, I
could read the statement previously read, but in consideration of the
time problem, I state that I stand on the privileges, rights asserted
therein with specific reference to the first amendment, the fifth amend-
ment, the Supreme Court decisions, the House of Representative rul-
ings and other pertinent material which I mentioned.

Mr, Tavenner. I desire to offer the document into evidence, Mr.
Chairman, and ask that it be marked, "Colton Exhibit No. 1."

The Chairman. It will be so marked and made a part of the record.

(The exhibit referred to is as follows :)

Colton Exhibit No. 1
400 AT SF Rally Honor Stalin as Foremost Champion of Peiace

San Francisco, March 16. — The contributions of Joseph Stalin to the cause of
world peace — as a teacher, an editor, and as a people's leader — were honored
last night as more than 400 persons attended San Francisco's "Stalin and Peace"
mass meeting.

Nailing "vilification" of Stalin by the press and radio as "mass production of
falsehood," state Communist party chairman William Schneiderman set the tone
for the meeting with his declaration : "Oceans of ink have been spilled to vilify
him by a few detractors, but oceans of tears have been shed by people all over
the world."

The death of the Soviet premier, Schneiderman declared, "is a loss to our
country and our people as well as to all humanity."

Juanita Wheeler, San Francisco Negro community leader and Daily People's
World staff member, was chairman of the well-received meeting, one of a num-
ber sponsored by the Daily People's World.

"The fight against fascism will not be won until the peoples of the world can
insure peace all throughout the world," Mrs. Wheeler declared.

Speaking of Stalin as a student, teacher, and scholar, Dr. Holland Roberts
recalled the young man Stalin who strode down the gauntlet of club-swinging
Tsarist police "with a book under his arm."

"We will remember this man," said Dr. Roberts, "with a scholar's head, a
worker's face, and the dress of a private soldier."

Al Richmond, Daily People's World executive editor, spoke of Stalin as an
editor, as the founder of Pravda, "the most influential paper in the world today."

"The job of the people who appreciate Stalin's work is to see that the people
are not deceived, entangled into lies, and thus drawn into war," Richmond said.
He urged the building of The People's World in furtherance of that aim.

Ellis Colton, manager of the International Book Store, spoke briefly about
Stalin's published writings, and the California Labor School chorus presented a
portion of Dmitri Shostakovich's cantata, "Song of the Forest."

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Chairman, the committee has obtained by sub-
pena duces tecum, a photostatic copy of a signature card at the Ameri-
can Trust Co., of San Francisco. I desire to hand the document to
the witness and ask whether or not he sees first a resolution showing
that Ellis Colton is the assistant treasurer as of September 8, 1948, and
that it was a current signature card for purposes of identification of
his name in the execution of checks in the same manner.

Mr. Colton. Am I directed to answer that question, Mr. Chairman?

The Chairman. Yes; you are directed to answer the question.

Mr. Colton. I could read the statement previously read, Mr. Chair-
man, but in consideration of the time problem, I state that I stand
on the complete statement that I have read including reference to the
first, fifth amendment, United States Constitution, House of Repre-
sentatives decision, and other pertinent information therein.

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

The Chairman. It will be so marked and received.

HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1233

(The exhibit referred to is as follows :)

CoLTON Exhibit No. 2

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SIGNING AND ENOORSING • " .

CHECKS AND OTHER INSTBUMENTS

"RESOLVKD, thai AMERICAN TRUST COMPANY be, and it h hereby scl«cte<i asa Depositary
of the 'funds of this (."oripoTauoti, 3ii<J that checks of drafts witbdrawjag said iund* may he signed

by any .i'''7-'i-i^- of the Collowing;

NAME TITLE

I. _..„.^g?5±^_2:iS4iAj „.„. %^^'3j$&&S»i%^-^...

n«a^ 2 sk.MM...5MMt-rt .._ ..fe:*£lL.IDlMta-_.

Type ■ . ' ■

Frini

Names i- - — ■ — .

and

Tities ■'' — - - — '

rRTRTHER RESOLVED; Ehat AMERfCAK TRUST COMPANY is ^xtthovh^ to honor and pa?
any and aSi cSedcs and drafts of this corjKsrattoR signed as provided herein, whether ctr not oa>-^!e
in die person or pers-osis signitig thetn ; and Shat checfe., drafts, biiSs of exchange, and other euirfetices
ui iiidebtedRess may be endorsed for deposit to the accoant of this corporation oy any of the foregoijig
or by any other employee or stgent of this c<ir?orattoa, and tnaj' be esidorsftd in writitig or by stasnp
and witji or wishoat the designation of the jK-rson so cndorjiag,

"FLiRTHER RESOLVED; that th« aathority hereby conferred shall nfroaitj in force utrtil written
notice of the revocation therecd by the B<.ard of Directors of this 0>rp<3rat!ot! shall have been received
bv s3id depositarj' a! She office at which the account is kept; and that the certification of the secretary
<>r a;-, assistajit s-ccretary 8s to the c<int>r.uiing anthority of tliis rRsid-adon assd the pcrsoiis a«thori2c3
to sigTS and their sigtiatures, shall he binding upon this corporattoo,"

I hereby certify' that the foregoifi^ js a true and correct copy oi a resoh,HioTi aslspted by tia; B<jsr<l
oi Directors ef this -corporation af a meetitig of said Board reigtdarly heSd on {he — ...M~..,T... _>

day of„.»j«*Ji^&£,fe ., 19.!^^ and that said resoiutiot! is siiSI in h& ftsrce atwi effect

! fartiter certify that she signatures appearing on the reverse side of this card arc She saitnatures
<f the person? astb<irizcd to sigu for and ojt behalf of this corp<<ratior!. / /

Witr:ess my hand and the seal of this corporation this — » Q^."- day al-xd^^^^^^i^..^^ l^.'^iy

CSK-it)

:?fysAf^.,'j??/^^^yr'.,

Secreisry

Name 0f Corpmdtwn

1234 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.

Ck)LTON Exhibit No. 2 — Continued

«rf „ « ,^

I__1„._I^.__JI 1 -^i-iv.

BAffK RSFEREXCE

ACC<Ki^T ^RRA^<iED F-JR 81

^^lAflC^AL BOOS mmE-jTAZ,.

Tlj« abcMre-nsmed corporsdiSft, by it* duly a»thod3»i ojftcefa, agr?«« t bat this aliaJI b«a COM^!ERClAL i
aCcauKi, aad further agrees t« Irs bouad by, and ih^t this iiccouftt shaij be subject to, t»c By-iaw« «s ||
AMERICAN sRUST COMPANY And.3.11 pf«sejrt and future aT«cndmchts therc:o. aO ttujuxiiaui,, rcjrui.j- 1
tiaas, r«*S! ead practices now or hereafter adopted \>y Aw«tkaa Trust Con!p,u5y wiih rcsfxct to accoyats ;

AUTH0S3Z£& S!GSATl!R-ES

Mr. Tavennee. Mr. Chairman, the committee also, by subpena duces

tecum, obtained photostatic copies of certain checks of the Interna-
tional Book Store, Inc. I have one before me bearing date of March
20, 1957, payable to Verlag F. Brockhans, endorsement sho^Yn on it
that it was cashed in Wiesbaden, Germany.

I desire to offer the check in evidence and ask that it be marked as
"Colton Exhibit No. 3."

The Chairman. It will be so marked.

HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.

(The exhibit referred to is as follows :)

CoLTON Exhibit No. 3

1235

Mr. Tavenner. Will you examine the check, please, sir, and state
for what it was issued ? What did you purchase with that check ?

Mr. CoLTON. Mr. Chairman, I give the same answer as I gave to
the previous question.

Mr. Tavenner. I desire to offer in evidence another check procured
in the same manner. It is a check of the International Book Store,
Inc., signed by Ellis Colton, bearing date March 12, 1957, payable to
E. Marlborough & Co., Ltd., which check was cashed in England.

Will you examine the check, please, sir, and state for what purpose
it was given ? What did you purchase with it ?

94343— 57— pt. 2 3

1236

HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.

Mr. CoLTON. The same answer, Mr, Chairman.

Mr. Tavenner. I desire to offer it in evidence and ask that it be
marked "Colton Exhibit No. 4."

The Chairman. It will be so marked and received.
(The exhibit referred to is as follows:)

Colton Exhibit No. 4

Mr. Tavenner. I hand you another check, similarly procured. It is
a photostatic copy of it signed by Ellis Colton, bearing date March 7,
1957, payable to W. H. Smith & Sons, Ltd., which shows by endorse-
ments that it was cashed in London. Will you tell the committee what
you purchased with that check ?

Mr. Colton. The same answer as to the previous question.

Mr. Tavenner. I hand you another photostatic copy of a check of
International Book Store, Inc., signed by Ellis Colton, bearing date

HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.

1237

March 12, 1957, payable to Central Books, Ltd., and which shows by
the endorsement that it was cashed in London. Will you tell the
committee, please, what you purchased with that check?

Mr. CoLTON. The same answer, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Tavenner. I desire to offer the last two documents in evidence,
Mr. Chairman, and ask that they be marked "Colton Exhibits Nos. 5
and 6,'' respectively.

The Chairman, They will be so marked.

(The exhibits referred to are as follows :)

Colton Exhibit No. 5

1238

HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.

Mr. Tavenner. I hand you photostatic copy of another check, by
International Book Store, Inc., signed by Ellis Colton, bearing date
March 15, 1957, payable to the order of Chin Fen Bookstore, which
shows by the endorsement that it was cashed in Singapore. Will you
advise the committee what you purchased with that check?

Mr. CoLTON. The same answer as to the previous question.

Mr. Tavenner. I desire to offer the document in evidence and ask
that it be marked as "Colton Exhibit No. 7."

The Chairman. It will be so marked.

HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1239

(The exhibit referred to is as follows :)

Mr. Tavenner. I present to you photostatic copies of 2 checks of
International Book Store, Inc. signed by Ellis Colton, bearing dates
March 29 and April 6, 1957, respectively, both payable to the order
of the New Century Publishers, the first being in the amount of $88.80
and the second in the amount of $20.37. Will you advise the commit-
tee, please, what you purchased with those checks ?

Mr. CoLTON. The same answer, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Tavenner. I desire to offer them in evidence and ask that they
be marked "Colton Exhibits Nos. 8 and 9," respectively.

The Chairman. They will be so marked.

1240 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.

(The exhibits referred to are as follows:)

CoLTox Exhibit No. 8

I^RMiaamimmaiHiH

^'«ssi«'»f^si «s s^"sm^mm:ws^.

tj^

.k?

HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.
CoLTON Exhibit No. 9

1241

Mr. Tavennek. I present to 3^011 a photostatic copy of a check of
International Book Store signed by Ellis Colton, similarly acquired,
bearing date of March 30, 1957, payable to the People's World for $5.
It is noted that it is on the advertising account. Will you examine
it please, and state whether you ran advertising in the People's World ?

Mr. CoLTON. Same answer.

Mr. Tavenner. I offer the document in evidence and ask that it be
marked "Colton Exhibit No. 10."

1242 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.

(The exhibit referred to is as follows:)

CoT.TON Exhibit No. 10

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Chairman, I would like at this time to offer in
evidence a photostatic copy of the articles of incorporation of the
International Book Store, Inc., filed on June 11, 1945, showing that
the board of directors shall consist of three persons who need not be
stockholders in this corporation, and that the names and addresses of
the persons named to be and acting as the first directors of the cor-
poration shall be as follows :

George Walker, George E. Andersen, John Voich.

I ask that the document be identified as "Colton Exhibit No. 11."

The Chairman. All right.

HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1243

Mr. Tavenner. According to the charter, it is provided that 100
shares of common stock of no par value should be issued. Who are
the owners of the stock in the International Book Store ?

Mr. CoLTON. Same answer,

Mr. Tavenner. Are you one of the owners?

Mr. CoLTON. Same answer.

(Colton Exhibit No. 11 retained in committee files.)

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Colton, do you now maintain a secret place in
the bookstore, in the basement of the International Book Store, in
which to confer with literature directors of the various groups of the
Communist Party regarding the materials which should be furnished
them?

Mr. Colton. Same answer.

Mr. Ta\'enner. A publication entitled "Contact" has been de-
scribed, I believe, by Mrs. Jeffers, as an intraparty Communist paper.

I understand that I was mistaken. It is not Contact, but I have
before me, however, a paper entitled "Contact"; I have the August
1947 issue. In that issue I find an article by Ellis Colton, San Fran-
cisco County literature director. Were you literature director of the
entire county ? Possibly you would like to see this document.

Will you hand it to the witness and let him examine it, please ?

Mr. Colton. Same answer.

Mr. Tavenner. I notice that the witness and counsel both handed
the paper back without looking at it,

Mr. Leonard. I looked at it.

The Chairman. What paper is that ?

Mr, Tavenner. It is a paper entitled "Contact," carrying an article
over the name of Ellis Colton, San Francisco County literature
director.

I quote from this article entitled, "How the 'Lit Agent' Can Lift
the Level of Member's LTnderstanding," which appears under your
name:

For the past 6 months we have been striving to establish a stable literature
apparatus in the San Francisco County branches. To do this, we have assigned
one of the more experienced executive members, if possible, the educational
director, to work with the literature director.

In nearly all of our clubs we now have literature directors, though in a few
of the smaller ones the educational director serves also as literature director.

Our county literature depot is open for the 2 days prior to the regular club
meeting day. This gives the literature director time to look over the material
before the meeting.

Did you write that article ?

Mr. Colton. Same answer.

Mr. Tavenner. I ask that the document be identified as "Colton
Exhibit No. 12."

(Colton Exhibit No. 12 retained in the committee files.)

Mr. Tavenner, I hand you a photostatic copy of The Worker, Sun-
day, July 18, 1948, and call your attention to an article entitled,
"Qualitatively Increasing Use of Literature," by Ellis Colton.

Will you examine it please and state whether you made that contri-
bution to the paper ?

Mr. Leonard. Will the record show that we will really examine it
this time?

Mr. Tavenner. I handed it to you for that purpose and I hope you
will examine it.

1244 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.

Mr. Leonard. We will examine it very carefully.

Mr. CoLTON. The same answer.

Mr. Tavenner. I ask that the document be identified as "Colton
Exhibit No. 13."

(Colton Exhibit No. 13 retained in committee files.)

Mr. Tavexner. I have before me the April 27, 1953, issue of the
Daily People's World which carries an article entitled, "Talks on
Imperialism, Egypt, at CLS."

The article refers to Ellis Colton, coordinator of the course. "Colton
urged that interested persons be on hand for the class's first session,
Tuesday at 8 p. m."

Will you examine that, please ?

JNIr. Colton. Same answer.

Mr. Ta^^enner. Were you connected with the California Labor
School ?

Mr. Colton. Same answer.

Mr. Ta\t:nner. AVill you tell the committee, please, if you know,
what the size in membership was of the professional group of the
Communist Party at any time in 1956, with which you might have
been familiar ?

Mr. Colton. Same answer.

Mr. Ta\^nner. If the testimony that we have heard here from
Dr. Patten and Mrs. Jeffers is trustworthy, that you organized the
distribution of the Communist Party literature to the literature di-
rectors of the various cells, if it is true as indicated in these articles
that I have introduced in evidence that you were the literature director
for the entire county, you would be in a position to know of the activ-
ities of the professional groups of the Communist Party at a very
recent date, so I ask you first, whether you are now a member of the
Professional Section of the Communist Party?

Mr. Colton. Is that all ?

Mr. Tavenner. No ; that is not all. That is all of that question.

Mr. Colton. Insofar as the question is related to any statement by
Dorothy Jeffers, I would like to state the following :

Dorothy M. Jeffers testified for the Government in the case of the
Subversive Activities Control Board versus the California Labor
School. She testified before a hearing officer, the Hon. Francis A
Cherry, former Governor of the State of Arkansas.

After she testified she was, of course, subjected to cross-examina-
tion. At the conclusion of the hearings Governor Cherry wrote a
report and with respect to the testimony of Dorothy M. Jeffers, he
recalled that her testimony was incredible in the following language :

One such witness, namely Dorothy M. Jeffers, under cross-examination was
shown to be without recollection suflicient to place in point of time events and
activities about which she had testified on direct examination.

She was unable to place even within a given year many such events of im-
portance including her separation from the Communist Party. Also, her demeanor
while testifying was such that engendered misgivings as to the general relia-
bility of her testimony.

Taking into account her status as a paid informer for the Government, her
complete lack of memory and admitted vagueness under cross-examination, and
her demeanor on the stand, the presiding member is of the opinion that she is
entitled to little or no credence and, accordingly, no findings are based upon her
testimony.

This is from page 4, report and order of the board, decided May 21,
1957. In addition I wish to stand on the privileges and rights which
I have previously read to the committee.

HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1245

Mr. Tavenner. Is Mrs. Jeffers' recollection insofar as her testimony
relates to you, in any way uncertain or indefinite or in error?

Mr. CoLTOx. Same answer.

The Chairman. Did you sell her those books ?

Mr. CoLTON. Same answer.

Mr. Tavenner. There has been nothing indefinite or uncertain about
her testimony regarding you.

The Chairman. Mr. Tavenner, the record speaks for itself.

The connnittee will stand adjourned.

Mr. Leonard. Is the witness excused ?

The Chairman. Yes.

]Mr. Tavenner. Yes, sir ; that is all I desire to ask.

The Chairman. The committee will stand adjourned to meet at 2
O'clock.

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

afternoon session

The Chairman. The committee will be in order.

Call your first witness, Mr. Tavenner.

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Chairman, I believe it was the first witness,
Mr. Kermish, who was given time to consider whether or not he would
answer questions the committee asked him if procedures were taken
to give him immunity.

I have just reported to you that his counsel has advised that there
is some uncertainty as to what lie would do, and in all probability he
would not decide until the time came and might still resort to the
fifth amendment. In light of that, may we discharge the witness?

The Chairman. Yes; the witness is discharged from further at-
tendance under the subpena.

Call your next witness.

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Harvey Richards.

The Chairman. Eaise 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. Richards. I do.

The Chairman. Proceed, Mr. Tavenner.

TESTIMONY OF HARVEY RICHAEDS, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL,
FRANCIS J. McTERNAN, JR.

Mr. Tavenner. What is your name, please ?

Mr. Richards. Harvey Richards.

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

Mr. McTernan. Francis J. McTernan, 703 Market Street, San
Francisco.

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

Mr. Richards. State of Oregon, 1912.

Mr. Tavenner. Where do you now reside ?

Mr. Richards. The town of Atherton.

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

Mr. Richards. Since 1940.

1246 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.

Mr. Tavenner. Has that been constantly since 1940 ?

Mr. Richards. Substantially.

Mr. Tavenner. What is your occupation or profession ?

Mr. Richards. My trade is that of a machinist. At the present time,
I am writing.

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

Mr. Richards. My formal education ended in the ninth grade.

Mr. Tavenner. Where did you live prior to 1940 ?

Mr. Richards. Your question does not appear to be pertinent to the
subject of inquiry announced at the commencement of these hearings.
I wish you would explain to me how this question is pertinent. I refer
to rule II of your rules of procedure, as well as to law which requires
all questions to be pertinent.

Mr. Tavenner. I will be glad to explain that. It is merely a
preparatory question in order that the committee may know who you
are, where you have been, in order to base proper questions to you.

Do you still object to telling us where you lived prior to 1940?

Mr. Richards. Is this question relevant to any inquiry you are mak-
ing here?

Mr. Tavenner. Do you object to answering the question ?

Mr. Richards. I do, of course.

Mr. ScHERER. I ask that the witness be directed to answer the ques-
tion.

The Chairman. You are directed to answer the question.

(The witness conferred with his counsel.)

Mr. Richards. I decline to answer this question on the grounds
of the protection afforded me under the fifth amendment.

The Chairman. Do you honestly believe if you told this committee
where you resided before 1940, you might expose yourself to criminal
prosecution ? Do you honestly believe that ?

Mr. Richards. My answer is the same as before.

The Chairman. Go ahead, Mr. Tavenner.

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Richards, I hand you a circular entitled
"Guatemala, Colombia, Costa Rica, Venezuela," under which appears
this notation:

Harvey Richards went south with his Leica, penetrated * * * remote areas
where guerrilla warfare flares, and brought back a 1957 pictorial record of
American imperialism at work in Central and South America.

Will you examine the leaflet please and state whether or not it
describes a progi-am in w^hich you took part ?

Mr. Richards. Will you explain the pertinency of this question
to me, please?

Mr. Tavenner. Were you present when the chairman of the com-
mittee read his opening statement at the beginning of the hearing?

Mr. Richards. I was.

Mr. Tavenner. Did you hear the opening statement that he made?
Did you hear it?

Mr. Richards. To the extent that the loud speaker allows me.

Mr. Tavenner. Did you understand it? Did you hear it suflficiently
well to understand what he said ?

Mr. Richards. I am sure that I understood it at that time although
if you were to ask me what he said then I probably would not be able
to tell you at this moment.

HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1247

Mr. Tavenner. Very well, I will call to your attention one of the
matters which the chairman said would be given consideration at this
hearing.

He advised those present including yourself that this committee
had conducted hearings and had made recommendations to Congress
in its report filed in January of 1957 regarding the need for a revision
of the passport laws with regard to applicants who are members of
the Communist Party or who conceal their former connections and
associations with the Communist Party or its functionaries.

He advised you and I am now advising you that that is a subject
which we are considering now.

It is true, of course, that the State Department does not at this
time require a passport to South American countries so that there
is no procedure by which a person who is a Communist, or who has
been in association with Communist functionaries may be denied the
right of travel as they would be if traveling to a European country.
This committee is considering whether or not the hand of the Secretary
of State should be strengthened by spelling out the congressional
intent on this subject by statutory definition rather than leaving it to
Executive orders of the President and regulatory provisions by the
Secretary of State. That is the general subject.

If you want to know the pertinency and the connecting reasoning
of the committee as to the pertinency of that question to the subject,
it would be this, that if you were a member of the Communist Party,
and you engaged in travel in South American countries as is indicated
by the poster wliich I handed you, and if it was part of a propaganda
scheme of the Communist Party, it would be pertinent to the subject
that we are discussing. The language used there is that you were
making a report on imperialistic actions of the United States in South
America.

If at this time you were connected with the Communist Party, if
the Communist Party played any part in that, it would be important
for the committee to know it in connection with the matters that it is
considering.

Now, will you answer the question ?

Mr. Richards. That question is one as to my beliefs and associations,
and I believe it invades my rights under the first amendment to the
Constitution.

Mr. Tavenner. Just a moment. Do you recall what my question
was?

Mr. Richards. Repeat the question.

Mr. Tavexner. I did not think you understood or recalled what it
was.

My question was whether or not you engaged in the program as an-
nounced in that leaflet that I gave you.

Mr. Richards. In view of your explanation of the pertinency of
this question, it is obvious that this goes into the area of association,
and I consider the first amendment applying.

The Chairman. You are directed to answer the question.

Mr. Richards. I refuse to answer the question on the grounds of the
fifth amendment.

Mr. Tavenner. Did you engage in the foreign travel indicated in
the leaflet which I handed you ?

Mr. Richards. The same answer.

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

1248

HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.

The Chairman. By saying "the same answer," do you mean you
decline to answer for the same reasons you declined to answer the last
question ?

Mr. Richards. I refuse to answer the question on the grounds of the
first and fifth amendments.

Mr. TA^^NNER. Were any part of your expenses to South America
paid by the Communist Party or by anyone on behalf of the Com-
munist Party?

Mr. Richards. My answer is the same as for the previous question.

Mr. Tavenner. I desire to introduce the document into evidence
and ask that the document be marked as "Richards Exhibit No. 1."

The Chairman. Let it be marked and made a part of the record.

(The exhibit referred to is as follows :)

Richards Exhibit No. 1

'uatem

G ucdj&iA/iaLd
GobiddJjLzi

Codta Rica

iste look at

OUR LflTin-fimERiCfln
^ coLonies

sunotiY

(TlflRlH 10

sunofiy

niflRCH 1/

6pct — r>i

•her*; ^r'iWt ««rf„''K * Isre^, isnfJ
hro- ;^*• t.;v <> \f1 pi-^t -1 ! rec-rfi!
erf .-^p-* i" ic-»r ('^{■'•rl < r ,-* 5*- ."^fk if
C<':firr i i"-. •* -Cjt'- x"»r<c .

_„ .. . . i?
th-? b»st of H<srv«y Rlch«r<1$'

nnrtii of ssjc h?<n: J .;■ City .<._ "^

(fha capital), Ib&pue, « c',*-/

b«fisns {>f,^r>*at Ion (Costs s^ict-)
«•- fhs coffpafly c«rt of
So K > ro

(V9nf??vsft-^) "!'C i faur of »

«- CiW'-iO Sf'tivar, s tradtrtg
c«n»er

321 OIVISflOERO ST

HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1249

Mr. ScHERER. Mr. Tavenner, does that leaflet you have refer to
Guatemala.

Mr. Tavenner. Guatemala, Colombia, Venezuela, and Costa Eica.

Mr. Scherer. Is there any date on that ?

Mr. Tavenner. Yes. I was just going to ask the witness about that.

It appears that the trip was taken in 1957. It says he brought
back a 1957 pictorial record of American imperialism.

We have records indicating that this leaflet was circulated prior to
March 8, 1957, so it is sometime between the first of 1957 and March
8. We would like to ask the witness what time in 1957 was it that
you went to Guatemala, Colombia, Costa Rica and Venezuela?

Mr. Richards. I refuse to answer the question on the grounds previ-
ously stated.

Mr. Scherer. May I see that, Mr. Tavenner ?

Mr. Tavenner. Yes, sir.

The Chairman. Go ahead, Mr. Tavenner.

Mr. Tavenner. Were you a member of the Professional cell or
Section of the Communist Party in San Francisco at any time between
January 1 and March 8, 1957 ?

Mr. Richards. I refuse to answer on the grounds of the first and
fifth amendments.

Mr. Tavenner. Have you engaged in travel outside the continental
United States prior to January 1, 1957 ?

Mr. Richards. Would you explain the pertinency of this question ?

Mr. Tavenner. Yes, it would only require the repeating of the same
subject that I stated a few moments ago and the same question of
matters with regard to pertinence.

Mr. Richards. My answer is the same.

Mr. Tavenner. By that you refuse to answer on the grounds of
the first and the fifth amendments ?

Mr. Richards. You took the words right out of my mouth.

Mr. Scherer. When did you go to Russia ?

Mr. Richards. Wliat is the question ?

Mr. Scherer. When did you visit Russia ?

Mr. Richards. How is this pertinent to the inquiry ?

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

Mr. Richards. Repeat the question again.

Mr. Scherer. When did you go to Russia ?

Mr. Richards. I have never been to Russia. [Applause.]

The Chairman. I must again remind you that we will clear the
room if there are any further demonstrations.

Mr. Scherer. Where else have you traveled other than these South
American countries ?

Mr. Richards. Wliat is the pertinency of this question ?

Mr. Scherer. The pertinency and objective have already been ex-
plained by the counsel. Mr. Chairman, I ask you to direct the witness
to answer the question.

The Chairman. Yes, you are directed to answer the question.

Mr. Richards. I would like to hear what Mr. Scherer just said.

Mr. Scherer. I said pertinency has already been explained to you
by counsel when he asked about your traveling in South America for
the purpose of attacking the Government of the United States.

1250 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.

Mr. Richards. Is the question that is directed at me that of asking
me if I was traveling in order to attack the United States?

Mr, ScHERER. No, you asked me the pertinency of it and I explained
to you what in my own mind I considered the pertinency of the ques-
tion to be. My question to you Avas simply, Where have you traveled
outside the United States other than in the South American countries ?

Mr. Richards. If this is pertinent for the same questions, then my
answer is the same.

Mr, ScHERER. Then you mean you refuse to answer on the basis of
the first and fifth amendments ?

Mr. Richards. Yes.

Mr. Taven^ster. I hand you a thermof ax copy of a publication of the
People's World of September 1944 entitled "Communists Elect Offi-
cers."

Will you examine it, please ?

You will note under the list of members of the county committee, a
name is underscored, which is Harvey Richards. Will you examine
it please and state whether you are the Harvey Richards who was
elected as a member of the county committee for the Communist Party
in San Francisco ?

Mr. Richards. I decline to answer this question.

Mr. Tavenner. May I have a direction that the witness be directed
to answer the question ?

The Chairman. You are directed to answer the question.

Mr. Richards. I refuse to answer the question on the grounds pre-
viously stated.

]Mr. Tavenner. I desire to offer the document in evidence and ask
that it be marked as "Richards Exhibit No. 2."

The Chairman. Let it be marked and made a part of the record.

(The exhibit referred to is as follows :)

Richards Exhibit No. 2
[From the Daily People's World, Tuesday, September 19, 1944, (p. 4)1

COMMUNISTS ELECT OFFICERS

Oleta Yates Named President of S. F. County Association

San Francisco, September 18. — OflScers elected for the ensuing year at yester-
day's county convention of the Communist Political Association are :

President : Oleta O'Connor Yates.

Vice president : Rudie Lambert and John Pittman.

Secretary-treasurer : Clemmie Barry.

County committee, including oflBcers above :

Charlotte Callahan, June Stevenson, Jack Patton, Henry Massey, Violet Orr,
Ray Irvine, Archie Brown (on leave in Armed Forces).

Ann Stout, Virginia Lindbergh, Ernest Lavino, Herbert Resner, Jackie McNeil,
Tom Boylan, Walter Stack, Paul Orr.

Ada Smolan, Dan Mah, Beatrice Kinkead, Mack Posey, Harvey Richards, Leon
Kaplan, Margery Pogue, Mini Carson.

Al Yates, Bill Frierson, Lucy Balcomb, Henry Seigel.

Mr. Ta\t:nner. Mr. Richards, I have before me a thermofax copy
of the issue of January 13, 1955, of the Daily People's World, which
includes an article, the heading of which is "Labor School — 'Open
House' to Launch Eventful New Term."

There is an article headed "Latin America," and the paragraph
under it reads as follows :

HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1251

Other winter term offerings include "Latin American Independence and U. S.
interests," a series of special forum sessions led by Harvey Richards opening
Thursday, January 20.

Will you examine the document please and state whether it correctly
reported your activities as of that date ?

You will note that I have a pencil mark on the margin where I read
a portion of the document.

Mr. Richards. What is your question, sir ?

Mr. Tavenner. My question was whether or not the part which I
read from that article correctly describes your participation in those
matters at that time.

Mr. Richards. My answer is the same as previously.

Mr. Tavenner. I desire to offer the document in evidence and ask
that it be marked "Richards Exhibit No. 3."

The Chairman. It will be so marked.

(Document marked "Richards Exhibit No. 3," retained in committee
files.)

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Richards, one of those named with you in Ex-
hibit No. 2 as a member of the county committee of the Communist
Political Association in California 1944 — in fact, I think he was elected
vice president at that convention — was a person by the name of John
Pittman.

Did John Pittman participate with you in any of the forums con-
ducted by you regarding issues in South America ?

Mr, Richards. Your question relates to exhibit No. what?

Mr. Tavenner. No. 2 ; the exhibit that I handed you which gave the
names of the officers and commitee members of the CPA elected at the
convention held in San Francisco, in September, 1944.

It showed Oleta Yates as president and John Pittman as one of the
vice presidents. It is Exhibit No. 2.

Mr. Richards. I would like to look at that document.

Mr. Tavenner. Yes, sir.

(Document handed to the witness.)

Mr. Tavenner. You will find there the name of Oleta Yates as
president and you will find two names there as vice presidents.

Mr. Richards. The same answer.

Mr. Tavenner. Were you a member of the Professional Section of
the Communist Party at the time of the publication of Exhibit No. 3,
which is January 13, 1955 ?

(Document handed to the witness.)

Mr. Richards. The same answer.

Mr. Tavenner. Are you a member of a professional cell or group
of the Communist Party at this time ?

Mr. Richards. I refuse to answer the question on the grounds of the
first and fifth amendments.

Mr. Tavenner. In what Communist activities have you engaged in
San Francisco since the publication or announcement of your elec-
tion to the county committee on September 19, 1944?

Mr. Richards. The same answer.

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

The Chairman, The witness is excused,

(Witness excused,)

94343— 57— pt. 2-

1252 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.

Mr. Richards. There is enough of the taxpayers' money being spent
here. I prefer not to sign the voucher.

The Chair:max. Call your next witness, Mr. Tavenner.

Mr. Tavenner. Mrs. Mary Scott Shepardson.

Mr. McTernan. She requests enforcement of the rule that there
be no TV on her. In view of the fact that the Speaker of the House
of Representatives has said that it is against the Rules of the House
to televise these sections and in view of the fact that the television
cameramen refused to comply with your order to shut off, and I per-
sonally observed that breach by watching the TV myself, I request
that all cameras be turned off.

The Chairman. You are requested not to televise the witness.

Mr. McTernan. I request in view of the history of that and that
the cameras be made off, and that the klieg lights be turned off while
this witness testifies.

The Chairman. We are going to have the lights on and we are
going to make sure that the witness is not televised.

Mr. McTernan. I don't know if that is satisfactory. I don't want
a half-way measure. The last time you saw it happen, the witness was
half televised and half not televised.

Do you issue such orders to the cameramen?

The Chairman. Yes.

Mr. McTernan. I will be assured that no television will be placed
upon my client whatsoever?

The Chairman. Yes. Call your witness.

Will you raise your right hand, please? Do you swear the testi-
mony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you God ?

Mrs. Shepardson. I do.

TESTIMONY OF MARY THYGESON (SCOTT) SHEPARDSON, ACCOM-
PANIED BY COUNSEL, FRANCIS J. McTERNAN, JR.

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

Mrs. Shepardson. Mary T. Shepardson.

Mr. Tavenner. What was your maiden name?

Mrs. Shepardson. Thygeson.

Mr. Tavenner. Were you ever known by the name of Mary Scott ?

Mrs. Shepardson. What is the relevancy of that question ?

Mr. Ta\t:nner. A matter of identification of you.

Mrs. Shepardson. Are you referring to the Mary Scott whom your
informer testified about this morning '.

Mr. Tavenner. Yes.

Mrs. Shepardson. In view of that, I must decline to answer on
the basis of the first and fifth amendments.

Mr. Tavenner. You will not admit that you have gone by the name
of Mary Scott ?

Mrs. Shepardson. The same answer.

Mr. Tavenner. Have you gone by any name other than the two
names that you have given, Mary Shepardson and I am not certain
that I recall the other that you gave, your maiden name. Will you
give us the name again ?

Mrs. Shepardson. Thygeson.

HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1253

Mr. Tavenner. Spell it, please.

Mrs. Shepardson. T-li-y-g-e-s-o-n.

Mr. Ta^-exner. Have you used any name other than those two

names

Mrs. Shepardson". What is the relevancy of that question ?

Mr. Tavenner. May I ask a direction ?

The Chairman. You are directed to answer the question.

Mrs. Shepardson. According to the ruling of the Supreme Court,
I am entitled to an explanation of the pertinency of that question.

Mr. Tavenner. I told you it is a matter of identification of you.

Mrs. ShePxVrdson. I have identified myself.

Mr. Ta\^enner. Have you been married more than once?

Mrs. Shepardson. I think that violates the rule of the confidence
between husband and wife.

Mr. Tavenner. No, a matter of marriage is not a confidential mat-
ter. I think anyone will admit marriage. There is certainly no in-
crimination in being married.

Mrs. Shepardson. I am referring to the rule of the committee about
confidence between husband and wife.

Mr. Tavenner. I have not asked for any confidential communica-
tion and I would not, and I never have.

Mrs. Shepardson. I have been married once.

Mr. Tavenner. I hand you a book entitled, "History of the Com-
munist Party of the Soviet Union,'' with the word "Mary" written
on the flyleaf. Will you examine it, please ?

Have you ever seen it before ?

Mr. McTernan. May I examine it before you go on ?

Mr. TA^^ENNER. Certainly. Will you answer the question, please?

Mrs. Shepardson. I think that this question comes into the area of
free speech and I shall decline to answer the question.

Mr. Tavenner. Xot free speech. I asked if you had seen it.

Mrs. Shepardson. The right to read.

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

The Chairman. Do you understand the question? It is whether
or not you had ever seen the book. What is your answer ?

Mr. ]\IcTernan. Are you directing her to answer the question?

The Chairman. Yes, she is directed to answer the question.

Mrs. Shepardson. I decline to answer this question on the grounds
of the first amendment, and since that does not seem to be sufficient
for this committee, I will also rely on the fifth amendment.

Mr. Ta\^enner. Was the name "Mary" appearing on the flyleaf
written bj^ you ?

Mrs. ShePxVrdson. The same answer.

Mr. Tavenner. Did you recruit Mrs. Dorothy Jeffers into the Com-
munist Party? Possibly I should change that question. Did you
solicit her membership in the Comnnmist Party ?

Mrs. Shepardson. I will give you the same answer to that question.

Mr. Tavenner. Were you a member of the Professional Section of
the Communist Party with her, that is, Mrs. Jeffers? The question
may be misleading. I understand that that is not correct.

I will ask you if vou were a member of the Communist Party any
time between 1942 and 1945 ?

Mrs. Shepardson. The same answer.

1254 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.

Mr. SciiERER. Does that include the invocation of the fifth amend-
ment?

Mrs. SnEPARDsoN. That includes the first amendment. Would you
like me to read them ?

The Chairman. We know them pretty well. We have heard them
so often.

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

IMrs. Shepardson. I will give the same answer.

Mr. Taa-enner. Were you assigned any particular type of activity
in the Communist Party ?

Mrs. Shephardson. I will give the same answer for that one.

Mr. Tavenner. I see according to the January 6, 1948, edition of
the People's World, that at that time vou were vice president of the
NAACP. Is that correct?

Mrs. Shephardson. May I ask if tlie National Association for the
Advancement of Colored Persons is under inquiry by this committee.
I know it is in certain parts of the United States, particularly in the
South.

Mr. Tavenner. ISTo; it is not. On the contrary, this committee has
had evidence from a number of different places regarding persons who
were in the NAACP and who were members of the Communist Party.
There is one situation that the committee developed in Hawaii where
we found that the chapter there had become so subject to the control
of the Communist Party that the national organization withdrew the
charter of that local and kicked that group out of the NAACP. We
are not investigating the NAACP, but we have information that
members of this professional group were assigned as part of their
duties to numerous mass organizations. We find you occupying a
very responsible position in a mass organization. I would like to know
whether or not you were encouraged to join the work of that group by
the Communist Party and whether you were a Communist Party mem-
ber at that time. That is two questions, so let me straighten it out.

I first asked you the question a moment ago whether you were the
vice president of the NAACP in January of 1948.

Now, answer that question, please. Then I will follow it with
others.

Mrs. Shephardson. I decline to answer that question, both parts of
that question.

Mr. Tavenner. I have not asked you both parts of that question.

Were you the vice president of the NAACP in January of 1948 ?

Mrs. Shephardson. I decline to answer that question on the grounds
of the first and the fifth amendments.

Mr. Tavenner. Do you not think that is an unjust reflection upon
the NAACP?

Mrs. Shephardson. I think it is rather unjust to make it appear
that I do not have the right to use the first or the fifth amendment
without it reflecting on my organizations that I belong to. I belong
to a great many organizations that I do not intend to tell you about.

Mr. Tavenner. Is the Communist Party one of them ?

Mrs. Shephardson. I belong to many highly respectable organiza-
tions.

Mr. Tavenner. Now, I will ask you the question of whether or not
you were a member of the Communist Party in January of 1948 2

HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1255

Mrs. Shepardson. I decline to answer that question on the grounds
of the first and fifth amendments.

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

Mrs. SiiEPARDsoN. I decline to answer that question on the grounds
of the first and fifth amendments.

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

The Chairman. The witness is excused.

(Witness excused.)

The Chairman. Call your next witness.

Mr, Tavenner. Dr. Evelyn Siris.

Mr. Delany. I would like to clarify 1 or 2 things if you do not
mind.

Mr. Tavenner. I do not think so.

Mr. Delany, It has to do with televising these proceedings. I
just sent out and got the last issue

The Chairman. Are you a witness?

Mr. Delany. No, I am an attorney ; my name is Elmer P. Delany.

This question is directed to you, Mr. Congressman. I have just
sent out and got the latest edition of the San Francisco News. I have
not been in constant attendance upon this committee's meetings. I
came in twice for brief periods. Perhaps the answers are already in
the record ; but, before I can advise my client, I want to hear whether
they are in the record.

At the time the last witness came forward with her counsel, I
think the chairman told the committee that it is beyond the control of
the chairman of the committee and it is a responsibility of the city
hall.

The Chairman, Are you complaining about your client being
televised ? Are you complaining or objecting ?

Mr, Delany. I am objecting to the televising.

The Chairman. Then I will ask the television people. Will you
please assist the committee by not putting the camera on the witness ?

Mr, Delany, I want no televising, I heard this morning when
I came into here that one witness passed in front of the television
camera and was televised. I want to be sure that the television cam-
eras are off.

I understand, if the papers quote the Speaker of the House cor-
rectly, that all broadcasting of these proceedings are banned under
rules of the House of Representatives. Is this correct or not?

The Chairman. I do not know anything about it.

Will you point out the rule that you say is being violated?

Mr. Delany, The rule that the Speaker is referring to.

The Chairman, What is the rule ?

Mr, Delany, I do not know the numbers. There are many laws
and I have not yet caught up with all of the rules of the House, If
this is contrary to the rule, I think that this committee, proceeding
in an orderly way, should proceed in accordance with the Rules of
the House of Representatives,

I presume that the chairman of this committee is familiar with those
rules, I ask that this rule be observed and the Speaker of the House
not be snubbed by this committee, and if there are

1256 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.

The Chairman. I am sure that the Speaker will be very glad that
you are taking this position in his defense.

Mr. Delany. I know the Speaker so perhaps

The Chairman. Call your witness.

Mr. Delaney. Only after you have given me assurance that there
will be no broadcasting and televion.

The Chairman. I have no control over the broadcasting.

ISIr. Delany. Who has the control ?

The Chairman. Whoever is in charge of this building.

Dr. Delany. Who specitically has control? I cannot address my
request, if you cannot tell me who.

The Chairman. Will you call your witness ?

Mr. Delany. I want a reply.

Mr. Tavenner. Dr. Evelyn Siris.

Mr. Delany. I want the record to show that if there is any broad-
casting or defiance of the Rules of the House

The Chairman. Will you raise your right hand, please ?

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

Mrs. Siris. I do.

TESTIMONY OF DR. EVELYN SIRIS (MRS. LAWRENCE ARNOLD
LEVITAN), ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, ELMER P. DELANY

Mr. Tavenner. Doctor, will you state you name, please?

Dr. Siris. Evelyn Siris.

Mr, Tavenner. Will you spell it, please ?

Dr. Siris. S-i-r-i-s.

Mr. Tavenner. S-i-r-i-s?

Dr. Siris. Yes.

Mr. Ta^-enner. It is noted that you are accompanied by counsel.
Will counsel please identify himself for the record ?

Mr. Delany. Yes, I have already. My name is Elmer P. Delany,
member of the bar of the State of California.

Mr. Tavenner. Dr. Siris, was vour name also Mrs. Lawrence Levi-
tan ?

Dr. Siris. Yes, it is.

Mr. Tavenner. It is now ?

Dr. Siitis. Yes, it is.

Mr. Tavenner. In other words, you have a professional name.
Your professional name is Dr. Evelyn Siris ?

Dr. Siris. Yes, sir.

Mr. Tavenner. But you are also Mrs. Lawrence Levitan, is that
correct ?

Dr. Siris. Yes, that is correct.

Mr. Tavenner. You are engaged in the practice of medicine in
the city of San Francisco ?

Dr. Siris. Yes.

Mr. Ta\enner. How long have you been engaged in the practice
of medicine?

Dr. Siris. In the city of San Francisco ?

Mr. TA^^ENNER. Yes.

Dr. Siris. Since 1944.

HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1257

Mr. Ta\:enner. Did you practice prior to that time ?

Dr. SiRis. Yes, I did.

Mr. Tavenner. Where?

Dr. SiRis. In Milwaukee.

Mr. Tavenner. Did you come to California in 1944?

Dr. SiRis. Yes, I did.

Mr. Tavenner. Plow long did you practice medicine in Milwaukee ?

Dr. SiRis. About 3 or 4 months.

Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee, please, what your
formal educational training has been in preparation for your
profession ?

Dr. SiRis. Well, I went to high school and college and medical
school.

Mr. Tavenner. I am sorry, but I could not hear you.

Dr. SiRis. Grammar school, college, and medical school.

Mr. Tavenner. Where did you attend college?

Dr. Siris. The University of Chicago. .

Mr. Tavenner. Where did you take your medical course?

Dr. SiRis. The University of Chicago.

Mr. Tavenner. When did you complete your medical training?

Dr. SiRis. I am trying to remember. I believe it was 1938, but
I am not sure.

Mr. Tavenner. Doctor, the committee has been investigating the
extent, character, and objects of Communist Party activities within
the professions here in San Francisco. I will want to ask you about
your knowledge of the activities of that group, if you have any
knowledge of it. First, 1 desire to ask j^ou whether you are at this
time a member of the Professional Section of the Communist Party in
San Francisco?

Dr. Siris. On advice of counsel, I object to being questioned by
this committee or its counsel for the following reasons : That the
committee is not pursuing its legislative purpose.

Two, that the resolution of the House of Representatives purported
to authorize this hearing is not proper and not in accordance with the
principles of law laid down in recent cases before the United States
Supreme Court.

Three, that neither I nor my counsel have had an opportunity of
reading in full the two recent Supreme Court decisions because the
text thereof has not been available and we have had to refer to news-
paper articles.

Four, on advice of counsel, which I adopt, this hearing is being
conducted for the purpose of exposure and exposure alone and not for
any legislative purpose.

Five, that apparently the only reason for these hearings is to expose
me and others to publicity and ridicule.

Six, that this hearing is in derogation of my rights under the Con-
stitution and in derogation of my right of freedom of speech, which
are in areas in which Congi-ess is prohibited to make a statement.

Seven, that the committee has been and is attempting to require
witnesses subpenaed to appear before it to testify against themselves
under the due process of law as provided by the fifth amendment of
the Constitution which reads as follows :

1258 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime,
unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in
the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war
or public danger ; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice
put in jeopardy of life or limb ; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be
a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without
due process of law ; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without
just compensation.

Eight, I object to being interrogated which reads as follows-

Mr. Tavexner. It is very difficult for the reporter to get what you
are saying. Will you speak a little louder, please ?

I believe if you go more slowly we can hear better.

Dr. SiRis. I would likewise object to being interrogated by this
committee under all provisions of the first amendment of the Consti-
tution of the United States which reads as follows :

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or pro-
hibiting the free exercise thereof ; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the
press ; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Gov-
ernment for a redress of grievances.

Nine, I also avail myself of the immunities extended in the 6th, 8th,
9th, and 10th amendments of the Constitution of the United States.

Mr. TA^^N]s^ER. Will you tell the committee, please, how many per-
sons composed the medical group of the Professional Section of the
Communist Party.

Dr. SiRis. A'N'liat is the pertinency of this question?

Mr. Ta^\enner. The pertinency has already been explained in the
preliminary statement I made to you as to the subject under investi-
gation. If anything further need be said as to pertinency of the
question, I think it would only be necessary to say that in order to
understand the seriousness of the situation as brought about by hav-
ing supersecret cells of the Communist Party within the professionals,
the matter of strength and number is very pertinent to the subject.

I believe, Mr. Chairman, that is all it should be necessary for me to
say.

Dr. Siris. Does the chairman direct me to answer that question?

The Chairman. Yes, you are so directed.

Dr. SiRis. I object on all of the nine grounds that I have just read
to the committee. Do you wish me to read them again ?

Mr. Ta^^enner. No, indeed, I am certain it will be satisfactory tc
the committee for you to say for the same reasons that you previously
assigned when you refuse to answer the questions.

Is that what you are intending to do ?

Dr. Siris. Yes, sir.

Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee, the primary purposes
of the medical group of the Communist Party ?

Dr. Siris. The same answer as to the prior question.

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

Dr. Siris. I am not a member.

Mr. Ta\t:nner. You are not. Were you a member of the Commu-
nist Party in 1956 ?

Dr. Siris. On the advice of counsel, I resort to the nine reasons
I have previously read.

Mr. Ta\t:nner. If you are relying on the same ground, that will
be sufficient, and you do not have to read them again.

HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1259

If you are not a member of the Communist Party now and you
will not answer my questions as to 1956 on the ground, among others,
that it might tend to incriminate you, what has occurred since Janu-
ary 1, 1957, which necessitates or calls for the wide difference in an-
swer to the question as to your Communist Party membership now
and in 1956 ?

Dr. SiRis. I object to the form of the question which is assuming
something that is not in evidence, secondly, I urge each and every one
of the previous nine objections which I read.

IMr. Tav^enner. Your first objection is wrongfully taken, because
there is evidence before this committee of your prior membership in
the Professional Section of the Communist Party, that section which
was composed only of doctors, nurses, and technicians. That was the
testimony of Dr. Patten, so I am not proceeding on an assumption.

Let me ask you this.

Mr. Delany. Have you dropped your question ?

Mr. Tavenner. I did not ask a question then. I made a reply to
the statement that she made.

Mr. Delaxy. Is she allowed to reply, or her counsel, to that ?

Mr. Tavenner. If she desires to make any remark.

Mr. Delany. In my opinion there is no such evidence and on that
she is basing her objections. You may disagree with me but I dis-
agree with you.

Mr. Tavenner. The record speaks for itself as to what evidence is
before the committee.

Did you have any dispute with the membership of the Communist
Party regarding Communist activities in Hungary since January 1,
1957?

Dr. SiRis. In the interest of time, I rely on the nine objections as
previously stated.

Mr. Tavenner. By objections, I assume that you mean that you
decline to answer the questions.

Dr. Siris. I mean I decline to answer and I will reread them, if
you wish me to.

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

The Chairman. The witness is excused.

Mr. Tavenner. Dr. Sol Bineman.

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 ?

Dr. Bineman. I do,

TESTIMONY OF DR. SOL (SOLOMON) BINEMAN, ACCOMPANIED BY
COUNSEL, LLOYD E. McMUEEAY

Mr. Tavenner. What is your name, please ?

Dr. Bineman. Dr. Sol Bineman.

Mr. Tavenner. Spell your last name.

Dr. Bineman. B-i-n-e-m-a-n.

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

Mr. McMuRRAY. I am Lloyd E. Murray, 785 Market Street, San
Francisco.

1260 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.

Mr. Ta\^nner. When and where were you born, Doctor?

Dr. BiNEMAN. I was born in New Jersey in 1910.

Mr. Tavenner. What is your present place of residence?

Dr. BiNEMAN. San Francisco.

Mr. Ta\'enner. How long have you lived in San Francisco?

Dr. Bixeman. Continuously since 1925.

Mr. Ta^^nner. AVhat is your profession ?

Dr. Bixeman. I am a dentist.

Mr. Tav^enner. How long have you been engaged in the practice
of dentistry?

Dr. Bineman. Since 1935.

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

Dr. Bineman. My educational training was, after high school, Uni-
versity of California, College of Physicians and Surgeons from which
I received a degree of DDS.

Mr. Tavenner. When did you receive your degree ?

Dr. Bineman. 1935.

Mr. Tavenner. 'Wliere have you practiced dentistry in the State of
California since that date ?

Dr. Bineman. Continuously in San Francisco.

Mr. Ta^^enner. Doctor, there has been testimony here indicating
the existence in the city of San Francisco of an organized group of
professional men consisting of doctors, solely of doctors.

I am not certain what name it had, other than a professional cell of
the doctors. There was one also for the lawyers. We have heard the
name of it, it is the Hay market cell of the Communist Party. As to
doctors, we have not heard its name. The committee does not know
how many doctors are in that cell now. We do not know the full
purposes of it.

Information has indicated that various members of the professional
groups of the Communist Party, including the doctors, have been
assigned to specific Communist Party tasks.

Will you tell the committee, please, what knowledge you have at
this time of the assignment of professionals to special work in the
Communist Party, professional people?

Dr. Bineman. I refuse to answer that question.

Mr. Tavenner. May I have a direction that the witness be directed
to answer that question ?

The Chair]m.\n. You are directed.

Dr. Bineman. I refuse to answer it. I will not answer any ques-
tions about these associations, my political or religious beliefs, and
any other personal and private affairs. I base this refusal on the
provisions afforded me and any citizen by the first amendment of the
Constitution, the due process clause of the fifth amendment, and the
gTiaranties against having to testify against myself.

I fail to recall where the fifth amendment in its testimony clause
has anything to say about "incrimination." I would like to remind
you that a recent unanimous decision of the Supreme Court has this
to say:

The privilege serves to protect the innocent who might otherwise be ensnared by
ambiguous statements.

HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1261

It further states that —

Too many people, even those who should be better advised, too readily assume

that those who invoke it are guilty of a crime —

and the Justices go on to say that —

they can think of no special circumstance that would justify the use of consti-
tutional privilege to discredit or convict a person.

Mr. Tavenner. Doctor, is it not true that you were very active in the
fund-raising drive of the Daily People's World back as early as 1945
in obtaining subscriptions and aiding that paper financially ?

Dr. BiNEMAN. When was that published ?

Mr. Tavenner. It was published on August 3, 1945, and I desire,
Mr. Chairman, to oU'er a photostatic copy of the article as "Bineman
Exhibit No. 1."

Mr.McMuRRAY. May I see that?

Mr. Tavenner. Just a moment. I am going to read it.

The Chairman. It may be marked as "Exhibit No. 1."

(Bineman Exhibit No. 1 retained in committee files.)

Mr. Tavenner. The article is entitled, "Your World Today, San
Francisco Shows How To Do a Job on Fund Eaising Drive."

In the body of the article appears this language :

In the $750 quota class, none can hold a candle to Richmond. They have
reached 110 percent and are now really girding themselves to do the same thing
with their subquota. Top honors go to S. Bineman —

and then others are named.

Other clubs and committees are doing quality w^ork with hard plugging pace-
setters, leaving off * * * North Beach, with hard-working —

SO and so, and other persons mentioned.

I hand you the article and ask you to examine it and state whether
or not the work referred to as having been done at Richmond has
reference to work done by the Richmond Club of the Communist Party.

I think you will find a red pencil mark indicating the paragraph
where that reference appears.

Dr. Bineman. Does this committee usurp the powers to inquire into
the activities which go into the publishing of daily newspapers ?

j\Ir. Tavenner. It is not an inquiry into the newspaper. It is an
inquiry as to the activities of the Communist Party. We are not in-
vestigating the newspaper.

Dr. Bineman. Are you asking about the Communist Party or are
you asking about funds to help publish a newspaper ?

Mr. Tavenner. My question is whether or not the reference I read
to you with regard to Richmond reaching 110 percent has reference
to the Richmond Communist Party Club or a Communist Party club
called Richmond ? If you will read the fourth line, you will see your
name mentioned, which means that you should be well qualified to
answer that question.

Dr. Bineman. Mr. Tavenner, Richmond and all of the qualifica-
tions after it indicates a subdivision of San Francisco. It may also
indicate a city in California and I see no reference here to the Com-
munist Party.

Mr. Ta\^nner. If you read it in the context in which it appears, you
will see the very next paragraph starts out by saying, "Other clubs"

1262 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.

and so on. Does that not mean to you that it is speaking of Richmond
in the sense of a club of the Communist Party ?

Dr. BiNEMAN. It also says in the same sentence, "and communities."
I don't know whether Richmond is a club or a community.

Mr. Tavenner. You say you do not know whether Richmond is the
name of a club in the Communist Party ?

Dr. BiNEMAN. I do not know^ what this means at the moment.

Mr. Tavenner. Was Richmond the name of the Communist Party
club?

Dr. BiNEMAN. I refuse to answer on the same grounds I have given
before and any question relating to political activities, et cetera. And
also on the grounds of the fifth amendment.

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know that that reference to the article men-
tions Richmond club ?

Dr. BiNEMAN. I refuse to answer the question on the grounds pre-
viously stated.

Mr. Tavenner. The document refers to top honors going to S. Bine-
man. What top honors were those ? It says, "In the $750 quota class."

Dr. BiNEMAN. Same answer.

Mr. Tavenner. You know all about the Richmond group that this
article is talking about, do you not ?

Dr. BiNEMAN. Same answer.

Mr. Tavenner. That was back in 1945, Doctor. What about the
present day ? Are you today a member of the Professional Section of
the Communist Party composed of members of the medical profes-
sion, nurses, and technicians ?

Dr. BiNEMAN. The same answer to this question as I have given to
previous questions.

Mr. Tavenner. Will you advise the committee, if you know, what
the size of the membership is in that group ?

Dr. BiNEMAN. Same answer.

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

The Chairman. The witness is excused and the committee will
take a short recess.

(Witness excused.)

(Brief recess.)

The Chairman. The committee will be in order.

Call your next witness, Mr. Tavenner.

Mr. Tavenner. Dr. Asher Gordon, will you come forward, please.

Mr. MacInnis. We would like to ask that the television apparatus
be turned off pending a ruling by the committee.

Mr. Tavenner. Otherwise you do not object to the television? I
do not quite understand.

Mr. MacInnis. He wishes to make a basic objection to being tele-
vised.

Mr. Tavenner. If he just objects to televising, that is the end of it;
he will not be televised ; it needs no argument.

Mr. MacInnis. Perhaps, I should clarify his position.

Mr. Tavenner. It needs no clarification. If he says no television,
there will be none.

Mr. MacInnis. He realizes you will not photograph him if he ob-
jects to it, but he objects to a part of a situation in which other things
are televised even though he is not, and that is why I wanted to clarify

HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1263

the objection ; not that I wish to speak unduly, but I just wanted to tell
you that that is his position.

The Chairman. The committee will request that the television
people cooperate with the committee and I am sure that they will.

Call your witness, please, Mr. Tavenner.

Mr. Tavenxer. Dr. Asher Gordon.

The Chairman. Doctor, 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, so help you God ?

Dr. Gordon. I do.

TESTIMONY OF DR. ASHER GORDON, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL,
JAMES MARTIN MacINNIS

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Chairman, I think it is understood that he de-
sired that there be no television.

The Chairman. It is understood that the witness desires that he
not be televised.

Dr. Gordon. Is my voice going out over the air, at this time ?

Mr. Tavenner. No ; I do not know.

Dr. Gordon. Can you find out?

Mr. Tavenner. I think it is going to the press, to members of the
press, and it may be going out.

Dr. Gordon. I did not mean the radio. As I understand TV, it is
sound and vision together. As I understand it now from what I
have seen in the past week, the sounds of my voice are going out over
television and this I object to for the following reason : I should think
that your committee would wish this witness the maximum amount of
composure as he testifies as best he can to your questions. I do not
think that the 10,000 or 50,000 eyes cast upon me or the ears listening
to my voice grant me the proper kind of setting which I should think
this committee would be most zealous to guard. That is my objection
and I would like to make it for the record.

Mr. Ta\t:nner. Will you state your name. Doctor ?

Dr. Gordon. Asher Gordon.

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

Mr. MacInnis. My name is James Martin Maclnnis, San Francisco.

Mr. Tavenner. When and where were you born. Dr. Gordon?

Dr. Gordon. I was born on October 8, 1916, in the city of Dayton,
Ohio.

Mr. Tavenner. "Wliere do you now reside?

Dr. Gordon. In San Francisco.

Mr. Ta\^nner. How long have you lived in San Francisco ?

Dr. Gordon. Since 1944.

Mr. Tavenner. Your profession is medicine ?

Dr. Gordon. That is correct.

Mr. Tavenner. Are you a general practitioner ?

Dr. Gordon. I am a specialist in internal medicine.

Mr. Ta^t:nner. Will you tell the committee what your formal edu-
cational training has been ?

Dr. Gordon. Following high school, I went to Ohio State University
where I earned my bachelor of arts. I went to medical school at the

1264 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.

Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Bahimore. I took a year of
internal medical training in the Boston City Hospital in Boston,
and I took a year of residency in medicine at the Johns Hopkins Hos-
pital in Baltimore. Then, I entered the service. That was the end of
my formal trainino;.

Mr. Tavenner. How Ions? were you in the military service ?

Dr. Gordon. Two years,

Mr. Tavenner. When were you discharged ?

Dr. Gordon. In 1946.

Mr. Tavenner. Since that time, you have been engaged in the
practice of medicine here in San Francisco ?

Dr. Gordon. That is correct.

Mr. Tavenner. Doctor, the committee has been inquiring regard-
ing the extent, character, and objects of Communist activities of a
professional group of the Connnunist Party in the area of San Fran-
cisco and in other places. The committee has learned through testi-
mony that there was until recently at least such an organized group
composed solely of doctors. I want to ask you whether or not you
know of the present existence of such a group ?

Dr. Gordon. ^Vhat do you advise me ?

Mr. MacInnis. My advice is

Mr. Tavenner. My suggestion is that if counsel wishes to advise
his witness, he advise the committee.

Mr. MacInnis. I have no secrets from the committee.

Mr. Tavenner. I understand that you have not.

Mr. MacInnis. I did not say that to be facetious.

Mr. Tavenner. I know that. It is a rule of the committee that
counsel not address the committee in arguments.

You are in a position to make an argument to the committee
through the principle of advising your client, and I suggest you do
so quietly.

Dr. Gordon. Let the record show in our colloquy between us, the
committee may wish everything we say.

Mr. Tavenner. The committee does not desire to hear it. Where
it has been able to do so, it has cut off the transmission system so
that no one can eavesdrop, and we do not want to be in a position
of having it said, even in a misunderstood way, that this committee
is in any way listening in on what counsel and his client are talking
about, so I wish you would confer to yourself.

Mr. MacInnis. I will, of course, to defer to your suggestion. I do
not like the individualist suggestion of a whisper. I will keep my
voice down.

Mr. Tavenner. I noticed from the beginning that the chairs have
been separated. The witness is at one end of the table. I thought it
was designed at the time. I suggest you and the witness move closer
together so that you Avill not have any difficulty liearing each other.

Mr. MacInnis. I will not quarrel with you because this would be
a poor point of issue as to where the seats should be placed.

The Chairman. Go ahead and ask your question, Mr. Tavenner.

Mr. MacInnis. I am sorry. We have had some colloquy between us
and we have forgotten the question.

May the question be repeated ?

HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1265

Mr. Tavenner. The question was and is, Do you have any knowl-
edge of the existence at this time of an organized group of profes-
sionals as members of the Communist Party group in San Francisco
composed solely of doctors, and I should say nurses and technicians ?

Dr. Gordon. Mr. Tavenner, I should like to state at the present time
that I am not now a member of the Communist Party. I should like
to, if you would please, to divide your question, if you wish to divide
it, as to whether you are asking me about now or in the past.

Mr. Tavenner. Yes, sir ; my question was specific. It said now.

Dr. Gordon. Would you consider the answer which I gave, that I
do not now belong to the Communist Party in answer to that question ?

Mr. Tavenner. It is only a partial answer.

Dr. Gordon. As you know, Mr. Counsel, I am a physician. I have
relationships with patients which correspond to you as an attorney
having them with your client which has surrounding it an area of con-
fidence which is not to be broken.

The Chairman. We are not inquiring about any professional situa-
tion, of course. We do not want to know anything about your rela-
tionships with your patients.

Dr. Gordon. Nevertheless, so that I may complete it, Mr. Chairman,
I will not answer the question on the first ground that in some areas
it might be that I would be breaking the confidence of a doctor-patient
relationship. I will defer to counsel for further advice.

]\Ir. Tavenner, to further complete this section of my answer — there
will be more — it has been established to my satisfaction at least that
identification or recognition of a name with me is part of divulging a
confidence, the fact that someone has come to me as a physician is di-
vulging a confidence and not the details that occurred.

Mr. Tavenner. Doctor, if I were to ask you what a particular per-
son told you when coming to you for medical advice, I might be get-
ting close to the question of interference with a confidential relation-
ship, but I asked you no such question. I asked you whether you knew
there was in existence such a group of the Communist Party. If 10 or
15 of your patients had so told you, you could answer that without the
divulgence of names. I will not ask you to divulge the name of a
person, the divulgence of whose name would in any way involve a
confidential relationshi]D of a doctor and a patient.

Mr. Scherer. The confidential relationship that exists between a
patient and a doctor involves the relationships of doctor and patient
with respect to his physical and mental condition. A doctor cannot
refuse to testify about some patient's actions, say if it were embezzle-
ment or murder. He could still be asked about that. The relation-
ship only refers to the relationship of doctor and patient.

Mr. Tavenner. That is true, but this question does not get even that
close to it. That is the point that I am trying to demonstrate to the
witness. I have not asked a question that would even bring him that
close.

Dr. Gordon. These are the establishment of grounds. I know your
question did not get there. In some answers to some questions, it is
possible that I may not anticipate — if I may confer further with coun-
sel.

Mr. Tavenner. Have you completed your answer ?

1266 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.

Dr. Gordon. No, sir, I have not. Since I am not now a member of
the Communist Party, I cannot give you any information. I have no
information about the existence of such an organization at the present
time. I am not through yet, sir.

Mr. Tavenner. Have you completed your answer ?

Dr. Gordon. Yes, sir.

Mr. Tavenner. Were you at one time a member of a professional
cell of the Communist Party in San Francisco composed solely of the
medical profession, nurses and technicians ?

Dr. Gordon. Mr. Tavenner, would you specify, if you have any time
in mind, what area it is that you are concerned about ?

Mr. Tax-enner. At any time.

Dr. Gordon. Mr. Tavenner, in case of the length of time in which
you give scope to the (question, I think the recent Supreme Court de-
cision having to do with the establishment of the relevance of an in-
vestigation might clearly be raised, and I should like to express to
you the relevancy of any time in the past my knowledge of the question
which you have asked.

Mr. Ta^^nner. Let me be more specific. Let me ask you whether,
in 1947, you were a member of the Communist Party ?

Dr. Gordon. Mr. Tavenner, I question the length of time. Counsel
tells me that the recent Supreme Court decisions emphasize a statute of
limitations. This takes us back 10 years, and I should question the
relevancy of such a question.

Mr. Scherer. Were you a member of the Communist Party last
year? That is just 6 or 7 months ago. That is not 10 years ago.

Dr. Gordon. Mr. Scherer, Mr. Tavenner, I am advised by counsel
that in the interests of avoiding incrimination that at this point I
should like to avail myself of the protection of the fifth amendment.

The Chairman. Then, I understand, from that that you decline
to answer the question by invoking the fifth amendment ; is that cor-
rect?

Dr. Gordon. That is correct.

Mr. Tavenner. Going back to the year 1947, did you accept during
that period of time any assignment from the Communist Party or sug-
gestion from the Communist Party as to what mass organization
activities you should engage in ?

Dr. Gordon. Mr. Tavenner, there is a particular mass activity that
you are concerned with ?

Mr. Tavenner. I would like to know whether you did engage in
a mass activity, mass organization activity in 1947, with the tacit un-
derstanding and approval of the Communist Party or leadership of
any Communist Party group with which you might have been
associated.

Dr. Gordon. Mr. Tavenner, if there are no mass organizations which
you have in mind, or if you do, I — let me put it that way — if you
have any mass organizations in mind, especially since this is a long
time ago, I would like to know what they are so that I would have
some basis of judging with the counsel here the relevancy of the ques-
tion here.

Mr. Tavenner. Surely you know whether you did engage in any
work of that kind.

HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1267

Dr. Gordon, Ten years ago is a long time. Surely you must know
if you are asking the question.

Mr. Tavenner. Let me make a suggestion to you which may be of
some help.

Were you active in the work of the American Veterans Committee ?
I should add, if you were, whether it had anything to do with Com-
munist Party membership. Did that play any part in your activity
in that group ?

Dr. GoRDOX. Mr. Tavenner, is the American Veterans Committee a
proscribed organization within the scope of the Attorney General's
subversive list ?

Mr. Tavenner. In other words, you are asking me whether or not
it has been listed as a Communist-front organization; is that what
you are asking me ?

Dr. Gordon. Yes. That is the standard terminology.

Mr. Tavenner. No ; it has not been either by the Attorney General
or by this committee.

Dr. Gordon. Mr. Tavenner, since the American Veterans Com-
mittee is not a proscribed organization, and I use the term in the same
sense, may I ask you the relevancy of the question to the scope of this
hearing ?

Mr. Ta\'enner, Yes, the committee has heard evidence that the vari-
ous members of the professional cells were assigned to work in mass
organizations. That was one of their large assignments. We have
heard testimony as to how certain people were assigned to carry out
the purposes of the Communist Party in the Federation of Teachers
Union, We have observed that some were very active in the Cali-
fornia Labor School, I think we have had testimony about the desire
of the Communist Party to have members within organizations that
were interested in rights for the Negro people. Those are illustrations.
That points up the pertinency of this question.

Dr. Gordon, Mr. Tavenner, under the circumstances, after you have
described the purpose of your interest in the organization

Mr. Tavenner, No; it is not interest in the organization. It is
interest in the activity of the professional group of the Communist
Party,

Dr, Gordon, In this orgaization, yes. Under those circumstances,
I have been advised by my counsel that my course should be to invoke
the protection of the fifth amendment,

Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee please in what organiza-
tions the medical group of the Communist Party was particularly in-
terested; what mass organizations?

Dr. Gordon, Would you specify time, please?

Mr, Tavenner. No ; I am asking you.

Dr, Gordon, Counsel advises me as follows, Mr, Tavenner : That
if there is no particular time that you have in mind and I am free
to take my time for contemplation of your question and its answer,
there would be a great deal of speculation possible under the circum-
stances.

If it is specific within a particular period of time, it seems appropri-
ate,

Mr, TA\rENNER. Let us say for the year 1956,

94343— 5T—pt. 2-

1268 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.

Dr. Gordon. Mr. Tavenner, I will at this point on the advice of coun-
sel claim the protection and privilege.

Mr. Tavenner. Will you advise the connnittee as to the numerical
strength of the medical branch of the Communist Party in the year
1956, if you know ?

Dr. Gordon. Will give you the same answer, Mr. Tavenner, for
reasons I have given before, that is, that I will claim for this question
the protection and the privilege.

Mr. Tavenner. Did any incident occur between January 1, 1957, and
the present time that has resulted in your answer being so far different
as to Communist Party membership now and in 1956 ?

Dr. Gordon. Mr. Tavenner, in answer to your question, I have been
advised by counsel that under the circumstances, there is the possibility
of self-incrimination which exists, and in answer to your question I
will rely on the privilege as I have before.

Mr. Ta\^nner. You say you are not a member of the Communist
Party now ?

Dr. Gordon. That is right.

Mr. Tavenner. You certainly are not speaking merely of today,
are you ? What about yesterday ?

Dr. Gordon. Mr. Tavenner, were I to go backward with you follow-
ing your question over the past in as small an increment of time as
you wish to add to each question, I would be following into a situation
where I might conceivably incriminate myself through an answer, so I
will — I am going to have to do that with all such questions that go
backward.

Mr. Tavenner. You are making a very evasive answer. You are
answering what your answer might be if I asked you something else.
Will you come down to the question I asked you ? Were you a member
of the Communist Party yesterday ?

Dr. Gordon. I will have to claim the privilege, sir.

The Chairman. Do you invoke the fifth amendment ?

Dr. Gordon. I do, sir.

Mr. Tavenner. I have no further questions.

The Chairman. The witness is excused.

Call your next witness.

Mr. Tavenner. Dr. Rose Payne.

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 ?

Mrs. Payne. I do.

TESTIMONY OF DR. ROSE PAYNE, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL,
LLOYD E. McMURRAY

Mr. Tavenner. Will you state your name, please ?
Mrs. Payne. My name is Rose Payne.
Mr. Tavenner. Spell your name please ?
Mrs. Payne. P-a-y-n-e.

Mr. Tavenner. Will counsel please identify himself for the record?
Mr. McMuRRAY. Lloyd E. McMurray, 785 Market Street, San Fran-
cisco.
Mr. Tavenner. Where were you born ?

HEARINGS HELD D^ SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1269

Mrs. Payne. I was born in Pierce County, in the State of Wash-
inp:ton.

Mr. Tavenner. Where do you now reside ?

Mrs. Payne. I reside in San Francisco.

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

Mrs. Payne. Since 1948.

Mr. Tavenner. What is your occupation or profession ?

Mrs. Payne. My occupation is a research worker in the field of blood
diseases. I work with erythrocytes and leucocytes. They are com-
monly known as red cells and white cells.

Mr. Tavenner. That is very cute, indeed.

In other words, you are a research assistant ?

Mrs. Payne. Yes, you might call it that.

Mr. Tavenner. That is it, is it not? If it is not that, what is it?

Mrs, Payne. Just a moment, may I consult with my counsel, please ?

The Chairman. He would not know better than you what your
occupation is.

Mrs. Payne. Yes; I would like to be accurate, since this is a legis-
lative inquiry.

The Chairman. If you think your lawyer knows what your occu-
pation is any better than you do, then ask him.

Mrs. Payne. Thank you again.

(Witness conferred with her counsel.)

My counsel advises me that I should give my official title. The
official title is research associate. It has a different meaning.

Mr. Tavenner. I do not mean to demote you wdien I call you an
assistant.

How long have you been engaged in that work?

Mrs. Payne. Excuse me a moment again, please.

Do you mean in the field of blood research?

Mr. Tavenner. I mean in your present position.

Mrs. Payne. I have been in my present position with varying titles
since 1948.

Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell tlie committee what your formal edu-
cational training has been ?

Mrs. Payne. My formal education — would you like me to begin at
the beginning ?

Mr. Tavenner. No, not in the primary grades, just begin with
college.

Mrs. Payne. I have a bachelor of science degree.

Mr. Tavenner. From what school?

Mrs. Payne. From the University of Washington.

Mr. Tavenner. When did you receive it?

Mrs. Payne. I received it in 1932. Would you like me to go ahead?

Mr. Tavenner. Yes, go right ahead.

Mrs. Payne. I also received a master of science degree in the field
of bacteriology in 1933. That was also at the University of Washing-
ton. I think, but I do not recall, whether it was between my bachelor
degree and my master or following my master's degree that I received
a research fellowship which took me to the State of Massachusetts.
This was at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute.

Following that, I pursued further studies toward the doctor of
philosophy degree which I received in 1937 also from the University
of Washington.

1270 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.

Mr. Tamsnner. "\^nien did you leave the State of Washington to
come to California ?

Mrs. Payne. Excuse me a moment, please.

I did not leave Washington to come to California.

Mr. Tavenner. A^^iere did you go when you left Washington?

Mrs, Payne. I left Washington to go to Oregon.

Mr. Ta%tnner. That is rather on the way to San Francisco.

Mrs. Payne. Yes, Mr. Tavenner, it is.

Mr. Tavenner. How long did you stop over in Oregon?

Mrs. Payne. I lived in Oregon approximately 5 years.

Mr, Tavenner. Did you continue down to San Francisco from
Oregon ?

Mrs, Pay'Ne. Well, if you were thinking of it in terms of en route,
it might be expressed so. I moved from Oregon to California.

Mr. Tavenner. "VVliat year was that, about 1948 ?

Mrs. Payne. 1948, Mr. Tavenner.

Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee, please, whether or not
in the practice of your profession here in the city of San Francisco,
5'^ou have become aware of the existence of an organized group, secret
group, of the Communist Party made up of professional people, one
of which groups at least was composed of doctors, nurses, and tech-
nicians,

Mrs. Payne. I object to the question, Mr. Tavenner, I should
like to state clearly and briefly why I take certain positions in this
inquiry. They will be based in part upon the fact that the citizens
of our country enter the voting booth alone. This is one simple and
recognized expression of his rights to privacy of opinion set out by
the Founding Fathers in the first amendment to the Constitution. Our
citizens are entitled to express their political belief in complete pri-
vacy or not to express it at all. Our early statesmen carefully con-
sidered these provisions. The results of their deliberations have stood
the test of more than a century and a half. They express the demo-
cratic theory first put into practice in the 18th century which they
are extended to the present day.

Now, and in past times it has become necessary to defend these
principles and practices.

Professor Einstein, a truly illustrious man

Mr, Tavenner, Are you not getting very far afield of your objection
to this question ? If you have any legal grounds upon which to base
your objection, I am sure the committee would be glad to hear them
but not a speech. This is a prepared speech that you are delivering,
a great part of which has no relevancy at all. I just merely ask you
to try to confine yourself to any legal points that you have in mind,

Mr. ScHERER. Constitutional grounds.

Mrs. Payne. Yes, I would like to continue for this reason, that
I do not speak well extemporaneously at any time. In the scientific
field, we always write even the briefest of comments. This is merely
a comment that I am going to make.

Mr. ScHERER. I object.

The Chairman. You are directed to answer the question that has
been asked.

Mr. ScHERER. You can use the Constitution as authority but not
Mr. Einstein,

HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1271

Mrs. Payne. Is the committee denying me the opportunity of
stating the grounds for my objections ?

The Chairman. No, but you are directed to answer the question.

Mrs. Payne. Then, I will proceed to state the grounds upon which
I decline to answer.

The Chairman. All right, proceed.

Mrs. Payne. Professor Einstein, a truly illustrious man of thought,
has called upon all thinking people in the following language. I
quote :

In principle everybody is equally involved in defending constitutional rights.
The intellectuals in the widest sense of the word are, however, in a special
position since they have, thanks to their special training, a particularly strong
influence on the formation of public opinion. It is, therefore, in the present
situation especially important for the intellectuals to do their duty. I see this
duty in refusing to cooperate in any undertaking that violates the constitutional
rights of the individual. This holds in particular for all inquiry situations
that are concerned with the private life and the political affiliations of the citizen.
Whoever cooperates in such a case, becomes an accessory to acts of violations
or invalidation of the Constitution.

I end quote of Einstein's statement.

The first amendment is not the only constitutional safeguard against
congressional inquiry in the areas where Congress is forbidden to act.
To protect the citizen who is compelled as I have been to appear before
such a body as this, the fifth amendment was also adopted. It includes
the provision that no one shall be compelled to be a witness against
himself.

The Chairman. Do I understand you to say that the fifth amend-
ment was adopted in order to afford some protection to witnesses
before congressional committees?

Mrs. Payne. I understand that it is one of its purposes and one of
its principal uses today.

Mr. Tavenner. It is certainly true.

The Chairman, You are quite right.

Mr. Tavenner. Yes, you certainly are.

Mr. Scherer. Did she say uses or abuses ?

The Chairman. Well, it is the same thing.

Mrs. Payne. To protect the citizen as is compelled, as I have been,
to appear before such a body as this, the fifth amendment was also
adopted. It includes the provision that no one shall be compelled to be
a witness against himself.

The Chairman. Do not stop there. Doctor — ^in any criminal mat-
ter — you have very conveniently neglected to recite the entire provision
of the fifth amendment. Go ahead.

Mrs. Payne. Do you not know that testimony

The Chairman. Yes, I do, go ahead.

Mrs, Payne. All right. Thank you. Because this committee is
only interested in subversive matters, any questions it may have about
my acts or associations may lead to a criminal prosecution against me.
This may happen if I answer the question, no matter which way I
answer it. Furthermore, I understand that if I answer such a question,
I will then have given up, that is, I will have waived my right, to re-
main silent in response to all other questions in this area. I have no
intention of giving up that fifth amendment right. I rely upon it.
[Applause.]

1272 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.

The Chairman. Now, I have repeatedly warned the people in the
audience. I do not like to have this hearing room cleared because
the vast majority of the people are aware of the importance of these
proceedinas. To that small fjroup that persists and insists on making
demonstrations, I serve this last note of warning.

Proceed.

Mr. Tavennek. Have you appeared before the Committee on Un-
American Activities at any time prior to today ?

Mrs. Payne. No, I have not.

Mr. Tavenner. Possibly I should give you an opportunity to deny
or explain or affirm testimony that was taken by this committee on
June 19, 1954, at Portland. A witness by the name of Robert W.
Canon testified. Mr. Canon testified as follows :

The party leadership would periodically visit our club.

Mr. Kunzig, who was counsel for this committee, then asked :

Who would visit the club?

Mr. Cannon. Earl and Rose Payne, his wife, Rose.

Mr. Kunzig. Did you know her to be a member of the Communist Party?
Mr. Canon. Oh, yes ; yes, sir. They visited us frequently, and then after Mr.
Payne was expelled from the party, Mark Haller visited us on several occasions.

Was Mr. Canon correct in referring to Rose Payne as a member
of the Communist Party who frequently visited his club ?

Would you like to deny it or affirm it ? I do not want you to leave
here without the opportunity of expressing your opinion about it.

Mrs. Payne. I decline to answer that question for the reasons that
I have already stated, which I do not believe you would care for me to
reread.

The Chairman. We remember them. Proceed, Mr. Tavenner.

Mr. Tavenner. That was at Portland. That is on the way, is it not,
from Washington down to California?

Then the committee heard testimony on June 18, 1954, from Barbara
Hartle. Barbara Hartle was one of those who was convicted under
the Smith Act in the State of Washington and was sentenced to a
term of imprisonment. She testified fully before this committee.
She would not testify before her sentence was imposed because she
felt that to do so might be considered by some of her former friends
in the Connnunist Party as having been given in order to affect her
sentence, so she received her sentence and she served her sentence.
She was one of the most informed, active witnesses this committee has
ever had on the theory and the purposes of the Communist Party.

Were you acquainted with her ?

Mrs. Payne. Same answer.

Mr, Tavenner. At the hearing on June 18, Mr. Kunzig asked this
question of Mrs. Hartle :

In your knowledge of Earl Payne, did you have occasion to know his wife.
Rose Payne?

Mrs. Hartle. Yes ; I knew his wife as a member of the Communist Party in
King County when she and Earl Payne were married and were living there. I
have attended Communist Party functionary meetings with her in Seattle in
the early 1940's.

Is that testimony true of false ?

Mrs. Payne. I decline to answer that question. You know that I
will decline, and it is for the same reasons as previously stated.

HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1273

Mr. Tavenner. As a matter of fact, you were well steeped and
trained in Communist Party work before you came to San Francisco,
were you not ?

JNIrs. Payne. Same answer, Mr. Tavenner.

Mr. Tavenner. How long was it after your arrival here in 1948
before you became identified with a medical branch, or professional
branch, of the Communist Party in San Francisco ?

Mrs. Payne. Mr. Tavenner, have I been so identified ?

Mr. Tavenner. Will you answer the question ?

Mrs. Payne. I assume that I have not been so identified, but, since
you pressed this area on this area, I will decline to answer as previously.

Mr. Tavenner. Did you attend a Professional Section convention
at the home of Dr. Morton Garfield in December of 1950 as a repre-
sentative of the medical group ?

Mrs. Payne. Same answer.

Mr. Ta\tenner. Are you a member of the medical group now, that
is, the medical branch of the Professional Section of the Communist
Party?

Mrs. Payne. Same answer.

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

The Chairman. The witness is excused.

(Witness excused.)

The Chairman. Call your next witness.

Mr. Tavenner. Dr. Morton Garfield.

Mr. Brown. He objects to television during this hearing.

The Chairman. We will request the television people to comply
with his request that he not be televised. I trust that the television
people will cooperate.

Will you raise your right hand, please? Do you swear the testi-
mony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and
]iothing but the truth, so help you God ?

Dr. Garfield. I do.

TESTIMONY OF DE. MOKTON (M.) GARriELD, ACCOMPANIED BY
COUNSEL, J. A. BROWN

Mr. Tamsnner. What is your name, please ?

Dr. Garfield. My name is Morton Garfield.

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

Mr. Brown. J. A. Brown, of the California bar.

Mr. Tavenner. When and where were you born, Dr. Garfield.

Dr. Garfield. I was born in Virginia, November 30, 1914.

Mr. Tavenner. Where in Virginia ?

Dr. Garfield. Norfolk, Va.

Mr. Tavenner. Where do you now reside?

Dr. Garfield. San Francisco.

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

Dr. Garfield. Thirteen years.

Mr. Tavenner. You are a medical doctor ?

Dr. Garfield. Yes.

Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell tlie committee, please, what your
professional training has been ?

1274 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.

Dr. Garfield. Yes. I was graduated from the University of Vir-
ginia in 1935, with a bachelor of science degree. I was graduated
from Johns Hopkins University in 1939 with an M. D, degree.

Mr. Tavenner. When did you embark upon the practice of your
profession ?

Dr. Garfield. Approximately 1944.

INIr. Tavenner. Dr. Garfield, the committee has been undertaking
to determine the full extent of the operations of a medical branch
of the Communist Party in the city of San Francisco. That is an
organized secret group of the Communist Party composed of mem-
bers of the medical profession, nurses, and technicians.

Do you have any knowledge at the present time of the existence of
such a group?

Dr. Garfield. I wish to state, Mr. Tavenner, that my beliefs and
associations are personal and private ; that, in my opinion, most of my
fellow citizens would agree that this is my privilege. I respectfully
decline to answer that question under the rights granted to me by the
first and fifth amendments of the Constitution.

Mr. Tavenner. "We have been undertaking, as I said, to find out
what we can about the activities of this organization, this group. The
committee has received evidence at various places in the State of
California of the extreme activity of the Communist Party in the
organizing and functioning of the Independent Progressive Party
back about 1950. I hand you a photostatic copy of a document show-
ing the appointment of members of the State Central Committee of the
Independent Progressive Party in the year 1950, and ask you to ex-
amine it and state whether or not you were one of the appointees ?

Dr. Garfield. I must decline to answer that question and I do de-
cline to answer that question on the same grounds I previously stated.

Mr. Tavenner. You do see your name there, do you not, as one of
the appointees of the State central committee?

Dr. Garfield. The same answer, sir.

Mr. Tavenner. You will not state whether or not you see it?

Dr. Garfield. My answer is the same.

Mr. Tavenner. 1 will read what it says. May it be marked "Gar-
field Exhibit No. 1"?

The Chairman. Let it be so marked.

(Garfield Exhibit No. 1 retained in committee files.)

Mr. Tavenner. It reads as follows :

I, Morton M. Garfield, S. F., duly qualified as a delegate to the State conven-
tion at Sacramento in the year 1950, by virtue of my appointment by the county
central committee to the office of delegate on the 11th day of July 1950, upon the
Independent Progessive ticket, do hereby appoint the following three voters,
who shall be members of the State Central Committee to meet at Sacramento,
August 6, 1950—

and then it gives the names of the three persons so appointed.

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand this 31st day of July 1950 —

and it is signed "Morton M. Garfield."

Apparently I was mistaken in stating that you were a member of
the State Central Committee, but you were appointed as a delegate to
it by the county central committee. Does that change your answer in
any way to my explanation?

Dr. Garfield. My answer is the same, sir.

HEARINGS HELD IV SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1275

Mr. Tavenner. Were you, on the date of the execution of this paper,
July 31, 1950, a member of a professional cell of the Communist Party
in San Francisco ?

Dr. Garfield. I decline to answer that question on the grounds pre-
viously stated.

Mr. Tavenner. What part did the medical profession cells play in
the IPP in this area, if any ?

Dr. Garfield. My answer must be the same, sir.

Mr. Tavenner. Were you given an assignment at any time to work
in any mass organization other than the IPP which we have just
mentioned ?

Dr. Garfield. My answer is the same, sir.

Mr. TA^-ENNER. Are you a member of the Professional Section of the
Communist Party composed of members of the medical profession at
this time ?

Dr. Garfield. My answer is the same as previously stated for the
same reasons.

Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee, please, whether or not,
in December of 1950, the Professional Section of the Communist Party
of which I have been speakmg held its convention in your residence ?

Dr. Garfield. My answer is the same.

Mr. Ta%t:nner. Do you not have full knowledge of the operations
of the Professional Section of the Communist Party since 1950?

Dr. Garfield. My answer is the same on the same grounds. This
question as the others did, invades my right of privacy and freedom
of speech and my rights against self-incrimination embodied in the
first and fifth amendments of the Constitution.

Mr. TA^'ENNER. In other words, you refuse to give this committee
any information about the operations of this group ? That is in sub-
stance what you are saying and the position you are taking.

Dr. Garfield. My answer is the same, sir.

Mr. Ta\^nner. Well, I think it is useless for me to ask you any
more.

I have no further questions.

The Chairman. The witness is excused.

(Witness excused.)

The Chairman. The committee will stand adjourned and it will
meet tomorrow morning at 9 : 30.

("V^Tiereupon, the committee recessed at 4 : 45 p. m., to reconvene at
9 : 30 a. m. Friday, June 21, 1957.)

HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.,
JUNE 18-21, 1957— PART 2

FRIDAY, JUNE 21, 1957

United States House of Representatives,

Subcommittee of the
Committee on Un-American Activities,

San Francisco^ Calif.

PUBLIC HEARING

The subcommittee of the Committee on Un-American Activities
met, pursuant to call, at 10 a. m., in the board of supervisors' hear-
ing room. City Hall, San Francisco, Calif., Hon. Gordon H. Scherer,
presiding.

Committee members present : Representatives 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.

Mr. Scherer. The subcommittee will come to order. Let the record
show that Francis E. Walter, Chairman of the Committee on Un
American Activities, will not be with us today. He is in Pennsyl-
vania for an engagement of long standing. He has appointed a
subcommittee consisting of the gentleman from IMichigan, Mr. Robert
J. Mcintosh ; Mr. Edwin E. Willis, from Louisiana ; and myself as a
subcommittee for the purpose of conducting these hearings today.

Will you call your first witness, Mr. Tavenner ?

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Jack Eshleman, will you come forward?

Mr. Scherer. You do solemnly swear that the testimony you shall
give at this hearing shall be the truth, tlie whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God ?

Mr. Eshleman. I do.

Mr. Scherer. Please be seated.

TESTIMONY OF JOHN M. ESHLEMAN, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL,
HAROLD A. GALLOWAY

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

Mr. Eshleman. ]\Iy name is John M. Eshleman.

Mr. Ta'st:nner. Spell your name, please.

Mr. Eshleman. E-s-h-1-e-m-a-n,

Mr. Chairman, before any questions — just a moment — I have a
question I would like to ask as procedure.

Mr. Tavenner. Will counsel accompanying the witness please
identify himself.

Mr. Galloway. Harold A. Galloway, 68 Post Street, and a mem-
ber of the California bar.

1277

1278 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.

Mr. EsiiLEMAN. It seems to be doubtful that a quorum is present.
I would like to have a ruling on that.

Mr. ScHERER (presiding). There is a quorum of the subcommittee
present.

Mr. Tavenner. "WHien and where were you born ?

Mr. Galloway. Just a moment, please.

Mr. Ta^t:xner. Excuse me, I did not notice that you were in
conference.

Mr. Eshleman. It is my understanding that four men were ap-
pointed to the committee. I now ask if two Members of Congress
constitute a quorum ?

Mr. Scherer. Your objection has been noted on the record. Pro-
ceed, ]Mr. Tavenner.

Mr. Eshleman. Is there a ruling that two members constitute a
quorum ?

Mr. Scherer. You evidently did not hear what I said when I
assumed the chairmanship of the subcommittee this morning. Mr.
Walter, Chairman of the Committee on Un-American Activities, ap-
pointed a subcommittee consisting of Mr. Robert J. Mcintosh, the
gentleman from Michigan ; Mr. Edwin E. Willis, the gentleman from
Louisiana ; and myself as a subcommittee for the purpose of conduct-
ing the hearings today, and that Mr. Mcintosh and myself are pres-
ent, which is a quorum of that subcommittee.

Will you proceed.

Mr. Ta^^enner. May I be excused ?

Mr. Scherer. We will have a few minutes recess while counsel an-
swers a telephone call.

(Brief recess.)

Mr. Scherer. The committee will come to order. Mr. Tavenner,
will you proceed ?

Mr. Galloway. Mr. Chairman, may I address the Chair ?

Mr. Scherer. Yes.

Mr. Galloway. Mr. Chairman, in the absence of Chairman Walter,
of the House Un-American Activities Committee, an interesting and
important point has arisen as we have just raised the question of the
quorum.

Mr. Scherer. Would you come up here just a moment.

Mr. Galloway. I am referring to rule 25.

Mr. Scherer. At the same time you are familiar with rule 7.

Let us have an understanding, please. The ruling of the chairman
yesterday was the committee is pleased to have you here, but I would
appreciate your not displayino; any approval or disapproval of any-
thing that is said by counsel, witnesses, or the committee.

Mr. Ta\tnner. Mr. Eshleman, will you state when and where you
were bom, sir ?

Mr. Eshleman. I wish to state that any further questions which I
will answer will be under protest on the grounds that this committee is
illegally constituted.

Mr. Scherer. Will you answer the question now, sir ?

Mr. Eshleman. Will you repeat the question, please?

Mr. Tavenner. Wlien and where were you born ?

Mr. Eshleman. September 18, 1914, Oakland, Calif.

Mr. Tavenner. Wliere do you now reside ?

HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1279

Mr. EsHLEMAN. Mill Valley, Calif.

Mr. Tavexner. Have you been a resident of California during
your entire life ? Let me put the question this way : Have you re-
sided at any place out of the State of California for any period of
time?

Mr. EsHLEMAN. I have maintained legal residence in the United
States all my life, and in California, and I travel outside of the United
States on occasion.

Mr. Tavenner. My question is whether you have resided for any
period of time outside of the State of California. I did not ask you
about your legal residence.

Mr. Eshleman. What period of time are you discussing ?

Mr. Tavenner. Have you lived in any other State for any period
of time?

Mr. EsHLEMAN. I lived in Utah for approximately a year.

Mr. Tavenner, I believe I can shorten it. How long have you lived
in the State of California prior to the present moment without having
lived any other place?

Mr. EsHLEMAN. Since 1938.

Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee, please, what your pro-
fession or occupation is ?

Mr. EsHLEMAN. I am a newspaper reporter.

Mr. Tavenner. Tell the committee, please, of what your formal
educational training has consisted.

Mr. EsHLEMAN. Graduated from the University of California in
1938, a bachelor of arts degree.

Mr. TA^^ENNER. Will you outline to the committee briefly what your
employment has been since 1940, but before doing that, have you been
a member of the Armed Forces of the United States ?

Mr. EsHLEMAN. No ; I have not.

Mr. Tavenner. Then, proceed, please, to tell us what your record
of employment has been since 1940.

Mr. EsHLEMAN. I can tell the committee that I worked in the news-
paper industry here since 1946. As to prior to that, I am going to
decline to answer.

Mr. Tavenner. Have you worked as a reporter in San Fran-
cisco

Mr. Scherer. Just a moment. I direct that you answer the question
where you worked prior to 1946.

Mr. EsHLEMAN. I am going to decline to answer questions that bear
on my past political beliefs and associations under the guaranties
that are given me in the fifth and first amendments as well as the sixth
amendment.

Mr. Scherer, The question was. Witness, as to where you work, not
as to your association and beliefs or activities, other than your em-
ployment. The question is asked for the purpose of identification.

Mr. EsHLEMAN. I have performed work in the past which may
involve political associations, and I decline to answer on the grounds
that I have just stated.

Mr. Scherer. I am sorry. It was my fault. What were the two
amendments you raised.

Mr. EsHLEMAN. I raised three — fifth, first, and sixth.

Mr. Scherer. Proceed, Mr. Tavenner.

1280 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.

Mr. Ta\^nner. When you say you ^Yorked in the newspaper field
since 1946, do you mean that you have worked continuously in San
Francisco in that field since 1946?

Mr. EsuLEMAN. That is correct.

Mr. Tavenner. Was that entire time spent as a newspaper reporter?
Is it that type of work ?

Mr. EsiiLEMAN. I worked for the Call-Bulletin as a copy reader
until 1952. I have been a reporter on the Examiner since August of
1952.

Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee, please, whether at any
time since you have been employed in the city of San Francisco since
1940 you have been aware of the existence of a professional group
of the Communist Party composed of members of the various pro-
fessions in San Francisco ?

Mr. EsHLEMAN. I decline to answer on the previously stated
grounds.

Mr. Tavenner. The committee has heard evidence indicating that
various members of the professions, the different professions — the
medical profession, the legal profession, and others — were assigned
to activity within various mass organizations. Were you assigned
to any work of that character in a mass organization ?

Mr. Esiileman. T decline to answer on the grounds that I previ-
ously stated.

Mr. Tavenner. While employed in San Francisco, were you at any
time a teacher in the California Labor School ?

Mr. EsHLEMAN. I decline to answ^er on the grounds that I previ-
ously stated.

Mr. Tavenner. Were you at one time a publicity director of the
North Side Club of the Communist Party, a club which has been de-
scribed as being one of the professional groups of the Communist
Party in San Francisco?

Mr. EsHLEMAN. I decline to answer that question on the grounds I
have previously stated, and in so doing I wish to state that I am not
now a member of the Communist Party nor am I in sympathy with it.
As to questions involving previous association with the Communist
Party, I shall decline to answer on the grounds which I have stated.

Mr. Tavenner. I am gratified indeed to know that you are not now
a member of the Communist Party and that you are not in sympathy
with it. If you desire to state to this committee why you are not in
sympathy with it, I would be glad to give you tliat opportunity.

Mr. EsHLEMAN. Thank you, Mr. Tavenner, for the invitation. I
have a short statement here which I would like to read.

There is a lot of paperwork involved in appearing before these
committees. I have written it out, and apparently I have mislaid it,
but I would like a minute to find it.

Mr. Scherer. Take all the time you need.

Mr. EsHLEMAN. I believe that this committee, under the first amend-
ment, has no right to inquire into anyone's political associations, past
or present-
Mr. Tavenner. Just a minute. That is not in response to the invi-
tation I gave you. You said j^ou opposed communism. I said I would
give you an opportunity to state why you are opposed to communism.
You are giving a statement of your opposition to this committee. We
know that without asking.

HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1281

Mr. EsHLEMAN. I am not a Communist nor in sympathy witli it, nor
am I in sympathy with the rightwing subversion which is active
today

Mr. Tavenner. Again, it is not responsive to the question at all. It
is quite apparent what the gentleman has in mind, and I think he
should not be permitted to deliver a prepared speech against the work
of this committee.

Mr. ScHERER. Are you sure you have the proper statement at this
time I

Mr. Galloway. I read the statement, Mr. Chairman, and there is
some pretty good stuff in it. It is not nitended to belittle this com-
mittee at all, but if you intend that it not be read we can only bow to
your direction on that.

Mr. ScHERER. I would like to have it, as all statements are required
to be submitted to the committee, and we will make it part of the
record.

Mr. Galloway. The man is here before the public

Mr. ScHERER. Obviously the answer of the witness has not been re-
sponsive so far.

Mr. Galloway. It has not been responsive to the specific question so
far, but there is other material which was about to be stated which
would be.

Mr. ScHERER. Maybe I am wrong, but I understand the witness said
he was not in sympathy with the objectives of the Communist Party
at the present time. Mr. Tavenner said, and I think properly so, if
you care to tell us why you are not in sympathy with the Communist
objectives at this time, we would be happy to hear from you. If any
part of his statement deals with that, we will be happy to hear it. If
iiot, he can submit his statement to the committee, if he so desires.

Mr. EsHLEMAN. If the committee does not wish to hear my state-
ment — which I have prepared because my friends and enemies are
watching me and will judge me — I wanted to state how I feel and I
wanted to tell a bit of my political beliefs, of which I am proud and
which might possibly be a new light or of some help to this com-
mittee. Since you do not care to hear it, we will bow to your ruling.

Mr. ScHERER. You are misinterpreting what I said. I said any part
of your statement which is responsive to the question which you indi-
cated would be your answer, we would be happy to hear from you, but
it is in violation of the rules of the committee to make a speech or a
statement unrelated to the questions at hand, particularly from a
witness who has

Mr. EsHLEMAN. If I am going to tell this committee my political
beliefs, I will tell them that I will not have any parts put in out of
context. I think the whole thing is related. What Mr. Tavenner
related to I have objected to it, because it is out of context. The
whole statement would respond to this question.

Mr. ScHERER. May I point out that you refused to answer the initial
questions propounded to you by Mr. Tavenner on the grounds that you
would not discuss with this committee your political beliefs. I think
we have reached an impasse. The witness is excused.

(Witness excused.)

Mr. ScHERER. Call your next witness, Mr. Tavenner.

Mr. Tavenner. Mrs. Dorothy Jeffers.

]282 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.

Mr. ScHERER. I believe this witness was sworn yesterday.

Mr. Tavenner. Yes, sir. However, Mr. Chairman, since this is a
different subcommittee, in order to avoid any difficulty, may I ask that
she be sworn again.

Mr. ScHERER. You do solemnly swear that the testimony you are
about to give at tliis hearing will be the truth, the whole truh, and
nothing but the truth, so help you God ?

Mrs. Jeffers. I do.

TESTIMONY OF MRS. DOROTHY (M.) JEFFERS— Resumed

Mr. Tavenner. I believe you testified, Mrs. Jeffers, that you at one
time were a treasurer of one of the professional groups of the Com-
munist Party.

Mrs. Jeffers. Yes.

Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell us, please, briefly, what your duties as
treasurer were?

Mrs. Jeffers. The duties of the treasurer were to handle all moneys
of the club, to collect dues and sustainers, to pay any bills that the
club may have incurred as a result of mailings or funds that were
expenses for a party, that sort of thing. Also, the moneys collected
from dues and sustainers were remitted to, I believe, the section com-
mittee treasurer.

Mr. Tavenner. You spoke of sustainer funds. Wliat do you mean
by that?

Mrs. Jeffers. A sustainer was a personal pledge from each member
over and above his dues payment to support the Communist Party.

Mr. Tavenner. "VVlien you were paid the Communist Party dues by
the members, and these sustainer funds or contributions, what dis-
position did you make of the money ?

]Mrs. Jeffers. I turned them over to the county office.

JMr. Tavenner. The county office where ?

Mrs. Jeffers. 942 Market Street.

Mr. Tavenner. Will you speak up a little more, please ?

Can you recall at this time the name of any person to whom you
delivered those funds ?

Mrs. Jeffers. Yes ; I regularly gave them to Dan Mah.

Mr. Tavenner. Dan JSIah ; M-a-h.

Mrs. Jeffers. Dan Mali : M-a-h.

Mr. Tavenner. Do you have any knowledge of your own as to how
these funds were used after being paid over to the county headquar-
ters?

Mrs. Jeffers. I do not.

Mr. Ta\^nner. Were you a membership director of one of these
groups ?

Mrs. Jeffers. Yes ; I was.

Mr. Ta\t:nner. What were your duties as a membership director?

Mrs. Jeffers. Membership director was to take charge of club
attendance records, to interest and discuss with people their re-
cruiting of other people into the Communist Party, to talk with
people who were not attending regularly, to make them see and
understand their political resj)onsibility to attend party meetings
regularly.

HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1283

Mr. TA^^NNER. What type of records were maintained of these
secret groups ?

Mrs. Jeffers. When I first entered the party, rather regular rec-
ords were kept.' Later, it was frowned upon to keep records of either
dues payments or attendance.

Mr. TA\TiNNER. Speak a little louder, please. Wliat did you say
was the practice later ?

Mrs. Jeffers. As security regidations were tightened, it was
frowned upon to keep any sort of records. We were not supposed
to keep anything in writing.

Mr. TA\^]srNER. You were not supposed to keep anything in writ-
ing ?

Mrs. Jeffers. It was an extremely difficult thing to keep track
without any written record.

Mr. Ta\^nner. Was any plan devised to keep a record which
would be intelligible only to the individual people ?

Mrs. Jeffers. I devised a very simple code which anyone could
read if they really studied it hard, but at a quick glance I do not
think you would know what it was.

Mr. TA^'ENXER. But you did not write out the name of the in-
dividual ?

Mrs. Jeffers. No. Membership directors were supposed to look
into the mass work of individual members, too.

Mr. TA^'E^^NER. By mass work, do you mean engaging in mass ac-
tivities ?

Mrs. Jeffers. Yes.

Mr. Tavenner. Before I ask you about that, did the work have
anything to do with recruitment into the Communist Party?

Mrs. Jeffers. Yes; that was one of the duties, to do personal
recruiting and to encourage others to make contacts which might
lead to the recruitment of people into the party.

Mr. Ta\'enner. Did you recruit anyone into the Communist Party ?

Mrs. Jeffers. No; I did not feel that I could recruit someone else
into an organization in which I did not have faith.

Mr. Tavenner. Did you at any time become a chairman of a
group ?

Mrs. Jeffers. I did.

Mr. Ta\'enner. Will you state about when that was?

Mrs. Jeffers. Probably 1951, and 1952, 1 would say.

Mr. Ta\:enner. What were your duties as chairman ?

Mrs. Jeffers. The chairman was responsible for the overall func-
tioning of the group ; to conduct meetings and attend executive com-
mittees ; keep up the morale of the group, which at that time was some-
what low; discuss participation in the mass work; discuss participa-
tion in club work; carrying out of assignments; do your Marxist-
Leninist reading. In general, it was to lend direction to the work
of the club,

Mr. Tavenxer. You said the morale at that time was low. Can
you give the committee any reason for the morale being low in those
years?

Mrs. Jeffers. I think this was a period, if I have my dates right,
when the Government had started a series of trials indicting Com-
munist Party leaders who were advocating the overthrow of the Gov-

94343— 57— pt. 2 6

1284 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.

ernment, and it made people very conscious of their personal security
and they began to think in these terms. It caused a great concern,
organizationally, in the party. Also, the Korean war — did I say
that? — increased tensions, and the international situation brought
on fear of possible war with China or with the U. S. S. R., so all in
all, it was a situation in flux when the party felt threatened and indi-
vidualists felt threatened as individuals. They felt that anything
could happen.

Mr. Tavenner, Were the cells of the Communist Party at that time
reduced in number?

Mrs. Jeffers. Yes; I think that is a period when the size of party
groups or branches was broken down into very small groups of 5 or
6 people. It was thought in this way, instead of having 20 or 15
people going to a home on regular occasions, 5 or 6 people is not very
conspicuous. Also, if there should be a Government agent in the
group, his information would be very much lessened down, to informa-
tion about a small group rather than a large group.

Mr. Tavenner. I think prior to the Smith Act trials, the extent
to which there had been infiltration bj^ the FBI into the Communist
Party was not generally known. Is that not true?

Mrs. Jeffers. I would say so.

Mr. Tavenner. In other words, this is infiltration in reverse?

Mrs. Jeffers. Yes.

Mr. Tavenner. The specialists in that field found that they them-
selves were being infiltrated ?

Mrs. Jeffers. Yes.

Mr. Tavenner. Did you hold a position with the Executive Com-
mittee of the Communist Party at any time ?

Mrs. Jeffers. I was a member of the Executive Committee of the
Professional Section for several years. I can't tell you exactly how
many, but after I became membership secretary and chairman I was
a member of the sectional committee.

Mr. Tavenner. How was that Executive Committee constituted?

Mrs. Jeffers. That was constituted of officers of the various
branches, I believe.

Mr. Tavenner. A little while ago you mentioned that one of your
duties was to see to assignments in mass organizations. What do you
mean by assignments in mass organizations?

Mrs. Jeffers. Every member of the Professional Section has a duty
to engage in what was called mass work. This means to become a
member of some organization which has a large number of members,
to learn the working of an organization, to become a responsible func-
tioning member, accepting assignments, giving leadership, making
friends; you eventually guide the direction. This would be the
eventual hope, to guide the direction of the organization. In the
beginning you would support other organizations' stated purposes
to meet the people. I would say the Communists are very good mem-
bers. They do their work. They do their assignments. They are
very effective.

Mr. Tavenner. That is virtually the only way to win influence in
an organization, to be active.

Mrs. Jeffers. Yes; thoroughly active and imbued with the
organization.

HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1285

Mr. Tavenner. Let me talk for a moment about your own assign-
ment in that respect. Was there any particular mass organization in
which you were expected to engage in work ?

Mrs. Jeffers. Yes ; I was assigned to the National Association for
the Advancement of Colored People. Their aims, the aims of the
party, the immediate aims of the party for Negroes — or all aims we can
agree upon — the immediate aims ai'e all aims we can agree upon for
improved conditions, civil rights, elimination of the poll tax, and so
forth.

Mr. Ta^^nner, Will you try to raise your voice a little, or get a
little closer to the microphone ?

Mrs. Jeffers. The later aims — of course, the ultimate aim is to get
Negroes to join the party. They work with them, they become friends
with them, they prove themselves sincere and honest workers for cause,
and you trust them. They hope, at least, that you will trust them and
say this is a good man. They feel I will help myself and my people
by joining this organization, as he has proved himself such a valuable
ally. This, I think, works in the same way in all of the workings in
which members took part.

Mr. TA^^NNER. You say it was the primary function of members of
this Professional Section of the Communist Party to engage in work
of that kind ?

Mrs. Jeffers. It was considered extremely important. If you were
simply a Communist Party member and reading party literature and
doing no work in a mass organization, you were said to be working in
a vacuum.

Mr. Tavenner. In other words, unless you were doing those things,
you were not propagating the plans and theories of the Communist
Party?

Mrs. Jeffers. You were not advancing the party or making the
party broader in its membership.

Mr. Ta\^nner. I believe you have indicated that "mass work" also
was used as a plan for recruitment into the Communist Party.

Mrs. Jeffers. Indeed so. It was thought, after being such a very
good person in the organization, proving so worthwhile and valuable
m your work, that you would have gained the trust of people, so that
when you made a proposal to them and have a nice little group of
friends coming over tonight — "AYhy don't you join us?" — this was the
first step, you see.

Mr. Tavenner. Many people have been led into the Communist
Party by that smooth method of operation. Is that not true ?

Mrs. Jeffers. Probably, probably. However, I do not think it has
worked so well among Negroes.

Mr. Tavenner. What was that ?

Mrs. Jeffers. I do not think the inducements worked too well among
Negroes.

Mr. Scherer. I agree with you. The testimony all over the country
has been that the Negroes have resisted the advances of the Commu-
nists to have them join the party better than any other segment of our
population. That is the sworn testimony before this committee.

Mr. Tavenner. While we are on that subject, I think it would be
interesting for us to know a little more in detail what the Communist
Party tried to sell the Negro people.

1286 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.

Mrs. Jeffers. Of course, the original bill of goods is improved con-
ditions in civil rights, the elimination of poll tax, the lynching law,
FEP legislation. This is a program on which all Negroes will go,
but the last part of their program is one on which Negroes do not
agree, and that is national liberation for the Negro people or at
least a choice of national liberation for the Negro people. As an
oppressed nation they would have a right to remain — whether they
would remain — as a nation within the confines of the United States
or whether they would become a separate nation. This is not at all
interesting to the Negro people. I can only speak for the few with
whom I have talked, but I think from the very fact that their cam-
paign failed — and there was a time when they were promoting this
very strongly and talking this very strongly without any results.

Mr. ScHERER. Again, I might say the testimony before the com-
mittee indicates what you say is absolutely true, that tlie Negroes
rejected the idea of a separate Negro nation as suggested in the Com-
munist Party program.

Mrs. Jeffers. Yes ; this is not their idea at all.

Mr. ScHERER. In other words, the Communist Party advocated
segregation.

Mrs. Jeffers. That is what it amounted to in my opinion, and I
think that is how the Negro saw it.

Mr. Tavenner. "\'Vliere was the Communist suggestion that this
so-called liberation movement should be and where should the new
state be created ?

Mrs. Jeffers. I don't think they got that far. At least I have no
knowledge of that. I do not think they made any kinds of sugges-
tions. Of course, they name what they called a Black Belt in the
South which has from 49 percent up of Negro population. I would
say, then, the state would take in that territory.

Mr. Scherer. Do we not have in evidence from previous witnesses
of the Negro race diagrams and maps from the Communist Party's
files itself showing how this segregated nation was supposed to be
set up ?

Mr. Tavenner. Yes ; a printed map of the United States with the
characters indicated as drawn on the map. Has the witness ever
seen it ?

Mrs. Jeffers. I may have, but I do not recall at this time.

Mr. Scherer. It was introduced by a Negro witness who had been
a member of the Communist Party and participated in that program
as I recall.

Mr. Ta\t3nner. The testimony was that that should indicate an
area which would be an independent country within the geographical
area of the United States and would be self autonomous.

Mrs. Jeffers. It seems to me that this is merely a way of segment-
ing a large nation. I think they have done tliis before in Eastern
Europe. Then, those countries are united, or they were in Europe,
united under the U. S. S. R. They were small, weak, and pretty
soon they are in and they belong to you.

Mr. Tavenner. In other words, it would be greatly to the interest
of a foreign power if this country could be divided within itself.

Mrs. Jeffers. Oh, yes.

HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1287

Mr. Tavenner, I understood you to say the Negro people would
not fall for such a scheme.

Mrs. Jefpers. Not at all.

Mr. Tavenner. The Communist Party, as I understood you to say,
was not satisfied with legitimately working for issues that the Negro
people were interested in, but they had other purposes in mind. Wliat
did you mean by that ?

Mrs. Jeffers. Well, the liberation of the oppressed Negro nation
would be one, and tlie growth of the party through Negro member-
ship would be another; and, of course, the weakening of the whole
United States would certainly be another, if a comparatively large
segment were taken from it.

Mr. Tavenner. Are you familiar with the writings of any Com-
munist Party leaders on the work of the Communist Party within
that group which would further indicate the motives of the Com-
munist Party? I asked you to bring certain documents with you.
I do not know if you have them with you or not.

Mrs. Jeffers. I have them here. I have a pamphlet here, dated
1947, on the Communist position

]\Ir. Tavenner. Will you excuse me just a minute.

Mr. Scherer. The committee will be in recess for about 5 minutes.

(Brief recess taken.)

Mr. Scherer. Will you proceed, Mr. Tavenner.

Mr. Tavenner, Mrs. Jeffers, you have called to my attention some
written material which you thought illustrated well what the Com-
munist Party was attempting to do and how it was attempting to
use the Negro people. Now, will you proceed and state to the com-
mittee what that written material is and quote from it anything that
you desire to carry your point.

Mrs. Jeffers. The two quotes which I will make are from a publi-
cation of the Communist Party

Mr. Tavenner. Excuse me a moment; your voice is not carrying.

Mrs. Jeffers. It is the Communist publication published in 1947
called The Comunist Position on the Negro Question.

It is a series of articles all related to the Communist position help-
ing Negroes win their immediate gains as we have mentioned, but all
leading to, and tied closely in with, an idea of national liberation.

This is a phrase which was much used. The first quote I will read
is from an article by Edward Strong. He says :

That leads me to the point of examining the program of the Negro liberation
movement in America, which at present is limited fundamentally to the specific
immediate demands, whereas what is required is for us to raise the level of
Negro liberation to qualitatively higher levels than what we see today. Other-
wise we can go on endlessly winning gains ; and for generations, ever since
Reconstruction, we have talked about the gains we have made, gains which
we promptly lost. We won gains here and lost them there. But the fact is —

and this, I think, is the crux —

that these gains constitute no threat basically to the capitalist system

Mr. Tavenner. Will you repeat that.
Mrs. Jeffers (reading) :

But the fact is that these gains —

1288 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.

referring earlier to anti-poll-tax legislation, fair employment, anti-
lynching law, and that sort of thing —

constitute no threat basically to the capitalist system, and in my opinion it is
essential for the liberation movement and the whole people's coalition movement
in America to conceive of the struggles for Negroes' rights which fundamentally
will lead the Negro people and liberation movement ultimately into head-on
collision with our oppression.

Mr. TA\nENNER. With what ?

Mrs. Jeffers. With our oppression. So I think that points out
what the ultimate goal is. I have another from the same publication.

Mr. Tavenner. I am not certain of the meaning of that last sen-
tence ; will you read it again please ?

Mrs. Jeffers. The last sentence reads :

But the fact is that these gains constitute no threat basically to the capitalist
system, and in my opinion it is essential for the liberation movement and the
whole people's coalition movement in America to conceive of the struggles for
Negroes' rights which fundamentally will lead the Negro people and liberation
movement ultimately into head-on collision with our oppression.

Mr. Tavenner. Would you look at that last word ; is it opposition
or oppression?

Mrs. Jeffers. We have a force here oppressing the Negro and we
will lead them head on into this force, which, of course, is capitalism.

Another quote in the same publication is by William L. Patterson.

Mr. Tavenner. He was the head of the Civil Rights Congress, was
he not ; or do you know ? If you do not know, I will merely state it
for the record that he was.

Mrs. Jeffers (reading) :

In the South the slogan for equal rights, used alone, obscures the revolu-
tionary character of the Negro liberation movement. It becomes a tool of
liberalism, guarantees no permanent gains, ultimately worsens the relations
of poor whites and the Negro people, seriously weakens the Negro movement
as an aid to the proletarian class struggle

Mr. Scherer. He is saying this about what? Is this about civil
rights ?

Mrs. Jeffers. This is an article on Negro liberation and the national
movement. Shall I read that again?

Mr. Scherer. Yes.

Mrs. Jeffers (reading) :

In the South the slogan for equal rights, used alone, obscures the revolutionary
character of the Negro liberation movement. It becomes a tool of liberalism,
guarantees no permanent gains, ultimately worsens the relations of poor whites
and the Negro people, seriously weakens the Negro movement as an aid to the
proletarian class struggle —

This is why we need the Negro as an aid to the proletarian class
struggle.

Mr. Tavenister. So the ultimate aim of the Communist Party was
merely to use the Negro people as its tool to accomplish its own
purpose.

Mrs. Jeffers. I think so. That is my opinion.

Mr. Ta-s^nner. You yourself are a Negro ; are you not ?

Mrs. Jeffers. Yes.

Mr. Ta\^nner. We had a hearing before our committee in the
early days of my connection with the committee, and we were as-
tounded to learn that Paul Robeson had made a declaration to a

HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1289

Tvorldwide audience from a foreign country that, in the event of
war between the United States and the Soviet Union, the Negro
people would not support the cause of the United States. At that
time the committee was so shocked that it felt it should give as
broad an audience as possible to representatives of the Negro race who
took a different view, and the first witness we called was Jackie
Eobinson — you may recall it — of the Brooklyn Dodgers. He testified
at considerable length on that subject. Before stating what his con-
clusion on it was, let me have your view of Paul Robeson's statement.

Mrs. Jetfers. I think that only a comparative handful of Negroes
who are in the party supported his statement. The rest of the Negro
population was aghast. This is contrary to the long history of the
faithfulness, patriotism, of the Negro people, and they feel it is a
tradition of their way.

Mr. Ta\^nner. That was the view of Jackie Robinson, who ex-
pressed it a little differently, and it was the view of many prominent
educators who are members of the Negro race. There has been noth-
ing that this committee has found, in the course of its investigations
over this country, that would indicate that your sunmiation on that
subject is in any sense wrong.

Mr. ScHERER. Have you finished, Mr. Tavenner ?

Mr. TA\'EN]srER. On that point ; yes. "Wlien we got into the discus-
sion of this subject, we were talking about mass organizations of the
Communist Party. You told us of the mass organization you had
been directed to work in, and I believe your testimony yesterday
would bear the conclusion that that was the reason the Communist
Party wanted you as a member because of your activity with that
group. Of course, there were numerous other mass organizations, and
I will want you to indicate all you can. Tell the committee all you
remember about the assignment of different people to work in partic-
ular mass organizations, aside from the general duty that everyone
had to work in such organizations. Rather than to try to pick them
out, I believe the best thing for you to do would be to give the com-
mittee, at this time, a statement identifying all persons whom you
personally know were members of the Professional Section of the
Communist Party, and, in doing that, I have asked you to sit down
and write out those names as nearly as you could remember them.
As you give us the names, I would like for you to advise the commit-
tee all that you can now recall regarding their activities and their
identification, and particularly as to those who had any special as-
signment in mass organization. It might help in doing that — I be-
lieve I asked you to break them down as well as you could as to what
professions these people were in ; so will you proceed, please ?

Mrs. Jeffers. I have broken them down into categories according
to their work. The first category which I have listed is that of doc-
tors. I have on my list, Dr. Evelyn Siris and Dr. Sol Bineman.

Mr. Ta\t:nxer. Dr. Evelyn Siris and Dr. Sol Bineman.

Mrs. Jeffers. I think that I was not familiar with their mass
assignments.

Mr. Tavenxer. Both of them have testified here during the course
of this hearing.

Do you recall, with regard to Dr. Bineman, whether meetings were
held in his home ?

1290 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.

Mrs. Jeffers. I have attended meetings in his home.

Mr. Ta\^nner. What type of meetings were they ?

Mrs. Jeffers. They were section meetings. I was not in a club
group with him.

Mr. Tavenner. That was a section meeting of the Professional
Section ?

Mrs. Jeffers. That is correct.

Mr. Tavenner. Interpreting that statement by your previous state-
ment, that meant that he was a member of the section committee rep-
resenting the doctors' cell ; is that correct ?

Mrs, Jeffers. That is correct.

Mr. Ta\tenner. And those meetings were held in his home ?

Mrs. Jeffers. Some of them were ; not all.

Then, I have attorneys. Mr. Harold Sawyer, Mr. Hugh Miller,
Mr. George Andersen.

Mr. Tavenner. Excuse me now ; you say Hugh Miller ?

Mrs. Jeffers. Yes.

Mr. Tavenner. All right ; next ?

Mrs. Jeffers. Mr. George Andersen. Miss Hanna Wilber, Mr. Ju-
lius Keller and Mr. Charles Garry. I was not in a club with either
of these last two. I was in clubs with their wives and knew from
their conversations that their husbands were also Communist Party
members. Mrs. Garry complained that her husband gave all her
money to sustainers and would not give her enough.

Mr. Tavenner. Do you recall Mrs. Garry's first name ?

Mrs. Jeffers. Louise.

Mr. Tavenner. Will you state how you knew JMrs. Keller?

Mrs. Jeffers. Mrs. Keller was a member of my club group.

Mr. Tavenner. Can you tell us what her first name was ?

Mrs. Jeffers. I don't remember. She worked as a bookkeeper in
a nightclub. I can't, at this moment. I don't recall. When she left
her husband, we were informed in an executive session of our com-
mittee that we were to have no further contact with her because —
what is the word when you take funds or stop the use of funds

Mr. Tavenner. Attach.

Mrs. Jeffers. Yes; she had attached funds of her husband, part
of which funds were part of Haymarket money.

Mr. Tavenner. What kind of money ?

Mrs. Jeffers. The Haymarket Club's money.

Mr. Tavenner. You mean of the Communist Party ?

Mrs. Jeffers. Yes.

Mr. Tavenner. So, in the attachment, she caught some of the
Communist Party funds ?

Mrs. Jeffers. Yes.

Mr. Tavenner. Wliat w^ere you directed to do ?

Mrs. Jeffers. To have no further contact with her at all ; not even
to speak to her, if we should see her.

Mr. Tavenner. Was that the equivalent of the expulsion of her ?

Mrs. Jeffers. Yes; I would say that that was the equivalent of
expulsion.

Mr. Tavenner. You have mentioned other lawyers, and you have
explained fully as to Mr. Sawyer, who is president of your club.
How did you know the others to be members of the Communist Party ?

HEARINGS HELD EST SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1291

Mrs. Jeffers. Mr. Miller was also president of our club at one
time, Mr. Andersen was a member of the club before the lawyers
set up a separate branch.

Mr. Tavenner. Did you ever attend a meeting of the lawyers' cell
of the Communist Party, which you called the Haymarket Club,
after it was formed ?

Mrs. Jeffers. No.

Mr. Tavenner. Did you ever attend a meeting of the doctors' cell
after it was formed ?

Mrs. Jeffers. No.

Mr. Tavenner. Up to this point, do you recall any special assign-
ments given any of the persons whom you have identified ?

Mrs. Jeffers. I do not recall.

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

Mrs. Jeffers. That was all of the attorneys. Then, we come to
teachers: Irene Miller; Ned Hanchett, who was assigned to the
Teachers' Union.

Mr. Ta^t:nner. Stop there just a moment. Wliat do you mean
"assigned to the Teachers' Union"?

Mrs. Jeffers. That was the organization in which he was working
to influence their policies, perhaps legislation and so forth, pertaining
to teachers. This was his mass assignment.

Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee at this point anything
that you can recall regarding the activity of the Communist Party in
the work of the American Federation of Teachers.

Mrs. Jeffers. No, I do not, because at the time — I think at this
time the club had already split and teachers were in one small cell,
miscellaneous workers in another.

Mr. Tavenner. The teachers at one time worked in a group of their
own?

Mrs, Jeffers. Yes. That was in the latter days of my membership
in the party.

Mr. Tavenner. Do you recall at any of the general meetings of
your professional club whether or not any report was made of any
character regarding the work that was being attempted?

Mrs. Jeffers. I am sure that there were reports. This was re-
quired from time to time — progress — but I cannot recall any of the
content.

Mr. Tavenner. Did individuals who were assigned to mass organi-
zations other than the Teachers' Union likewise make reports back to
the parent organization of the work that they were doing?

Mrs. Jeffers. Yes.

Mr. Ta\^nner. Were those reports discussed ?

Mrs. Jeffers. They were discussed. You might get advice if a
knotty problem had arisen in our organization. You might have a
whole session on those as to what your attitude should be, what line
you should take, and so on.

Mr. Scherer. During all of this time, you were making reports
regularly to the Federal Bureau of Investigation ?

Mrs. Jeffers. That is right.

Mr. Tavenner. The last name that you gave us was Hanchett.

Mrs. Jeffers. Hanchett. The next one is Jane Scribner. She was
not a doctor. She was a teacher then.

1292 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.

Mr. Tavenner. What is she doing now ?

Mrs. Jeffers. Now, I think, she has her Ph. D. She was a bac-
teriologist.

Mr. Tavenner. Spell her name, please.

Mrs. Jeffers. S-c-r-i-b-n-e-r. She was interested in UOPWA.

Mr. Tavenner. She was interested in what organization?

Mrs. Jeffers. That is the Union of Office and Professional "Work-
ers of America. She was also interested in organizing technicians. I
cannot give you any progress report on whatever was done about that,
but I remember some discussion about her work in organizing it.

The next name is William Kerner.

Mr. Tavenner. When you say reports, are you talking about re-
ports made to Communist Party meetings ?

Mrs. Jeffers. Yes.

Mr. Tavenner. Excuse me, you gave another name that I did not
hear.

Mrs. Jeffers. William Kerner.

Mr. Tavenner. How do you spell that ?

Mrs. Jeffers. K-e-r-n-e-r. He was working with the American-
Kussian Institute and the California Labor School. He was an ex-
pert on Asian affairs. Mr. Jack Patten.

Mr. Tavenner. Is that the Dr. Patten who testified here?

Mrs. Jeffers. Yes ; and a teacher whose name was Mort, but I don't
know that I ever knew his last name.

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know whether that was a nickname for
Morton ?

Mrs. Jeffers. I could not tell ;y'ou.

Mr. Tavenner. All you know is Mort ?

Mrs. Jeffers. Yes.

Mr. Ta\tenner. Proceed, please.

Mrs. Jeffers. Mr. Thomas Hardwick. Miss Bea Melner.

Mr. Tavenner. Wliat is the profession ?

Mrs. Jeffers. These are all teachers. M-e-1-n-e-r.

Mr. Tavenner. Wliat is the spelling of her first name ?

Mrs. Jeffers. I imagine it must be Beatrice. We called her Bea.
Jane Robinson was also a teacher.

Mr. Tavenner. How do you know those people were members of
this group ?

Mrs. Jeffers. I was in a branch with these people.

Mr. Tavenner. What was the name after Bea Melner ?

Mrs. Jeffers. Jane Robinson. John Horowitz. That concludes the
list of teachers.

Then we have two architects. Sydney Brisker, who was interested
in AM VETS.

Mr. Tavenner. How do you spell the last name ?

Mrs. Jeffers. B-r-i-s-k-e-r.

Mr. Tavenner. Wliat did you say he was ?

Mrs. Jeffers. Is there an organization AMVETS ?

Mr. Scherer. Yes; there is such an organization.

Mrs. Jeffers. And Harold Dow; I do not recall his mass work.

Mr. Scherer. Of course, let it be understood that your mention-
ing the AMVETS does not mean in any way that there was anything
subversive about the AMVETS. I know you did not say that, but so

HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1293

the record is abundantly clear, this particular architect's job was to be
active within the AMVETS?

Mrs. Jeffers. That is right.

Mr. Tavenner. It should not be taken as a reflection on these or-
ganizations, because the Communist Party has endeavored to in-
filtrate every phase of our social form of life.

Mrs. Jeffers. And I think these organizations were unaware that
these members were members of the Communist Party.

Mr. ScHERER. You can be sure of that with the AMVETS.

Mrs. Jeffers. We had three artists ; Victor Arnautoff.

Mr. Tavenner. Can you spell it?

Mrs. Jeffers. A-r-n-a-u-t-o-f -f , I believe.

Mr. Tavenner. He has been a witness, Mr. Chairman, before this
committee at a previous hearing, but has refused to answer material
questions on the grounds that to do so might tend to incriminate
him.

Mr. Scherer. I remember him very well.

Mrs. Jeffers. Ray Burrell.

Mr. Tavenner. Will you give us the spelling ?

Mrs. Jeffers. B-u-r-r-e-1-1, 1 think.

Mr. Tavenner. Ray Burrell.

Mrs. Jeffers. In the early days of my party membership I attended
one meeting at the studio of Emmy Lou Packard.

Mr. Tavenner. Give us the name again.

Mrs. Jeffers. E-m-m-y L-o-u P-a-c-k-a-r-d.

Mr. Tavenner. Wliat was the identifying information that you
gave regarding her ?

Mrs. Jeffers. I attended one meeting in her studio.

Mr. Tavenner. Was she present ?

Mrs. Jeffers. I think so.

We had three clerical workers — Doris Kottnauer, Celia Wilby, and
Peggy Patten.

We had one newspaper person to my knowledge, who was Jack
Eshleman, and his mass work was the New^spaper Guild.

Mr. Tavenner. Was he the witness on the stand this morning ?

Mrs. Jeffers. I was not present during his testimony. We had
three musicians.

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Chairman, Celia Wilby was under subpena,
but due to a doctor's certificate the committee felt that she should be
excused and she was excused. You may proceed.

Mrs. Jeffers. Under musicians, we have Mary Burrell. Lev and
Frances Shorr.

Mr. Tavenner. Is the spelling "es" or "is" ?

Mrs. Jeffers. "es" I would judge.

Mr. Tavenner. Are they husband and wife ?

Mrs. Jeffers. Yes, sir. We had one scientist whose name was
Jack. His party dues were brought in by Dad [Isaac] Folkoff,
and we knew him only by "Dad."

Mr. Tavenner. How do you know that he was a scientist?

Mrs. Jeffers. "Dad" said so.

Mr. Tavenner. Did he ever attend a meeting ?

Mrs. Jeffers. He attended one meeting.

Mr. Tavenner. To whom did Folkoff pay the dues for Jack?

1294 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.

Mrs. Jeffers. I think he paid me.

Mr. Ta\tenner. You say you think he did? Are you uncertain?

Mrs. Jeffers. No ; I am not.

Mr. Ta\^nner. Why were the dues of this person by the name of
Jack paid by Folkoff ?

Mrs. Jeffers. Apparently this was a very hush-hush man who did
not want to attend meetings, but his dues were brought in and he
was a member. There was no other reason for him to pay dues.

Mr. Tavenner. Do you recall for how long a period of time dues
were paid to you for this person ?

Mrs. Jeffers. For a year at least.

Mr. Tavenner. Can you fix the approximate period of time when
that occurred ?

Mrs. Jeffers. I would hesitate to do so.

Mr. Tavenner. Was Folkoff a member of the professional group?

Mrs. Jeffers. Yes.

Mr. Tavenner. I noticed you used the term "Dad" Folkoff. Wliat
was his real name ?

Mrs. Jeffers. His name was Isaac, but we called him Dad.

Mr. Tavenner. Can you recall this person by the name of Jack
well enough to give us any description of him ?

Mrs. Jeffers. I can't tell you whether he was blond or brmiette.
I can only tell you that he was the most unscientific person I ever saw,
just a sloppy looking man, very silent.

Mr. Tavenner. Very silent?

Mrs. Jeffers. Yes ; and not tall.

Mr. Tavenner. What about the age range, as well as you can recall
now? Was he a young man or an old man or middle aged man, or
how would you describe him ?

Mrs. Jeffers. I would say he was a man in his early forties, possibly
late thirties, but right in there.

Mr. Tavenner. Was anything said about the character of work in
which he was engaged ?

Mrs. Jeffers. No; only that he was a scientist. We had another,
miscellaneous workers

Mr. Tavenner. Let me ask you, did you have an occasion at any
time to become acquainted with members of the professional group
of the Communist Party at Berkeley ?

Mrs. Jeffers. Never.

Mr. Tavenner. All right.

Mrs. Jeffers. We had a number of miscellaneous workers, one of
whom was John Lindberg who was working with the CIO ; Norman
Canright.

Mr. Taa^nner. Spell the name.

Mrs. Jeffers. C-a-n-r-i-g-h-t.

Isaac Folkoff, of whom you spoke ; Dave Atkinson, who is deceased.

Mr. Ta\tenner. What is the spelling of that name ?

Mrs. Jeffers. A-t-k-i-n-s-o-n. Laura Atkinson, his sister; Lillian
Silver.

Mr. Tavenner. What is the last name ?

Mrs. Jeffers. Silver. Vern Smith ; Emerson Street.

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know how Emerson Street was employed?

HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1295

Mrs. Jeffers. I think that he was in publicity or public relations.
I think he prepared a brochure for us at one time as being a part of
his normal work. Then, there was Decca Treuhaft. She was not a
member of my group but she did give 1 or 2 educational contributions
to our group, coming in from the county group, calling in with some
things of importance.

Mr. Ta\^nner. Was it the practice to have outsiders ; that is, other
Communist Party members who were not members of the professional
cell of the Communist Party to come before your meeting?

Mrs. Jeffers. We seldom invited them, but sometimes the county
thought it was well to send a person around to every club when an
important subject was in the air, to give an educational line, to in-
form the membership, and it was best to have this done by an expert
rather than having it handled by a club member who was not fully
familiar with the subject, and I think this is the way in which Mrs.
Treuhaft came to us. Frances Watson.

Mr. Tav-enner. "is" or "es" ?

Mrs. Jeffers. "es" I would judge.

Mr. Tavenner. It was a woman ?

Mrs. Jeffers. Yes; and she is in publicity or public relations, as
you choose.

Ed Young, who was at one time chairman of our group. I do not
know wliat his work was nor wliat his mass work was. If I did know
it, I do not any longer recall it. That completes the list of miscel-
laneous workers. Now I have some housewives.

Mr. Tavenner. What is your explanation as to how the housewives
got into the professional group of the Communist Party ?

Mrs. Jeffers. If their husbands were professional people, for rea-
sons of security their wives were not in an open group. Helen Miller.

Mr. Tavenner. Whose wife was she?

Mrs. Jeffers. Hugh Miller. Her mass work was League of Women
Voters. y

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know whether she had been employed in
Government service in the city of Washington ?

Mrs. Jeffers. I could not tell you. Louise Garry, whose mass work
was Women's International League for Peace and Freedom.

Louise Bransten, whose mass work I do not know.

Mr. Tavenner. What was the reason for Louise Bransten being
a member of the Professional Section of the Communist Party?

Mrs. Jeffers. This might be pure speculation on my part. She
was not married at the time. She was an extremely wealthy woman
and her family was wealthy, and that might be the reason.

Mr. Tavenner. At least she was in a position to aid the Commu-
nist Party financially ?

Mrs. Jeffers. Yes ; and did.

Mr. Tavenner. And did ?

Mrs. Jeffers. Yes.

Mr. Tavenner. Can you tell us anything more about that? I do
not want you to rely on purely hearsay statements about it.

Mrs. Jeffers. Perhaps I had better not say at all, because it would
be hearsay.

Mr. Tavenner. Did you ever attend a meeting in her home?

Mrs. Jeffers. Yes.

1296 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.

Mr. SciiERER. A Communist Party meeting?

Mrs. Jeffers. Yes.

Mr. Tavenner. Louise Bransten was called before this committee
in Washington quite a period of time ago. She refused to answer
any material questions regarding contributions to the Communist
Party or her membership in it, relying upon the provisions of the
fifth amendment, claiming that to answer the questions might tend
to incriminate her,

Mrs. Jeffers. After Louise Bransten, Ann Glass, Lillian Gordon.
I do not know of her mass work. She had a very sick baby over
a period of years^ — Lillian Gordon.

Mr. Tavenner. Whose wife was she? Was she married?

Mrs. Jeffers. I know by hearsay, but I do not know by my own
knowledge. Aline Pockman.

Mr. Tavenner. How do you spell it ?

Mrs. Jeffers. I spell it A-1-i-n-e, but I do not know that that is
right. That completes my list.

Mr. Tavenner. Do you recall her husband's name ?

Mrs. Jeffers. Aline's?

Mr. Tavenner. Yes.

Mrs. Jeffers. Yes ; Leonard Pockman.

Mr. Ta\^nner. Leonard Pockman is the person you testified about
yesterday as the one who came to you to investigate you before taking
you into the Communist Party ?

Mrs. Jeffers. Yes.

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Leonard Pockman was sub-
penaed. For medical reasons, he was excused.

Is there anything else you could tell this committee that may be of
help to it in connection with the activities of the Professional Section
of the Communist Party in San Francisco?

Mrs. Jeffers. At the moment, no.

Mr. ScHERER. Do you have any further questions ?

Mr. Tavenner. I have no further questions.

Mr. ScHERER. Mr. Mcintosh, do you have any further questions?

Mr. McIntosh. No, sir.

Mr. ScHERER. The job of being an undercover agent for the Fed-
eral Bureau of Investigation is a difficult one and an unpleasant one.
I know that many, many times you have been called by certain small
segments of the population an informer, stool pigeon, and a perjurer.
You have rendered a valuable service to the Government of the United
States. Too many people do not appreciate that service. However,
I think sometime in the near future, when the American people as a
whole understand the nature of the Communist conspiracy and what
it is trying to do — if it is any satisfaction to you — I think at that
time they will fully appreciate the contribution which you and persons
like you have made for your Government and the security of your
Government. This committee wants to thank you for your assistance
to it in these hearings. You are excused.

Mr. Ta^t:nner. Mr. Sydney H. Brisker.

Mr. Mack. I am an attorney representing Mr. Brisker, and I wish,
before he appears before you, to object to his being called, to object
to his being asked any questions on tlie following grounds.

Mr. Scherer. Would you step up to the bench. Rule 7 of the com-
mittee, I think you are aware of it.

HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1297

Mr. IVIack. I have been engaged in colloquy with the other members
sitting. I stated m}^ objections to them which are to go on the record.
The objections are that there is no quorum of the original subconi-
mittee, and that there is no showing, so far as I know, although this
is apparently not necessarily so in fact, that the new subcommittee
appointed was not appointed in writing and that there are not both
Democrats and Republicans as required by rule 25-A of the House
of Representatives. I might say Mr. Scherer has explained to me
the circumstances under which he overruled my objection.

Mr. SciiERER. "Will you again call the witness.

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Sydney H. Brisker.

Mr. Scherer. Will you raise your right hand, please? You do
solemnly swear that the testimou}' you are about to give at this hear-
ing will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,
so help you God?

Mr. Brisker. I do.

TESTIMONY OF SYDNEY H. BRISKER, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL,

JULIAN MACK

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

Mr. Mack. One moment, counsel, please.

Mr. Brisker. Mr. Counsel, I would like to say that any question
which I answer will be made under ])rotest ancl will be subject to
the objections that were raised by my attorney just previous to my
being called.

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

Mr. Brisker. Sydney H. Brisker.

Mr. Tavex'^xer. Will counsel accompanying the witness please
identify himself for the record?

Mr. ^L\CK. My name is Julian Mack ; I am a member of the Cali-
fornia bar, practicing in San Francisco.

Mr. Tavexxer. When were you born?

Mr. Brisker. March 30, 1914, Meadville, Pa.

Mr. Tav'enxer. Where do you reside?

Mr. Brisker. In the city of San Francisco.

Mr. Ta\^xx'er. How long have you been a resident of California ?

Mr. Brisker. I have been a resident of California since 1945.

Mr. TA^'EXXEK. Have you lived in the city of San Francisco con-
tinuously during that period ?

Mr. Brisker. No, sir ; I lived in the city of San Francisco from the
end of 1945 until the end of 1950, at which time I moved to the city of
Los Angeles.

Mr. Tavexxer. You moved to Los Angeles in 1950 ?

Mr. Brisker. That is right.

Mr. Tavexxer. When did you return to San Francisco ?

Mr. Brisker. I returned to San Francisco about 2 years ago.

Mr. Taa-exxer. Did you live in Los Angeles from 1950 until about
2 years ago ?

Mr. Brisker. That is correct, sir.

Mr. Tavexxer. What is your profession or occupation ?

Mr. Brisker. I am an architect.

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

1298 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.

Mr. Brisker. I am a graduate of Dale University, bachelor of
science degree in industrial engineering. I attended graduate school
at Lehigh University. I studied architecture at Drexel Institute,
Engineer School of Architecture and the University of Architecture.

Mr. Tavenner. When did you complete your last work in that field ?

Mr. Brisker. My last work in that field was at the University of
California in the spring of 1946.

Mr. Tavenner. AVill you tell the committee, please, if you know
whether or not members of the Professional Section of the Communist
Party in the city of San Francisco were expected to engage in Com-
munist Party work in mass organizations ?

Mr. Brisker. Mr. Counsel, I will state that I am not a member of
the Communist Party. I have no knowledge of the existence of a
professional section of the Communist Party.

As to your particular question, I decline to answer that question on
the ground of the first amendment, the due process and self-incrimi-
nating clauses of the fifth amendment, and the recent ruling in the
Watkins case regarding jurisdiction.

Mr. ScHERER. Witness, did you say you have no knowledge of the
existence of a professional cell in the Communist Party? Is that
correct ?

Mr. Brisker. That is correct.

Mr. ScHERER. Do you mean you have no knowledge of the exist-
ence of a professional cell at this time ? Is that what you mean ?

Mr. Brisker. That is correct.

Mr. ScHERER. Did you ever have knowledge of a professional cell
of the Communist Party in the bay area ?

Mr. Brisker. I decline to answer that question on the same grounds
previously stated.

Mr. ScHERER. Proceed, Mr. Tavenner.

Mr. Tavenner. According to the Daily People's World of July 14,
1947, you were a delegate-at-large for the coming year to the American
Veterans Committee. This article states that Norman Leonard, Dr.
Asher Gordon, among others, were also delegates so named.

Is that correct ? And if you desire to look at the document, I will
be glad to hand it to you.

Mr. Brisker. I decline to answer that question on the grounds pre-
viously stated.

Mr. Tavenner, Were you a member of a professional cell of the
Communist Party on July 14, 1947 ?

Mr. Brisker. I decline to answer that question for the same previ-
ous reasons.

Mr. Tavenner. Were you assigned to work within that organiza-
tion by the Communist Party ?

Mr. Brisker. I decline to answer that question on the same grounds
as previously stated.

Mr. Tavenner. I have before me the Daily Worker of New York
under date of November 1, 1948. The page is devoted to an adver-
tisement entitled, "The Heroes of Yesterday Speak Up Today !
World War II Vets Demand Dismissal of Indictments of 'The
Twelve.' " It is a letter to President Truman and Attorney General
Tom Clark. The first name appearing among a great number who

HEARINGS HELD EST SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1299

signed is that of Sydney H. Brisker, San Francisco, Calif. Will you
examine it please and state whether or not you signed such a letter?

Mr. Brisker. I decline to answer that question on the grounds
previously stated.

Mr. Tavenner. On November 1, 1948, were you a member of a pro-
fessional group of the Communist Party in San Francisco ?

Mr. Brisker. I decline to answer that question on the grounds
previously stated.

I would like to state that I will not answer any questions regarding
my past affiliations, memberships or associations.

Mr. Scherer. May I ask you, Witness, were you in the room when
the last witness, Dorothy Jeffers, testified ?

Mr. Brisker. I was, sir ; yes, sir.

Mr. Scherer. Did you hear her testimony, insofar as it concerned
you?

Mr. Brisker. I did, sir.

Mr, Scherer. Is there anything that she told this committee, insofar
as it related to you and your activities, which was untrue ?

Mr. Brisker. She stated that I was a member of the AMVETS, and
that is not a true statement.

Mr. Scherer. Was she telling the truth when she said that you
were a Communist and a member of the professional cell of the Com-
munist Party ?

Mr. Brisker. I decline to answer that question on the grounds
previously stated.

Mr. Scherer. I do not exactly remember her testimony as to
whether she said you were a member of AMVETS. She may have
said that. It was my understanding of her testimony that you were
assigned as a member of a professional cell of tlie Communist Party
to work in the AMVETS organization. I may be wrong, but that is
my understanding of her testimony. I do not believe she said you
were a member.

Mr. Brisker. I decline to answer that question on the grounds
previously stated.

Mr. Tavenker. In light of your statement, I want you to examine
again the document of July 14, 1947, in which you are stated to have
been elected a delegate-at-large for the coming year in the AVC.

Mr. Mack. Counsel, I believe if you will call a 1-minute recess I
might straighten you out on some facts.

Mr. Scherer. I did not understand you.

Mr. Mack. If I might have colloquy with your counsel.

Mr. Scherer. The committee will be in recess, as requested by coun-
sel for the witness.

(Brief recess taken.)

Mr. Scherer. Proceed, Mr. Tavenner.

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Chairman, counsel has very properly called my
attention to tlie fact that the document which I handed the witness
relates to the American Veterans Committee, and that is the document
I described, whereas the testimony of Mrs. Jeffers had to deal with
AMVETS, which is an entirely different organization.

The witness replied to your question a few moments ago that he
had never been a member of AMVETS ; is that correct?

Mr. Brisker. That is correct.

94343— 57— pt. 2 7

1300 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.

Mr. TA^^ENNER. Have you been a member of the organization men-
tioned in the document which I produced, the American Veterans
Committee ?

Mr. Brisker. I decline to answer the question on the grounds pre-
viously stated.

Mr. Tavenner. Were you not elected a delegate along with the
other persons I mentioned, Dr. Asher Gordon and at least one other
person whose name I cannot recall, for the year beginning in July
1947?

Mr. Brisker. I decline to answer that question on the grounds
previously stated.

Mr. Tavenner. Were you assigned by the professional cell of the
Communist Party or by anyone in that party to work within the group
known as the American Veterans Committee ?

Mr. Brisker. I decline to answer that question on the grounds
previously stated.

Mr. Tavenner. You stated that you are not a member of the Com-
munist Party now. Will you tell the committee, please, over how
long a period prior to this date you have not been a member of the
party?

Mr. Brisker. I decline to answer the question on the grounds pre-
viously stated.

Mr. Tavenner. You said you do not know of the existence at this
time of a professional group of the Communist Party in San Fran-
cisco. Did you know of the existence of such a group during the year
1946 or at any time during that year ?

Mr. Brisker. I decline to answer that question on the grounds
previously stated.

Mr. Tavenner. So you will give the committee no information
relating to the subject of its inquiry other than as to the present
moment when you say you know nothing about it ?

Mr. Brisker. The same answer.

Mr. Tavenner. I have no further questions.

Mr. Scherer. Do you have any questions ?

Mr. McIntosh. I have no questions.

Mr. Scherer. Before the witness is excused, I want to make this
statement: A number of attorneys who have appeared before this
committee, representing witnesses at this particular committee hear-
ing, have talked to me about the fact that there might be some pos-
sible reflection against them for having appeared as attorneys on be-
half of some of the witnesses. I am making this statement at their
i-equest and I am happy to do so. There should be no reflection what-
soever cast upon any attorney who appears under the rules of this
committee. A witness has the privilege of counsel.

We welcome comisel. Often it expedites the hearing to have a
M'itness represented by counsel. I might say that it is the opinion of
the committee, and I think I speak for Mr. ]\IcIntosii, that the
lawyers who have appeared so far in this hearing have conducted
themselves in an exemplary manner and in full accord with the pro-
visions of the law and have ably and conscientiously and properly
represented their clients. I am happy to make that statement.

The witness is excused.

(Witness excused.)

HEARINGS HELD EN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1301

Mr. ScHERER. The committee will recess until 1 :30.

Will some of the witnesses who are subpenaed for 2 o'clock this
afternoon attempt to be here at 1 : 30 so we might expedite the hearing ?

If you are not, of course, we will not proceed until 2 o'clock.

(Whereupon, at 12 noon, the committee recessed to reconvene at
1 :30 p. m., the same day.)

AFTERNOON SESSION— FRIDAY, JUNE 21, 1957

Mr. ScHERER. The committee will be in session. Will you call
your next witness, Mr. Tavenner ?

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Charles E. Garry, will you come forward,
please ?

Mr. James Purgell. I am a member of the bars of the State of
California and of the Supreme Court of the United States. I ap-
pear here for Mr. Garry, as his attorney, and I make a motion to
quash the subpena which has been heretofore issued and served upon
him. I desire to propose for the record a motion to quash the sub-
pena heretofore served upon Mr. Garry upon the grounds that that
subpena was issued on the 9th day of May 1957, and, according to
the statement of the gentleman who presided prior to yourself, the
resolution authorizino; this particular investigation and the resolu-
tion authorizing the investigation incidental thereto was moved and
passed on the 18th day of May 1957; and upon the further ground
that the committee which is now sitting is not the committee before
which Mr. Garry was directed to appear, it being a different subcom-
mittee ; and upon the further ground that section 25-A of the Rules
of the House provide that the subcommittee shall be made up of
members of both parties, our information being that the members
who are now sitting belong to the same party.

Mr. Scherer. As you know, any legal objections are to be made to
a court, and what you had to say is noted in the record at this hear-
ing, and I am not in a position to overrule your objection because we
have no such authority, and those objections will be made in the
proper court at the proper time, if necessary. So, with that state-
ment let us proceed.

Will the witness rise and be sworn ? Do you solemnly swear that
the testimony that you are about to give at this hearing will be the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. Garry. Yes ; I do.

TESTIMONY OF CHARLES R. GARRY, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL,

JAMES C. PURCELL

Mr. Tavenner, Will you please state your name, age, and occu-
pation ?

Mr. Garry. My name is Charles R. Garry, and I am an attorney
at law, a member of the bar of the State of California, a member of
the bar of the Supreme Court of the United States, age 48.

Mr. Tavenner. How do you spell your last name?

Mr. Garry. G-a-r-r-y.

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Purcell, I believe you should note your appear-
ance for the benefit of the record.

1302 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.

Mr. PuRCELL. Let the record show tliat I am appearing as an attor-
ney for the witness.

My name is James C. Piircell. I am a member of the bar of the
State of California, admitted to practice in all of the State courts
of California; a member of the bar of the various Federal courts
that sit in this jurisdiction; and a member of the bar of the Supreme
Court of the United States.

Mr. Garry. Before we start, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if someone
would bring me some water, because I want to be able to articulate
as best I can.

Mr. Tavenner. How long have you been engaged in the practice
of law in San Francisco, Mr. Garry ?

Mr. Garry. I was admitted to practice law in November 1938.

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

Mr. Garry. My formal education has not been very much, Mr.
Tavenner. I have never been to college. I finished high school in
1929. I worked and ran a business, studied law during the depression,
and was admitted to the practice of law in 1938.

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Garry, I have before me thermofax copies of
various issues of the Daily People's World. It is noted from an article
appearing on September 2, 1952, that you were at that time the presi-
dent of the National Lawyers Guild and that at the same time Hugh
B. Miller was the secretary.

I note, also, from an issue of the same paper dated August 28, 1953,
that you were at that time president of the National Lawyers Guild,
and another issue dated August 13, 1954, states you were president of
the guild at that time. By president, I mean president of the local
chapter of the National Lawyers Guild here in San Francisco. Is
that substantially correct according to your recollection?

Mr. Garry. Mr. Chairman, before I start answering any questions,
I want to respectfully, if I may, as a member of the bar of this State,
with all of the respect that I hold for hearing bodies, to make some
substantial objections to this particular hearing. I am here under
protest, Mr. Chairman. I w\ant to incorporate what my attorney, Mr.
Purcell, just stated to this committee.

Mr. Tavenner. I think that is unnecessary. He has made his state-
ment to the committee. It has been made a matter of record.

Mr. Garry. I am not trying to be argumentative with you.

Mr. Tavenner. I think I should ask you to answer the question.

Mr. Garry. I will answer the question and I w^ill not hesitate to
answer it, but I want to protect my own record. You brought me in
here under protest, and I want the record to show that this authority
that you are asking questions of me at the present time is without legal
foundation, and I am giving 3^ou my reasons for it.

I cannot state it any other way. Your question was, was I president
of the National Lawyers Guild. Is that your question?

Mr. Tavenner. No; if you were president of the local chapter in
San Francisco.

Mr. Garry. The chapter-

Mr. Tavenner. Over the period tliat I mentioned.

Mr. Garry. And you read from the Daily People's World ; is that
correct ?

HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1303

Mr. Tavenner. Yes.

Mr. Garry. Mr. Chairman, I don't know what period of time I
was president of the National Lawyers Guild in this area or the San
Francisco chapter. I resent very highly, sir, j^our picking out just
the isolated newspaper, the Daily People's World, when probably the
same account of that same period of time, the San Francisco Recorder,
our legal paper, had the same announcement. I was the president for
whatever period of time that you have official record of. I do not have
my official records with me. Had you told me what you wanted to
question me about, I would have brought my books and records, and
I would be able to try to bring m}' diary, if I could, to see what I have
done during that period. I was very proudly president of that Law-
yers Guild and I am still an active member of the Lawyers Guild, if
that will please you, sir.

Mr. ScHERER. Proceed to the next question.

Mr. Tavenner. Have you held any other positions in the National
Lawyers Guild?

Mr. Garry. I might have. I do not recall. I have been a member
since the day I started practicing law in 1938.

Mr. Scherer. He said he might have, but he does not recall. Pro-
ceed to the next question.

Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee, please, if you know
how many persons were members of the local chapter of the National
Lawyers Guild who were members of the Professional Section of the
Communist Party here in San Francisco during the period you held
the office of which we have spoken?

Mr. Garry. Mr. Chairman, I object to the jurisdiction of this body
to ask a question like that, and I would at this time ask the pertinency
of that question.

Mr. Scherer. Mr. Tavenner, will you explain to him the pertinency
of the question?

Mr. Tavenner. Under the ruling in the Watson case

Mr. Garry. The name is Watkins. Let's get the record straight.
The citation I have is 25 Law Week, page 3110.

Mr. Scherer. Just a minute. Mr. Tavenner is explaining to you
the pertinency

Mr. Garry. He is confused, and I am just trying to straighten him
out so it will expedite the time of the committee.

Mr. Tavenner. I think you have consumed a good bit of its time
unnecessarily.

Under that decision I will endeavor to state what the subject and
what the pertinency of the question is. The subject was read by the
chairman in his opening statement here. We are endeavoring to, and
we are inquiring at this time as to the activities of the Professional
Section of the Communist Party here in San Francisco. That is, the
committee desires to know the extent, character, and objects of the
activities of that group. It desires to know that because it is con-
sidering important legislative changes relating to the Communist
Party, possibly even to the extent of legislation outlawing the Com-
munist Party itself — possibly that far. So much for the subject.

Now, as to the pertinency of the question to that subject and the
committee's reasoning. As the decision says, it is connective reasoning
of the question to the subject. The committee, in investigations con-

1304 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.

ducted in Chicago December 14, 1955, heard a witness by the name
of INIortimer Riemer, who was the first executive secretary of the
National Lawyers Guild. Mr. Riemer was called in connection with
investigation that the committee was making into the intiltration of
Communists into various agencies of the United States Government.
Mr. Riemer, an attorney, testified that he became a member of the
Communist Party in the city of New York. He named a number
of attorneys who were in that group with him. He advised the com-
mittee of the activities of that group in an organization known as
the Lawyers Security League of the City of New York, and how it
developed into the formation of the National Lawyers Guild.

He testified that, at the first convention of the National Lawyers
Guild in Washington, he and other members of the Communist
Party, including Mr. Robert Silberstein, who later succeeded him
as the secretary of the National Lawyers Guild, Joseph Brodsky,
and Harry Sacher, and others met to determine the activities that
should be exercised in that convention in the preparation of the
slate for the election of its officers, including himself as its secre-
tary. This committee, in Los Angeles, discovered that Mr. Silber-
stein, who succeeded him, met with the Communist Party group of
lawyers in the National Lawyers Guild in Los Angeles to discuss
this problem.

Mr. Riemer testified that he served as the executive secretary of
that organization for a period of years until Ferdinand Pecora, of
New York, raised the question of communism in that organization,
and many people withdrew from it, including Mr. Pecora; and
shortly after he retired from it. Through the assistance of Nathan
Witt, Mr. Riemer procured a position with the National Labor Rela-
tions Board in Washington.

In the course of our hearings in Los Angeles, Mr. David Aaron,
an attorney and a member of the National Lawyers Guild and a
member of the Communist Party, the professional group in Los
Angeles, testified before tliis committee that all of the members of
his Communist Party group affiliated themselves with the National
Lawyers Guild. The guild, he stated, was to be made as much as
possible the legal arm to speak for and represent the Communist
Party. We have heard testimony here, during the course of this
hearing, that members of the legal group of the Communist Party
are frequently taught in meetings of the Professional Section regard-
ing their activities in the guild. So, I tliink that points up without
further explanation why it is that this question is pertinent to the
subject we are discussing. Now will you answer the question, please?

Mr. Garry. Mr. Chairman, I want to raise a point of personal
privilege, if I may.

Mr. ScHERER. I direct you to answer the question.

Mr. Garry. Mr. Chairman, the Supreme Court of the United
States only JNIonday in the Watkins decision — —

Mr, ScHERER. We are familiar with the Watkins decision.

Mr. Garry. I am glad you are, and I want to remind you that it
said that a witness who had been brought up for the purpose of
ridicule and exposure need not respond to this committee; and I
charge you, Mr. Chairman, in your opening statements here Monday
with making the following statements. May I read them to you?

HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1305

Mr. ScHERER. No ; you may not.

Will you proceed with the next question, Mr. Tavenner? He has
had ample opportunity to answer.

Mr. Garry. Do you refuse to let me answer that question?

Mr. ScHERER. I have given you an opportunity.

Mr. Garry. No; you have not. You said to me the other day when
I was sitting here in this hearing room, when you had me under
subpena, that this "statement of the board of governors further
complains that one of the lawyers was identified in the course of the
proceedings as a Communist. Since when have lawyers who are
Communists been immune from exposure or identification?" And I
ask you, sir, did you bring me here for the purposes of exposure
and identification ? Are you in good faith when you ask me to come
here? Not one single member of the committee contacted me to see
if I was willing to be a witness here, whether I had any information
to give you here. You did not do that.

Mr. McIntosh. You are going to have an opportunity to answer
that question, and you may dispose of it as you wish.

]\Ir. Garry. Thank you, Mr. jMcIntosh. I appreciate your courtesy.

I would like to know if I will be permitted to state my own position
in my own way, which I have gone over with counsel and counsel
has advised me.

Mr. McIntosh. You have taken a number of minutes now without
acknowledging the question or declining to answer the question. I
ask you if you wish to answer the question, please proceed.

Mr. Garry. Wliat I am asking, Mr. Mcintosh, is an opportunity
to state my full position in opposition to the jurisdiction of this com-
mittee. The Supreme Court has very clearly laid down

Mr. ScHERER. Please, now.

Mr. Garry. I thought I was talking to Mr. Mcintosh. Are you
interrupting me ?

Mr. ScHERER. I certainly am.

Mr. Garry. I am answering JNIr. ]\IcIntosh. He has been a perfect
gentleman throughout this entire hearing.

Mr. ScHERER. Without further direction, the police officers are or-
dered now and directed to remove any person whom they see vio-
lating the order of this committee by making a demonstration, either
for or against a witness or for or against anything that may be
developed by the committee. Will the police officers, without further
order from me, when they notice any demonstration upon the part of
any individual, remove him from the room.

I have directed you to answer the question. If you insist on mak-
ing a speech and haranguing the committee and not answering the
question, I am going to ask counsel to proceed to the next question.

Mr. Garry. I am willing to answer that question, sir.

Mr. Tavenner. Please do.

Mr. Garry. Do you want counsel to answer the question or do you
want me to answer the question ?

Mr. Taa^exxer. Please do.

Mr. Garry. Mr. Chairman, I am going to decline to answer that
question under advice of counsel, and I am going to state the reasons
why. Now, will I be permitted to state my full and complete reasons.

1306 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.

or will I be interrupted from the reasons I am going to give ? I am
not going to make a speech.

Mr, Tavenner. As long as you are not going to make a speech,
and invoke your constitutional grounds, you have a perfect right to
proceed.

Mr. Garry. The grounds that I choose are going to be the grounds
given to me by advice of counsel and not by the chairman of this
committee. That is Avhy I have employed counsel to be here.

I am taking advice from him and no one else in this matter.

The Supreme Court of the United States only Monday said it
would be difficult to manage a less explicit authorization of the reso-
lution of Congress than the one that this particular committee works
on, and let me read the committee's resolution,

Mr, ScHERER. We are familiar with that resolution.

Mr. Garry, Then, we will just incorporate that.

Mr, ScHERER. We will incorporate it into the record.^

Mr. Garry. "Wlio can define the meaning of 'un-American'?" says
the Supreme Court, "What is that single, solitary 'principle of the
form of government as g-uaranteed by our Constitution'?" There is
no need to dwell on the language, however. At one time, perhaps,
the resolution may have been read narrowly to confine the Committee
to the subject of propaganda. The events that have transpired in
the 15 years before the interrogation of the petitioner make such a
construction impossible at this date.

"The members of the Committee have clearly demonstrated that
they did not feel themselves restricted in any way to propaganda in
the narrow sense of the word. Unquestionably the Committee con-
ceived of its task in the grand view of its name, Un-American ac-
tivities were its target, no matter how or where manifested. Not-
withstanding the broad purview of the Committee's experience, the
House of Representatives repeatedly approved its continuation.
Five times it extended the life of the special committee. Then it
made the group a standing commmittee of the House. A year later,
the Committee charter was embodied in the Legislative Reorganiza-
tion Act. On five occasions, at the beginuning of sessions of Con-
gress, it has made the authorizing resolution part of the rules of the
House. On innumerable occasions it has passed appropriation bills
to allow the Committee to continue its efforts.

"Combining the language of the resolution with the construction
it has been given, it is evident that preliminary control of the Com-
mittee exercised by the House of Representatives is slight or non-
existent. No one could reasonably deduce from the charter the kind
of investigation that the Committee was directed to make. As a re-
sult, we are asked to engage in a process of retroactive rationaliza-
tion. Looking backward from the events that transpired, we are
asked to uphold the Committee's actions unless it appears that they
were clearly not authorized by the charter. As a corollary to this
inverse approach, the Government urges that we must view the mat-
ter hospitably to the power of the Congress — that if there is any
legislative purpose which might have been furthered by the kind of
disclosure sought, the witness must be punished for withholding it,

^ See page vi.

HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1307

No doubt every reasonable indulgence of legality must be accorded
to the actions of a coordinate branch of our Government. But such
deference cannot yield to an unnecessary and unreasonable dissipation
of precious constitutional freedoms.

"The Government contends that the public interest at the core of
the investigations of the Un-American Activities Committee is the
need by the Congress to be informed of efforts to overthrow the Gov-
ernment by force and violence so that adequate legislative safeguards
can be erected. From this core, however, the Committee can radiate
outward infinitely to any topic thought to be related in some way to
armed insurrection. The outer reaches of this domain are known only
by the content of 'un-American activities.' Eemoteness of subject
can be aggravated by a probe for a depth of detail even farther re-
moved from any basis of legislative action. A third dimension is
added when the investigators turn their attention to the past to collect
minutiae on remote topics, on the hypothesis that the past may reflect
upon the present.

"The consequences that flow from this situation are manifold. In
the first place, a reviewing court is unable to make the kind of judg-
ment made by the Court in United States v. Rumley^ supra. The
Committee is allowed, in essence, to define its own authority, to choose
the direction and focus of its activities. In deciding what to do with
the power that has been conferred upon them, members of the Com-
mittee may act pursuant to motives that seem to them to be the highest.
Their decisions, nevertheless, can lead to ruthless exposure of private
lives in order to gather data that is neither desired by the Congress
nor useful to it. Yet, it is impossible in this circumstance, with con-
stitutional freedoms in jeopardy, to declare that the Committee has
ranged beyond the area committed to it by its parent assembly because
the boundaries are so nebulous.

"More important and more fundamental than that, however, it
insulates the House that has authorized the investigation from the
witnesses who are subjected to the sanctions of compulsory process.
There is a wide gulf between the responsibility for the use of investi-
gative power and the actual exercise of that power. This is an
especially vital consideration in assuring respect for constitutional
liberties. Protected freedoms should not be placed in danger in the
absence of a clear determination by the House or the Senate that a
particular inquiry is justified by a specific legislative need.

"It is, of course, not the function of this Court to prescribe rigid
rules for the Congress to follow in drafting resolutions establishing
investigating committees. That is a matter peculiarly within the realm
of the Legislature, and its decisions will be accepted by the courts up
to the point where their own duty to enforce the constitutionally pro-
tected rights of individuals is affected. An excessively broad charter,
like that of the House Un-American Activities Committee, places the
courts in an untenable position if they are to strike a balance between
the public need for a particular interrogation and the right of citizens
to carry on their affairs free from unnecessary governmental inter-
ference. It is impossible in such a situation to ascertain whether any
legislative purpose justifies the disclosures sought and, if so, the im-
portance of that information to the Congress in furtherance of its
legislative function. The reason no court can make the critical judg-

1308 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.

ment is that the House of Representatives itself has never made it.
Only the legislative assembly initiating an investigaton can assay the
relative necessity of specific disclosures.

"Absence of the qualitative consideration of petitioner's questioning
by the House of Representatives aggravates a serious problem,
revealed in this case, in the relationship of congressional investigating
committees and the witnesses who appear before them. Plainly these
committees are restricted to the missions delegated to them, i. e., to
acquire certain data to be used by the House or the Senate in coping
with a problem that falls within its legislative sphere. No witness
can be compelled to make disclosures on matters outside that area.
This is a jurisdictional concept of pertinency drawn from the nature of
a congressional committee's source of authority. It is not wholly
different from nor unrelated to the element of pertinency embodied in
the criminal statute under which petitioner was prosecuted. When
the definition of jurisdictional pertinency is as uncertain and wavering
as in the case of the Un-American Activities Committee, it becomes
extremely dijfficult for the Committee to limit its inquiries to statutory
pertinency.

"Since World War II, the Congress has practically abandoned its
original practice of utilizing the coercive sanction of contempt pro-
ceedings at the bar of the House. The sanction there imposed is
imprisonment by the House until the recalcitrant witness agrees to
testify or disclose the matters sought, provided the incarceration does
not extend beyond adjourmnent. The Congress has instead invoked
the aid of the Federal judicial system in protecting itself against
contumacious conduct. It has become customary to refer these mat-
ters to the United States Attorneys for prosecution."

Mr. Tavenner. Under the criminal law ?

Mr. Garry. Under the criminal law; yes, sir. I am skipping.
Now — "It is obvious that a person compelled to make this choice is
entitled to have knowledge of the subject to which the interrogation
is deemed pertinent. That knowledge must be available with the
same degree of explicitness and clarity that the Due Process Clause
requires in the expression of any element of a criminal offense. The
'vice of vagueness' must be avoided here as in all other crimes. There
are several sources that can outline the 'question under inquiry' in such
a way that the rules against vagueness are satisfied. The authorizing
resolution, the remarks of the chairman or members of the Com-
mittee, or even the nature of the proceedings themselves might some-
times make the topic clear. This case demonstrates, however, that
these sources often leave the matter in grave doubt."

Further digressing for a moment from the opinion of this court,
and as part of my grounds for not answering, declining to answer this
question, I wanted to refer to what this court said when it said "You
can call upon the statements of the chairman, as well as other mem-
bers of the Committee." The present acting chairman of this sub-
committee, in a point of personal privilege, made it very abundantly
clear that his aim and object was to expose lawyers in their beliefs
and their conduct in the past which this particular body clearly

Mr. ScirERER. May I interrupt just a moment.

Mr. Garry. Yes ; I am sorry, Mr. Scherer.

HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1309

Mr. ScHERER. It was a criticism of lawyers like yourself and con-
duct of individuals like you before this committee that I was criti-
cizing.

Mr. Garry. I incorporate each and every word, each and every
syllable in the Watkins case and make it a part of this record, and
if the committee does not have it and they wish to make this as a
Garry exhibit No. 1, I will be very happy to give you this docu-
ment to make it part of the record.

Mr. ScHERER. So the record is clear ; I again direct you to answer
the question.

Mr. Garry. I am answering it.

The second reason is that this committee came here specifically and
purposefully to expose lawyers and members of the bar of this State,
and I want to incorporate and make part of the record the entire
statement of Mr. Scherer.

Mr. Scherer. It is already a part of the record.

Mr. Garry. And I want to make it a part of my answer at this
time and incorporate the remarks that the chairman just made in
reference to myself. The chairman, without taking any evidence
about my integrity and my standing in the bar and in the community
in which I reside, the relationship that I have to the members of the
community itself and to the judiciary of this State, made remarks of
his own without any opportunity to cross-examine the chairman,
without the chairman being under oath, made certain factual state-
ments which I would like to have the opportunity to have my at-
torney at this time cross-examine.

My third reason for declining to answer this question, in addition
to that which I have already stated, I want to refer this body to
the case of Henry W. Gnmeivald, Petitioner v. United States_ of
America^ sometimes commonly referred to as the Halperin decision.

Mr. Scherer. I again direct you to desist from what you are obvi-
ously attempting to do and to answer the question.

I hope representatives of the State bar of California are observing
this proceeding.

Mr. Garry. Mr. Chairman, I am adopting — and I am not making a
speech — I am adopting the language of the highest body of this
comitry, language that I cannot possibly use myself. I do not have
the intellectual learning that the Chief Justice of this country has.
He has studied this and he has brought out an opinion which I think
should be part of the milestone of this committee, and I say respect-
fully that I decline to answer the question imder due process of law.

Mr. McIntosii. If I may interrupt you at this point, it would be
rather insolent for myself as an attorney and as a Member of Con-
gress to allow you to, in effect, filibuster the Congress of the United
States by reading into the record decisions of the Supreme Court of
the United States which are available, and which are readily available,
to you, to ourselves, and to the general public. If you wish to state
your objections to answering questions asked by this committee, after
it has passed its judgment as to the pertinency and as to the satisf actoiy
explanation that has been made by counsel, I wish you would do it. If
you wish to refer to legal cases, cite them by the usual procedure and
not by reading the whole case into the record. If you want to raise

1310 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.

constitutional questions, please do them by reference. We have read
the Constitution also. We are satisfied that we are here acting pur-
suant to the powers granted to us and under the direction of the Con-
gress of the United btates, of which we are both elected Members, re-
sponsible to rather large constituencies. In short, I am saying, since
you were nice enough to refer to me as the "patient member" of this
panel, I think our patience can be exhausted after a certain amount of
reasonableness.

If you care to cite Supreme Court cases, cite them by name in the
customary manner. If you just wish to decline to answer this, as an
attorney, you recognize the position you put yourself in, so make
your selection.

Mr. Garry. May I ask you a question in a very friendly way? I
am not trying to be facetious with you. If this committee is inter-
ested in my opinions, Mr. Mcintosh, I would be very glad to give you
my opinions.

Mr. ScHERER. I again direct you to answer the question before us.

Mr. Garry. My second ground, Mr. Chairman, for declining to
answer that question is under due-process clause of the fifth amend-
ment and also the section of the fifth amendment which was recently
enunciated in the Halperin decision ; and bowing to Mr. Mcintosh's
deference, I will not read it, and I will not read it if it suffices.

Mr. ScHERER. You have pro]:)erly invoked the fifth amendment.

Mr. Garry. Mr. Chairman, I do not like to have you put words in
my mouth. I want to answer these questions in my own way.

It is the fifth amendment, as well as the first amendment, and I
want the full language of the Halperin decision incorporated and
made a part of my record. May I do that, Mr. Mcintosh ?

Mr. ScHERER. No.

Mr. Garry. Do you mean I cannot incorporate the language ? I do
not want to read it ; I just want to incorporate it.

Mr. ScHERER. Mr. Counsel, I direct you to ask the witness the next
question.

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Garry, it is noted that from your long recital
from the Watkins case that you did not mention that part of the deci-
sion which has brought about your making the objection and asking
for a statement of the pertinency. I think what you have said is
certainly not complete without including that in the record.

Mr. Garry. Thank you for calling my attention to it.

Mr. Taatcxner. I am sorry you overlooked it. It is on pages 33 to
34. It reads as follows :

It is the duty of the investigative body, upon objection of the witness on
grounds of pertinency, to state for the record the subject under inquiry at that
time and the manner in which the propounded questions are pertinent thereto.
To be meaningful, the explanation must describe what the topic under inquiry is
and the connective reasoning whereby the precise questions asked relate to it.

This we have endeavored to do.

You stated, Mr. Garry, that no efl^ort was made to ascertain any
information that you might have. Do you have the committee's sub-
pena in your pocket ?

Mr. Garry. No ; I don't.

Mr. Ta\t:xner. Does vour attornev have it ? Do you have it avail-
able?

Mr. Garry. Yes.

HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1311

Mr. Tavenner. May I see it ?

Mr. Garry. Yes ; sure.

Mr. Tavenxer. Let the record show that I have been handed the
subpena issued on May 9, 1957, to Mr. Charles R. Garry, on the back
of which is printed the following :

In the event you desire to contact a member of the committee staff prior to
the date of your appearance before the committee, you may call William A.
Wheeler, investigator, at Lambert 5-4648 (FuUerton), or write to 325 West
Brookdale Place, Fullerton, Calif.

Mr. Garry. Is that a question, sir ?

Mr. Tavenner. No, sir. It is just a statement for the record.

Were you a member of the Professional Section of the Communist
Party in San Francisco at any time while you held an office in the
National Lawyers Guild ?

Mr. Garry. Mr. Chairman, under advice of counsel, I am going to
decline to answer that question for all of the reasons that I heretofore
have stated without having to go through the whole thing over again ;
but, in addition thereto, I want to incorporate all of the language of
the Chief Justice of the United States and all of the recent decisions
that he has rendered in this field of free speech and free assembly,
including the Watkins case, the Konigsberg case and other related
cases, and the Sweezy case, and any other similar cases that might be
involved here, as part of my reasons for declining to answer these
questions.

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Garry, will you tell the committee, at least,
what knowledge you have, if any, of Communist Party activities of
an organized group of the Communist Party in San Francisco that we
have been referring to as the lawyers branch of the Communist
Party? By way of further explanation, let me say that that group
has been identified by name as the Haymarket Club of the Communist
Party.

Mr. Garry. On advice of counsel, my answers are the same as they
were heretofore given and for the same reasons.

Mr. Ta^t:nner. Will you tell the committee, please, in what way the
professional group of the Communist Party, known as the Haymarket
Club, composed of lawyers, endeavored to influence the public and
the Congress in regard to the passage of the ISIundt bill ?

Mr. Garry. Mr. Chairman, I would like to answer that question;
but under advice of counsel, the best advice I can get is not to answer
because this is not a forum for me to get into a debate on this dis-
cussion.

Mr. Tavenner. It did not call for a debate. It called for a simple
factual statement as to what the Communist Party did in connection
with it.

Mr. Garry. Mr. Chairman

Mr. Tavenner. I am asking for action and facts and not views or
opinions.

Mr. Garry. Mr. Chairman, if you were to ask me

Mr. Taatinner. I may add that many people oppose the adop-
tion of such a bill. I am not criticizing the right of any person to
oppose it. I want to know what the Communist Party did about it.

Mr. Garry. Mr. Chairman, if you were to ask me what I thought
about the Mundt bill and similar legislation, that the form of your

1312 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.

questions about the insinuations and the lack of proper cross-examina-
tions and proper quorum, I cannot answer that. My attorney advises
nie to answer that question upon, or decline to answer that question
upon all of the previous grounds that I have heretofore stated, each
and every one of them.

Mr. Ta\^nner. You spoke of insinuation. To what insinuation are
you referring? You said because of my insinuation. I have not made
any insinuation.

Mr. Garry. My counsel advises me that that is an argumentative
question and, unless I can be permitted to be just as argumentative,
I am not to answer that question and get involved into a discussion
with you; and I give all of the previous reasons for not answering
that question.

Mr. Tavenner. Did the professional group of the Communist Party,
known as the Haymarket Club, composed solely of lawyers, take any
action with regard to a bill that w^as pending in this State relating
to test oaths for lawyers ?

Mr. Garry. Same answer.

Mr. ScHERER. Would you mind saying that you decline to answer
for the same reasons, because it is not an answer, it is a declination
to answer ?

Mr. Garry. I will incorporate your remarks as part of my answer.

Mr. Tavenner. "Wliere did you maintain your office on May 23,
1949?

Mr. Garry. Under advice of counsel, my counsel tells me not to
answer that question. Don't ask me where; I don't understand the
question, and I am asked not to answer the question upon the con-
stitutional ground that even an innocent person can be entrapped by
answering questions that he should not answer.

Mr. ScHERER. I direct you to answer the question.

Mr. Garry. And for all of the previous reasons.

Mr. Tavenner. Was the headquarters of the Bar Committee
Against Test Oaths for Lawyers in your office in 1949 ?

Mr. Garry. Same answer.

Mr. Scherer. I think you can use the proper form as a lawyer.

Mr. Garry. I decline to answer for the reasons previously stated,
sir.

Mr. Tavenner. By my question, I am not meaning to imply or to
insinuate that this committee is investigating any such bar commit-
tee. But I notice from the letterhead whicli bears the address of room
221, 68 Post Street, San Francisco 4, Calif., and also room 1110, 215
West Seventh Street, Los Angeles 14, Calif., that Charles R. Garry
was one of the northern California section of that committee. With
that explanation, will you answer the question as to whether or not
that was your office, either of those places ?

Mr. Garry. Mr. Chairman, Charles R. Garry, over the period of
his own lifetime, has stated his position openly and succinctly to the
community; but upon the advice of counsel, I am advised and I will
not answer any of these questions you are asking me for any and all
of the reasons heretofore stated.

Mr. Scherer. You say you have told the community your position
on all questions. Had you advised the community of your member-

HEARINGS HELD EST SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1313

ship in the Communist Party at the time this organization had its
headquarters in your office ?

Mr. Garry. Counsel advises me that the chairman is assuming facts
not in evidence; and, secondly, I decline to answer for all of the
reasons heretofore and previously stated.

Mr. ScHERER, Are my assumptions incorrect ?

Mr. Garry. I have already answered the question.

Mr. ScHERER. I direct you to answer the question.

Mr. Garry. I direct you to my answers that I have heretofore given,
and I restate them for each and every one of the single reasons, and
I want to add one other reason, if I may, sir.

Mr. ScHERER, It is all right. You just decline to answer if my
assumption is correct or incorrect.

Mr. Garry. I want to refer to the Holy Bible, if I may, and the
Book of Matthew.

Mr. McIntosh. Within the realm of my previous comments, if you
wish to refer to the Bible, you may do it by such ordinary terms of
reference as are used.

Mr. Garry. Can I give the title and the Scripture section ?

I want to refer to Matthew 27, paragraph 11, through and includ-
ing 14, just before paragraph 15 starts.

Mr. ScHERER. The Communists deny God and deny that Book; do
they not?

Mr. Garry. Mr. Chairman, you are now getting into the field of
my religious beliefs. I am very proud to tell you, sir, that I happen
to be a Christian. I happen to be a very happy church member and
I resent any insinuation from you, Mr. Scherer, or anybody else like
you.

Mr, Scherer. I now direct you to answer my question. You in-
jected the Bible into this hearing and cited it as an authority.

All I want to know is whether or not you do not know that the
Communist denies God and denies that Book which you cited for your
authority in refusing to answer a question. It is as simple as that.

Mr. Garry. What the Communists do or do not do in relationship
to their own god is their own business. What I do for my own God
is my own and not yours.

Mr. Scherer. There is still a direction to answer the question.

Mr. Garry. I will decline to answer that question, Mr. Scherer —
and excuse me for getting heated up about it, I should not — for all
of the reasons heretofore stated, each and every one of them I in-
corporate in that answer.

Mr. Scherer. I should be a little heated for your using the Bible
in the way you did.

Mr. Garry. I did not read the Bible. It is germane to this hearing.

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Garry, do you have any knowledge at the pres-
ent time of the operations of the Haymarket Club of the Communist
Party in San Francisco, composed of members of the legal profession ?

Mr. Garry. Upon advice of counsel, you are going to get the same
answer, and I do give you the same answer.

Mr. Tavenner. Are you a member of that group now ?

Mr. Garry. Same answer.

Mr. Tavenner. I have no further questions.

Mr. Scherer. Now, I direct you to answer the question, counselor.

1314 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.

Mr. Garry. I thought I did answer it. I told you I gave the same
answer. I declined to answer for each and every one of the former
questions.

Mr. ScHERER. Again I point out, the reply should be : "I decline to
answer for the same reasons."

Mr. Garry. I am not as good a lawyer as you are. I decline or
refuse or whatever language you want to use, I am intending to abide
by the Halperin decision, the Watkins decision, the Konigsberg deci-
sion, and all of the decisions of the Supreme Court on these related
matters, and the Constitution of the United States.

Mr. Scherer. The same answer is not a declination to answer.
A declination to answer is not an answer.

Mr. Garry. I was not trying to define anything. I was trying: to
defer to Mr. Mcintosh, who has been very, very decent, in not making
or repeating all of my previous statements in actual wording. I was
just trying to save the time of this committee, if the committee is
interested in some of these conversations. I was not trying to short-
cut or bypass anything.

Mr. Scherer. Are there any further questions ?

Mr. Tavenner. No, sir ; I have none.

Mr. PuRGELL. May the witness be discharged ?

Mr. Scherer. Yes, sir.

The committee will recess.

(The witness in refusing his witness fee said :)

Mr. Garry. I would suggest that that contribution be made to a
very worthy cause.

Mr. Tavenner. We will retain it to continue the fight against
communism.

Mr. Garry. Use it for any cause you wish.

Mr. Tavenner. Yes, sir; we appreciate your contribution.

Mr. Scherer. Mr. Wheeler, I direct that you obtain a copy of the
tape recording of the last witness' testimony.

(Brief recess taken.)

Mr. Scherer. The committee will reconvene.

Mr. Darwin. May I, with your permission and indulgence, take
perhaps 10 minutes or less, probably less, on a matter of personal
privilege in connection with some matter that has come up?

Mr. Scherer. Yes ; counsel talked to me about you. I think under
the rule you are entitled to that opportunity.

Mr. Tavenner. State your name.

VOLUNTARY STATEMENT OF JAY A. DARWIN

Mr. Darwin. Jay A. Darwin. I am an attorney at law, with the
right to practice in the State of California and all of the State courts
and Federal courts in this community.

I am also permitted to practice in the State of New York and in some
of the Federal courts tliere, and I am admitted to practice, and have
been before, tlie United States Supreme Court.

I appreciate tlie opportunity to come here in connection with a
matter which touches me very deeply professionally, and — if that is
not important enough, and that it is — economically.

On June 18, I was in this chamber when a wntness called was asked
with respect to whether or not she had ever been a member of the

HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1315

CIO council. A minute later that same witness was asked whether
or not she and her husband had ever been a member of, or on a com-
mittee working with, the CIO council.

A recess then occurred. I went over to Mr, Tavenner, introduced
mj^self and I said, "Mr. Tavenner" — or words in substance — "I think
it is very important that, as an attorney for the present State CIO
council, I make known to you and through you to the committee, the
significance of those questions, and the answers given."

I want to be perfectly plain, frank, and candid in saying that, in
making the statement, I make no imputations as to witness or wit-
nesses. The business of the witness and the committee is the business
with the witness, but I did say to Mr. Tavenner that I felt that I
ought to explain to him the significance, and I did. Then the recess
was over.

The first thing I knew was, "Is Mr. Jay Darwin here?" and Mr.
Jay Darwin did come up. I don't recall whether I asked to make a
statement or whether it was to be in writing, but in any event I
came up.

]Mr. Tavenner. Let me interrupt you there. I understood you
wanted to make an explanation to the committee. I asked the chair-
man if it would be all right, and he said it would be. That is the
reason I gave you the opportunity. I certainly did not call you as
a witness.

Mr. Darwin. I came up not as a witness, but to make a statement.

Mr. ScHERER. As I understand it, you came up voluntarily.

Mr. Darwin. Yes, that is right; to make a statement just as I am
making a statement now.

I then did say in the statement that, when a reference is made to
the CIO council in connection with any question put to a witness, it
was important — and again I say I draw no imputation as to the
answer of a witness or the refusal to answer — but that it was impor-
tant to draw the distinction between the State CIO council that I now
represent and have represented since May of 1950 and that State CIO
council which had existed prior to that time and in which I — and I say
this proudly — had some part as a lawyer in litigation to have disestab-
lished.

I made the point that the old CIO council — and when I say "old" I
mean prior to 1950 — had been disestablished and had had its charter
revoked because that council did not comport to the policies, objec-
tives, and purposes of the national CIO.

Mr. Scherer. May I interrupt you there ? That action was taken
because that union was, to some extent, infiltrated and dominated by
Communists.

Mr. Darwin. That action was taken; whatever the reasons were,
Mr. Scherer, I think is a matter of public record, and I simply want to
say that it was not action within the policies and objectives and rea-
sons for the existence of the national CIO.

Mr. Scherer. I think you did a good job at that time and I think the
CIO and you are to be congratulated for what you did do at that time.

Mr. Darwin. I appreciate that, but this is not my hour of glory, and
I am not facetious and I appreciate your observation, but this is
rather serious with me, and I shall go ahead.

94343— 57— pt. 2 8

1316 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.

As was the case with another witness or with witnesses, when I
stepped forward, photographs were taken of me; and in the Call-
Bulletin of June 19, in all of its issues — and I now look at one on
page 9, headed, "Bay Area Red Infiltration" — and there were photo-
graphs of six persons, with me in the middle.

Now, again, I want to say with due deference that I do not know
and draw no conclusions by my lineup with other people, but I do say
that, in view of my work in the community, in view of the unions that
I have represented, in view of the unions I hope to represent — when I
say "hope" I should make that with undelineation because I have
already been subjected by telephone calls and by other means detri-
mentally by this lineup.

Not a word in the text concerning the matter about which I ad-
dressed your committee is contained on page 9, not a single, solitary
word. If that headline was not bad enough, the final issue of the same
Call-Bulletin lists the same photographs with me in the same spot —
teachers, newsmen, attorneys, named as local cell members. Again,
not a word of explanation as to why my photograph is there; and
there is a story as to each of the other persons named.

Your chairman yesterday was good enough in the morning, I was
told — I came in toward the tail end of the statement so I did not get
it all — but he was good enough to make some remark and some obser-
vation and some statement in which I understand he deplored the kind
of irresponsibility in journalism, of the Call-Bulletin, which would
have placed me in that light and that position. I appreciate that.

I did not see one word in the Call-Bulletin of yesterday in any of
its issues reflecting even a line of your chairman's observations.

I think it is unfair, and I will put a stopwatch on myself for 3 or 4
minutes. I realize you have business to do, and I do not want to con-
sume any more time, but I think it is important for you to know, and
I do hope that the Call-Bulletin does something about it.

I say now that no matter what it does — and I say this very honestly
without dramatics — no matter wliat it does, I cannot begin to think
that the irreparable harm that those two publications have done to me
can ever be corrected. The old matter of a photograph being worth
a thousand words is applicable.

Now, I say you ought to know, Mr. Chairman, and other members
of the committee, that in 1948 I was doing principally arbitration
work, and I was sole arbitrator under a collective-bargaining agree-
ment between the shipowners in this community — it was good work,
remunerative, and at that point I was solicited by one of the mari-
time unions to engage in litigation w4th a left wing Communist group
which had sought to escape with tliat branch of maritime union on
the west coast.

I gave an awful lot of consideration as to whether or not I would
get into that litigation, in view of the fact that I had maintained a
rather public position in many of the arbitration matters that had
been referred by Federal and even State bodies, and, in one instance,
the former chief judge of the ninth court of appeals, who is now
deceased.

I plunged into that, having come to a conclusion that I wanted to
get into that kind of work ; and I will say that I take pride in it, that
my efforts in litigation resulted in the saving of that maritime union ;

HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1317

and it is now a very responsible, respectable maritime union in the
national.

In 1949, in October, in the Palmer House in Chicago, I was one of
a group of four lawyers designated to rewrite the constitution of the
national CIO and the laws governing its bodies, subsequent to that
convention in Chicago, to oust such of the unions which were not
abiding by the principles and policies and objectives of the national
CIO.

It is now a matter of history as to what happened to some of those
unions which did not abide by it.

From 1950 to 1952 in this very city, I did engage in litigation in
another maritime field in connection with supplanting the maritime
union which was not held to be conducting itself within the principles,
policies, and objectives of the national CIO.

That is about all I want to say except this : I feel that my livelihood,
and I say this again, will probably be definitely affected by this kind
of reporting.

Mr. ScHERER. May I interrupt. The committee has been happy to
give you this time in order that you might explain to as much of the
public as possible what happened as the result of this unfortunate
mistake upon the part of the newspaper.

I think perhaps we should end your statement here.

Mr. Darwin. Yes; I was at a point of conclusion and I do appre-
ciate the opportunity to have made this statement.

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Hugh Miller, will you come forward, please ?

Mr. ScHERER. Will you raise your right hand. You do solemnly
swear that the testimony you are about to give at this hearing will be
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you
God?

Mr. Miller. I do.

TESTIMONY OF HUGH B. MILLER, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL,

JOHN R. GOLDEN

Mr. Tavenner. Will you state your name please ?

Mr. Miller. My name is Hugh B. Miller.

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

Mr. Golden. My name is John R. Golden. I have an office at the
Crockett Building in San Francisco. I am a member of the bar of the
Supreme Court of the United States and a number of inferior courts.

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

Mr. Miller. Before I am asked questions, Mr. Counsel, I would like
to make some objections to the power of this committee to proceed.

As I understand it, the two Representatives on this committee are
Republicans. I happen to be a Democrat and have been for years.
The committee rules, section 25-A, say that this committee should in-
clude majority and minority representation, which I understand
should mean there should be two Democrats. I should like to object
to the hearing's proceeding because the committee is not constituted
with two Democrats.

Also, I would like to object on the grounds that there is no quorum
here. Also, I would like to object because, since the rules require a

1318 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIP.

majority and minority representation, it is impossible for there to
be any majority or minority with two people and, based on the rule
25-A of the House of Representatives, I object to this committee pro-
ceeding.

I further object to this committee proceeding on the grovmds of the
sixth amendment of the Constitution of the United States because
my right to counsel is being abridged. I desire my counsel to be per-
mitted to cross-examine, introduce evidence, and call witnesses.

I further object that under the sixth amendment I do not have the
right to cross-examine any witnesses and my counsel has no oppor-
tunity to cross-examine witnesses.

I further object under the sixth amendment of the Constitution
and I desire to have compulsory process to obtain witnesses.

I have witnesses I would like to call and, as I understand the rules
of this committee, I am not permitted to call witnesses and I am not
given any compulsory process which the sixth amendment of the
Constitution of the United States provides me.

I further object to the committee proceeding under the grounds
that the committee is acting illegally because it is illegally authorized
by Congress.

It is authorized to investigate un-American propaganda, subver-
sive and un-American activities; and the Supreme Court of the
United States has just said in the Watkins case that these words are
impossible to define legally and, therefore, the authorizing resolution
is vague and uncertain and this committee and the authorizing reso-
lution is illegal.

Therefore, this committee is acting illegally. The Supreme Court
said it would be difficult to imagine a less explicit authorizing
resolution.

I further desire to object to this committee continuing these hear-
ings, and particularly with me, because its methods are illegal. The
methods have already been said to be illegal by the Supreme Court of
the United States in the Watkins case. They said :

It is only those investigations that are conducted by use of compulsory process
that give rise to a need to protect the rights of individuals against illegal
encroachment.

The Supreme Couii, has said very clearly :

An investigation is subject to the command that Congress shall make no law
abridging freedom of speech or press or assembly.

That is a quote from the Watkins.
The Watkins case says :

The mere summoning of a witness and compelling him to testify against his
will, about his beliefs, expressions, or associations —

And I call your attention to the word "associations" —

is a measure of governmental interference. And when those forced revelations
concern matters that are unorthodox, unpopular, or even hateful to the general
public, the reaction in the life of the witness may be disastrous —

as you have just heard from the preceding witness —

This effect is even more harsh when it is part beliefs, expressions, or associations
that are disclosed and judged by current standards rather than those contem-
porary with the matters exposed. Nor does the witness alone suffer the con-
sequences. Those who are identified by witnesses and thereby placed in the
same glare of publicity are equally subject to public stigmas, scorn, and
obloquy. Beyond that, there is the more subtle and immeasurable effect

HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1319

Mr. McIntosh. I should like to ask you a question.

Mr. Miller. May I complete my sentence ?

Mr. McIntosh. I would like to draw your attention to the fact
that the decision has been rendered almost in toto; and if you have
any objections or comments that cannot be covered by reference to the
case we would be pleased to hear them ; otherwise, we would prefer,
in the interest of hurrying along, to proceed.

Mr. Miller. I had almost finished.

Mr. ScHERER. Now, I direct you to answer the question.

Mr. Tavenner. I started to ask the witness to give his name.

Mr. Miller. My name is Hugh B. Miller.

Mr. Tavenner. I believe counsel did identify himself for the
record.

]Mr. Golden. Yes.

Mr. Tavenner. I believe my question was. When and where were
you born?

Mr. Miller. I Avas born in San Francisco, Calif., as were my father
and mother.

Mr. Tavenner. When were you born ?

Mr. Miller. December 22, 1911.

Mr. Taat.nner. Where do you now reside ?

Mr. Miller. I now reside at 355 West Phillip Way.

Mr. Tavenner. "Wliat is your profession ?

Mr. Miller. I am an attorney.

Mr. Taa-enner. Will you tell the committee, please, what your for-
mal educational training has been ?

Mr. Miller. Well, I went 8 years to Laguna School, which is on
Seventh Avenue between Irving and

Mr. Tavenner. You Icnow we are not interested in the location of
the school in that minutiae. Wliere did you go to college?

Mr. Miller. I went to Stanford University; I went to the Uni-
versity of San Francisco. I received an A. B. degree from Stanford
and LL. B. from the University of San Francisco.

Mr. Tavenner. When did you receive your LL. B. ?

Mr. Miller. 1937.

Mr. Tavenner, Will you tell the committee please, what your
work record has been, briefly, since 1937 ?

Mr. Miller. I don't understand.

Mr. Tavenner. Prior to your beginning the practice of law in San
Francisco.

Mr. Miller. I don't understand the question; my work record?

Mr. Tavenner. When did you begin the practice of law in San
Francisco ?

Mr. Miller. In San Francisco itself?

Mr. Tavenner. Yes.

Mr. Miller. 1945.

Mr. Tavenner. Did you practice law in California at any other
place prior to 1945 ?

Mr. Miller. No; I did not. Pardon me. I was an employee of
the United States Government prior to 1945 as an attorney.

Mr. Tavenner. Wliere were you located during that period of
time?

Mr. Miller. In Washington, D. C.

1320 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.

Mr. Tavenner. What was the beginning of your employment and
the date and the end of your employment with the Government?

Mr. Miller. The beginning was in about September or October
of 1937. I was enlisted in the Army in 1942, and I am not certain
of the date when my technical — date when my employment with the
Government ended.

Mr. Tavenner. But roughly it would be from 1937 to 1942 and
then for a period after your discharge from the armed services ?

Mr. Miller. I never went back to the Government to work after
I was discharged from the armed services.

Mr. Tavenner. What was the approximate date of your discharge ?

Mr. Miller. When my dismissal or resignation or whatever it
was — it was a resignation — from the Government took place, I don't
remember.

Mr. Tavenner. My question is, Wlien were you discharged from
the Army ?

Mr. Miller. December 14, 1944.

Mr. Tavenner. Then you were employed by the Government from
1937 up to 1942?

Mr. Miller. I was paid a minimum salary by the Army.

Mr. Tavenner. We do not generally refer to service in the Armed
Forces as Government employment.

Mr. Miller. I would not refer to it that way either.

Mr. Tavenner. Well, you have.

Mr. Miller. I was a private.

Mr. Tavenner. You have referred to it that way.

Wliat was the nature of your employment by the Government,
from 1937 to 1942?

Mr. Miller. I was an attorney.

Mr. Tavenner. In what agency of the Government ?

Mr. Miller. In the Department of the Interior.

Mr. Tavenner. Was that during your entire employment?

Mr. Miller. That is correct; except for the Army service.

Mr. Tavenner. Did you have a title in connection with your legal
work?

Mr. Miller. Several.

Mr. Tavenner. Tell us what they were, please.

Mr. Miller. I don't remember. They were attributes of attorney,
associate attorney, something-or-other attorney, depending on the
various ways that the Interior Department designated me when I
received an increase in pay or a promotion of some kind.

Mr. Taatenner. What was the general nature of the work that you
were engaged in, just very briefly.

Mr. Miller. I handled hearings in the Department of the Interior
concerning, mainly, coal.

Mr. Ta\^nner. I hand you a photostatic copy of an affidavit bear-
ing date May 22, 1941, purportedly signed by Hugh B. Miller. Will
you examine it please and state whether or not it is your affidavit ?

Mr. Miller. The signature appears to be mine, but I have no
recollection whatsoever of the affidavit.

Mr. Tavenner. The affidavit begins, "I, the undersigned, Hugh B.
Miller, depose and say" — there are various paragraphs described by
number— paragraph number 2 is : "I am not, and never have been, a

HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1321

Communist, a Nazi, a Fascist, or a member of any party other than
the Republican or Democratic Parties."

Do you recall that phase of the affidavit ?

Mr. Miller. No ; I do not.

Mr. Tavenner. You stated that it appears to be your signature.
Was it a truthful statement as of May 22, 1941 ?

Mr. Miller. I do not recall making such a statement.

Mr. Tavenner. I say, was it true as of May 22, 1941 ?

Mr. Miller. I believe that this question, Mr. Tavenner, is in vio-
lation of the Watkins decision, in that it is an attempt to dig into
past associations or expressions of mine.

The Watkins decision says that you can't dig into those matters and
it is illegal for you to do so and that I may invoke the first amend-
ment with respect to this, so I refuse to answer.

Mr. TA\rENNER. Mr. Chairman, may I have a direction that the
witness answer the (Question ?

Mr. Sciierer. Witness, you are directed to answer the question.

Mr. Miller. Do I understand, despite the fact that Watkins case
says I may invoke the first amendment as a reason for the first amend-
ment, you still order me to answer ?

Mr. Scherer. I do ; under the circumstances.

Mr. Miller. In that case, in addition to the Watkins case, I have
already pointed out that this committee is illegally constituted and
I refuse to answer on that gromid, that it is illegal, and I refuse to
answer on that ground, and I also refuse to answer because there is
an amendment in the Constitution which protects citizens against
illegal and tyrannical Government hearings and I stand on that
ground.

Mr. Scherer. Do you stand on the self-incrimination provision?

Mr. Miller. I have already made my statement.

Mr. Scherer. I direct you to answer my question as to whether
or not you stand on that part of the fifth amendment which involves
self-incrimination.

Mr. Miller. I refuse to answer your direction, Mr. Scherer, on
the ground that this is an illegal committee, illegally constituted,
pursuing an illegal method, asking illegal questions, and under the
first amendment and under the fifth amendment of the Constitution,
and I particularly refer you to the Watkins decision and the due
processes of the fifth amendment of the Constitution.

But I am standing on the whole of that amendment.

Mr. Scherer. That is what I wanted to know.

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

Mr. Scherer. It is so received and so marked.

(Document marked "Miller Exhibit No. 1," retained in committee
fUes.)

Mr. Miller. I would like to offer the rules of this committee in
evidence. These are the rules that prevent me from having my coun-
sel speak up and are in violation of the sixth amendment of the
Constitution.

Mr. Scherer. Proceed, Mr. Tavenner.

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Miller, were you a member of the Communist
Party on the 22d day of May 1941 ?

1322 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.

Mr. Miller. I decline to answer that on the same grounds which I
previously stated.

Mr. Tavenner. I have before me, Mr. Miller, a photostatic copy of
an excerpt from the Washington Evening Star of December 17, 1940,
page B18, the title of which is, "Meeting Called To Push U. S.
Workers' Interests," and I read it as follows :

"Remedies for the protection of Federal workers against further infringement
of their personal and civil liberties" will be sought at a mass meeting at 8 : 15
p. m. tomorrow at the Burlington Hotel, under auspices of the Washington Com-
mittee for Democratic Action. Hugh Miller, chairman of the committee, said
some Federal agencies "are appropriating to themselves the authority and tech-
nique of an inquisition," that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has been
accused of functioning as a "secret police" —

and so forth.

I hand you the document and ask you to examine it and refresh your
recollection as to whether or not you were the chairman of the organi-
zation which I referred to, Washington Committee for Democratic
Action.

Mr. Miller. This says, "Hugh Miller, chairman of the committee,
said some Federal agencies 'are appropriating to themselves the au-
thority and technique of an inquisition', that the Federal Bureau of
Investigation has been accused of functioning as a 'secret police' to spy
on Government w^orkers, and some employees in defense agencies
have had the 'most intimate details' of their private lives delved into."
*******

Mr. Tavenner. Were you chairman of the Washington Committee
for Democratic Action on the date of the Washington Evening Star
article, which I mentioned is December 17, 1940 ?

Mr. Miller. December 17, 1940 ?

Mr. Tavenner. Yes.

Mr. Miller. I refuse to answer that question on the grounds of the
first amendment, as I have already expressed it under the Watkins
decision, and upon the ground of my objections to the committee
proceeding with this hearing.

Mr. Scherer. I believe you said. Witness, that you subscribe to the
language attributed to you in this article with reference to the Federal
Bureau of Investigation.

Mr. Miller. Yes; at that time I believed the Federal Bureau of
Investigation was delving into people's private lives, their marital
affairs, anything they could get on them.

Mr. Scherer. Investigating Communists as they are today?

Mr. Miller. They were investigating anything they wanted to in-
vestigate and they investigated some pretty shabby things.

Mr. Scherer. Do you feel the same way about the Federal Bureau
of Investigation as you do about this committee ?

Mr. Miller. I do not say that my feelings are the same about the
Federal Bureau of Investigation now" as they were in 1940. You are
going back 17 years now, and I have been through a war since then.

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

Mr. Scherer. It may be so marked and received.

(Document marked "Miller Exhibit No. 2," retained in committee
files.)

HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1323

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Miller, during the course of the committee's
investigation of Communist infiltration of Government, which began
on December 13, 1955, in Chicago, Prof. Herbert Fuchs appeared as
one of the witnesses.

Professor Fuchs was the head of several party groups in the city
of Washington. He described fraction meetings of representatives
from approximately 10 Communist party cells in Government.

In the course of his testimony, he made reference to the Washing-
ton Committee for Democratic Action. My question was this :

The committee's investigation has shown that there was published in a
December 1940 issue of the Washington Star newspaper an advertisement re-
garding a mass meeting of the Washington Committee for Democratic Action,
which was to be held in Washington for the purpose of condemning the Govern-
ment loyalty program. This advertisement announced that a committee had
been appointed on that matter, and that the committee consisted, among others,
of these persons : Arthur Stein, Helen Miller, Edward Scheunemann, Eleanor
Nelson, and yourself—

Meaning Professor Fuchs.

Were you acquainted with Arthur Stein ?

Mr. Miller. I refuse to answer that question under the ground of
the first amendment and its interpretation by the Watkins case which
says, questions into my associations in the past, particularly one that
was in 1942 or something, is illegal.

Mr. Tavenner. May I have a direction that the witness answer?

Mr. Scherer. Yes. Witness, you are directed to answer.

Mr. IMiLLER. Despite the fact that the Watkins case says I may
plead the first amendment against infringement of my protection of
law, do you still order me to answer ?

Mr. Scherer. You have heard my direction.

Mr. IVIiLLER. I refuse to answer under the amendment to the Con-
stitution which protects every citizen of this country against illegal
and tyrannical acts of a governmental body, which is the fifth
amendment.

Mr. Scherer. Did you add the fifth there ?

Mr. Miller. I said, "Wliich is the fifth amendment."

Mr. Tavenner. Were you acquainted with Eleanor Nelson ?

Mr. ISIiLLER. Same answer.

Mr. Scherer. The witness, I think, is a member of the bar and
should reply properly that he declines to answer for the same reason.

Mr. ISIixLER. I decline to answer for reasons previously expressed.

Mr. Ta\'enner. I asked this question of Professor Fuchs:

Was the Washington Committee for Democratic Action one of the mass or-
ganizations in which you did become interested and take an active part?

And his answer was, "Yes."

Mr. Tavenner. Was not one of the purposes of that meeting to launch a move-
ment for the protection of members of the Communist Party who had been

employed by and then expelled from Government employment?

His answer was :

I don't know if I can answer that. I should suppose that objectively the
answer should be "yes." That is to say, the activities of the group centered
on protection of people or the attempt to protect people who had been dis-
charged for communism.

According to that testimony, the picture in the Government cells
in Washington was that the Communist Party was assigning its mem-

1324 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.

bers for particular work in mass organizations, and here is one created
for a special purpose.

Let me ask you whether or not, after you came to California and
became a member of the bar of San Francisco and engaged in the
practice of law, you became aware that here there was an organized
group of members of the legal profession, a secret group which as-
signed members to work in different mass organizations.

Mr. Miller. This is an illegal method of questioning, and it is
prescribed by the Watkins case, which says that I may refuse to
answer on the grounds of the first amendment, and I do so.

Mr. ScHERER. I direct that you answer the question.

Mr. Miller. You direct me to answer despite the fact that the
Watkins case says I may refuse to answer under the first amendment?

Mr. Scherer. I direct you to answer.

Mr. ]\Iiller. I refuse to answer the question on the grounds pre-
viously expressed, including the amendment to the Constitution that
protects citizens of this country against the acts of illegal and tyran-
nical committees, the fifth amendment.

Mr. Tavenner. Are you a member of a professional gi-oup of the
Communist Party in San Francisco at this time, composed exclusively
of lawyers ?

Mr. Miller. I am not a member of the Communist Party.

Mr. Ta^^nner. Do you have any knowledge at this time of the ac-
tivities of a group which has been described as the Haymarket Club
of the Communist Party, consisting of members of the legal pro-
fession ?

Mr. Miller, I refuse to answer that question under the Watkins
case which says that this line of questioning is illegal and says that
I may refuse to answer on the grounds of the first amendment.

Mr. Scherer. I direct the witness to answer the question.

Mr. Miller. Having been directed to answer in violation of the
Watkins ruling, I refuse to answer on the grounds previously stated.

Mr. Scherer. You said you were not a member of the Communist
Party now. Were you a member last month, of the Communist
Party?

Mr. Miller. I was not a member of the Communist Party last
month or the month before that or the year before that, and I can
so testify; but I am not going to so testify because you can't delve
into people's associations, and I will refuse to answer your question
under the grounds of the Watkins case because you are trying to use
an illegal method of questioning.

Mr. Scherer. You said you were not a member of the Communist
Party now or last month or last year. Were you a member of the
Communist Party in 1954?

Mr. Miller. I refuse to answer.

Mr, Scherer. Were you a member of the Communist Party in
1955?

Mr. Miller. My answer is the same,

Mr. Scherer. You refuse to answer the question.

Were you a member of the Communist Party in 1956?

Mr. Miller. I have already answered that question.

Mr. Scherer. Well, it is not clear ; will you answer it again ?

Mr. ]VIiller. I have already told you that I would refuse to answer
questions that attempt to delve into my associations because they are

HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1325

illegal methods of questioning which has been described by the
Supreme Court of the United States in the Watkins case in which this
committee was chastised because of the way it asked questions, and I
refuse to answer on the grounds of the Watkins case and the first
amendment.

Mr. ScHERER. I direct you to answer the question whether you were
a member of the Communist Party in 1954.

Mr. McIntosh. As an attorney, if you feel that the Watkins case
applies to the question or the explanation given to you under direction
of this committee you may refuse on the basis of that decision if you
feel it applies.

Mr. Miller. I feel it applies all right, but I would rather let some-
body test out the committee on another case.

Do you realize it costs between $10,000 and $20,000 to fight the FBI
and the Justice Department in one of these cases ?

Mr. McIntosh. What is your decision as to why you refuse to
answer, or do you care to say ?

Mr. Golden. I am sorry ; I distracted his attention.

Mr. McIntosh. You were directed to answ^er the question as to
whether or not you were a member of the Communist Party in 1956.

Mr. Miller. Are you directing me to answer ?

Mr. McIntosh. You had previously been directed to answer that.

Mr. Miller. I refused to answer that question and I refuse to
answer at the present time because this committee is illegally con-
stituted, it is in violation of its own rules, and the House of Kepre-
sentatives and its resolution authorizing it ; and I refuse to answer it
under the Watkins case and the first amendment; and I refuse to
answer it because of the persistence of this committee, I believe, to be
a tyrannical effort of an illegal committee to force me to answer, and
the fifth amendment protects me from having to answer such acts.

Mr. Scherer. Proceed, Mr. Tavenner.

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Miller, you stated that you are not now a mem-
ber of the Communist Party, but when I asked you whether or not
you had knowledge of a Communist Party cell composed of lawyers
you refused to answer because to do so might tend to incriminate you.

Mr. Miller. I did not say it would tend to incriminate me.

Mr. Tavenner. You said the fifth amendment, which means that.

Mr. Miller. No ; it does not mean that.

Mr. Tavenner. Did you mean something else ?

Mr. Miller. I meant what the fifth amendment means as inter-
preted by the Supreme Court of the United States.

Mr. Tavenner. Were you claiming that you had a right to decline
or refuse to answer that question on the grounds that to do so might
tend to incriminate you?

Mr. Miller. I decline to answer that question.

Mr. Tavenner. Then I will ask you the question over again so there
can be no doubt as to what your answer is or the grounds of your
refusal in the event that you fail to answer.

Do you now know of the existence of an organized group of the
Communist Party composed of laAvyers and known as a profes-
sional cell of the Communist Party here in San Francisco?

Mr. Miller. I decline to answer that question on the grounds of
the first amendment as it is interpreted by the Watkins case, to wit,
that it is an illegal question put by an illegal committee.

1326 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.

Mr. ScHEREK. I direct you to unswer the (question.

Mr. Miller. Since you direct me to answer it despite the Wat-
kins case, I decline to answer that question on the grounds of the
fifth amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Mr. ScHERER. Next question, Mr. Tavenner.

Mr. Tavenner. Do you honestly believe that to answer that ques-
tion might tend to incriminate you when you have told the com-
mittee that you are not now a member of the Communist Party ?

Mr. Miller. I believe that in light of the stated purposes of this
committee that any question answered by anybody before this com-
mittee might tend to incriminate that person.

I believe that concerning myself.

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

Mr. ScHERER. The witness is excused.

(The witness was excused.)

Mr. Tavenner. Mrs. Jane Castellanos.

Mr. Collins. Before my client appears, she requests that she not
be broadcast on the television and also on the radio. Mr. Scherer,
may I have your assurance slie will not be televised ?

Mr. Scherer. Talk a little louder ; I did not hear you.

Mr. Collins. Before I ask my client to appear, she has asked that
no telecasting be made of her or approaching the chair she will
occupy, to leave, and not broadcast.

Mr. Scherer. As far as television is concerned the request is
granted and the television cameras will not photograpli the witness
at any time.

Will you raise your right hand, please?

Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give
at this hearing wdll be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth, so help you God ?

Mrs. Castellanos. I do.

TESTIMONY OF MRS. JANE ROBINSON CASTELLANOS, ACCOMPANIED
BY COUNSEL, WAYNE COLLINS

Mr, Tavenner. State your name, please.

Mrs. Castellanos. Jane Castellanos.

Mr. Tavenner. Spell your last name, please.

Mrs. Castellanos. C-a-s-t-e-1-l-a-n-o-s.

Mr. Tai-enner. Will counsel accompanying the witness please
identify himself for the record ?

Mr. Collins. Wayne Collins. I am a member of the California
State bar and a member of the United States Supreme Court.

Mr. Ta\t:nner. Where w-ere you born, Mrs. Castellanos ?

Mr. Collins. Just a moment. Before the witness is questioned, we
have an objection as to the jurisdiction of tliis proceeding and the
jurisdiction of this committee to proceed and, if I may make that
objection, I should like to make it on behalf of the witness.

If you insist that the witness make that objection, then she will be
required so to do.

Mr. Scherer, Would you read the objection into the record?

Mr. Collins. I do object to making the objection secretly at a
public hearing. If any portion of this hearing is to be held in secret,
we raise that objection here and now.

HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1327

Mr. ScHERER. It is not in secret. You are giving it to the reporter
for the record.

I must insist that you comply with rule 7 of the committee which
prevents you from making such an objection. You will have to make
it through your witness.

Mr. Collins. Rule 7, as I understand the rules of procedure for this
committee, does not preclude a witness brought before this committee
from raising objections through counsel.

I believe it was only as to testimony that the attorney may not
give testimony for himself or through the witness or for the witness.

Mr. ScHERER. I do not interpret the rule that way, Counselor.
Mrs. Castellanos. I wish to make an objection. I am not trained in
law and all objections to questions I make have to be written out for
me or recited to me by my counsel, so I request that my counsel be
authorized to make objections to the questions for me and also to
save the time of this committee.

Mr. SciiERER, Proceed, Mr. Tavenner.

Mr. Ta\"enner. Where were you born, Mrs. Castellanos ?

Mrs. Castellanos. May I ask for a ruling on this objection?

Mr. Scherer. Madam, this committee has no right — this is not a
court — to sustain or overrule an objection. It may be noted in the
record, and then at such time as this proceeding may find its way into
a proper court at a proper time, your counselor or you can make the
objections in the court and the court will either overrule or sustain
your objection.

Mrs. Castellanos. I object to your refusal to grant me the privi-
lege just requested, and assign it as error, because to permit counsel
to make mere objections for me is not prohibited by rule 7 of the pro-
visions, and further, the refusal constitutes a denial to me of effective
assistance of counsel guaranteed by the sixth amendment and also of
the procedure of due process of law guaranteed by the due processes
clause and the fiftli amendment of the United States Constitution.

Mr. Scherer. I gave your counsel the opportunity to read any legal
objections lie wants to or desires to into the record.

Proceed, Mr. Tavenner.

Mr. TA\Ti:NNER. Where were you born, please ?

Mrs. Castellanos. Before I answer that question, I desire to know
whether there is a quorum of the committee present?

Mr. Scherer. There is a quorum of the subcommittee present.

Mr. Tavenner. Now, may I ask the question again. Not yet ? All
right.

Mrs. Castellanos. How many of the committee are present at this
liearing?

Mr. Scherer. I have answered the question. Proceed, Mr. Taven-
ner.

JNIr. Ta\^nner. I ask tlie question again. Where were you born?

Mr. Collins. Just one moment.

(The witness conferred with her counsel.)

Mrs. Castellanos. I object to this proceeding on the grounds that
the rules of the House of Representatives are made the rules of this
committee, and that rule 25-A requires that any committee must in-
clude a minority and a majority representation and confer on them
the powers delegated to the committee itself.

1328 HEARESrGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.

Mr. ScHERER. This committee does contain members of majority
and minority parties.

Mr, Willis, who is a member of the Democratic Party is a member
of this subcommittee. He is not present at the hearing, but there is a
quorum of the subcommittee present.

Now, let us go on, Mr. Tavenner.

Mr. Ta\^nner. Are you ready to answer the question now?

Mrs, Castellanos. I object to proceed with this hearing on the
grounds that the acting subcommittee has not complied with rule
25-A of the House rules and does not include a majority and minority
representative,

Mr, ScHERER. Madam, I just explained to you that it does contain
that, I ask you to proceed to answer the question, where you were
born.

Mrs. Castellanos, I am referring to the committee members pres-
ently conducting the hearing.

Mr. Ta VENDER. Now will you answer the question ?

Mr. ScHERER. Proceed to the next question. She has had ample
opportunity to answer the question, Mr. Tavenner.

Mr. Tavenner. How long have you lived in California ? I assume
you live there now.

Mrs. Castellanos. I have lived in California since the fall of 1934
with occasional vacations in other parts of the United States.

Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee, please, what your edu-
cational training has been previously, that is, your formal educational
training.

Mrs. Castellanos. You are referring, I presume, to my college
education ?

Mr. Tavenner. Yes.

Mrs. Castellanos. I entered the University of Michigan in Ann
Arbor, Mich., in tlie fall of 1930. I left there in the spring of 1931
to attend the University of Strasbourg, I reentered the University
of Michigan in the fall of 1931 ; remained tliere througliout that
academic year.

In the fall of 1932 I entered the University of Munich under the
sponsorship of the University of Delaware, American. During the
academic year 1933 to 1934 I attended the University of Michigan
where I obtained a bachelor of arts degree.

In academic year 1934 to 1935, I attended Stanford University
where I obtained an M. A, degree. In 1938, I obtained a Ph. D.
degree at Stanford University.

I have since done graduate work, of a lesser duration, at six insti-
tutions of higher learning, all of them recognized degree-granting
colleges.

Mr. Tavenner. Was your name Jane Robinson prior to marriage ?

Mrs, Castellanos, It was,

Mr, Tavenner, R-o-b-i-n-s-o-n?

Mrs, Castellanos. Yes; it was.

Mr, Tavenner. We have testimony before the committee, Mrs.
Castellanos, to the effect that there was a secretly organized group of
the Communist Party in San Francisco composed of professional
people. That group was broken down into a branch composed solely
of lawyers from a certain Dayton University, the name of it being
Haymarket group.

HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1329

There was another group composed solely of doctors, nurses, and
technicians. There was at one time a group within the Newspaper
Guild which broke up and became members of a miscellaneous group
of the Communist Party to which teachers, for the most part,
belonged.

Were you at any time a member of such a group as the last that I
mentioned, namely, the miscellaneous group of the Professional Sec-
tion of the Communist Party in San Francisco ?

Mrs. Castellanos. Mr. Chairman, before I answer this question, I
would like to ask the committee to supply me with the written copy
of the written statement of the oral statement made at the beginning
of this session by the chairman of the committee.

I was not able to hear all of that due to the acoustics in the room
and I would like to have it available for consultation.

Mr. ScHERER. It has been available to counsel for 3 days.

Proceed with the question.

Mrs. Castellanos. Has that statement been made in writing? I
have never seen it.

Mr. ScHERER. Mr. Tavenner, I direct you to ask the next question.

Mr. TA\rENNER. Will you answer the question, please ?

Mrs. Castellanos. I protest your failure to give me a written copy
of the oral statement made at the begimiing of these proceedings.

Mr. Scherer. The witness has had sufficient time to answer the
question.

Proceed with the next question.

Mr. Collins. Did your question relate to a particular time ?

Mr. Tavenner. No, it did not ; whether or not she had knowledge
of the existence of such a group.

To be a little more precise — you asked me to remind you what the
question was — it was more to this effect: Whether or not she at any
time knew of the existence of a Professional Section of the Communist
Party in San Francisco.

Mrs. Castellanos. On and subsequent to October 3, 1945, I have
no such knowledge.

Mr. Ta\t:nner. May I ask you then whether you have been a mem-
ber of the Communist Party since October 3, 1945 ?

Mrs. Castellanos. I am not now and I have not been a member
of the Communist Party since October 2, 1945.

Mr. Ta\tenner. Were you a member of the teaching profession, and
are you now ?

Mrs. Castellanos. I am, sir.

Mr. Tavenner. Were you engaged in the teaching profession prior
to October 3, 1945 ?

Mrs. Castellanos. May I inquire as to the relevance of that ques-
tion?

Mr. Ta\t;nner. Yes; the relevance of the question is, to determine
what the activity of the Communist Party was, that is, the Com-
munist Party acting within the professional groups of the Com-
munist Party in this area.

It has been explained so often that I hardly see how anyone could
help but understand it.

Mrs. Castellanos. I have no such knowledge of activity of this
kind since October 2, 1945.

1330 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.

Mr. Tavenner. I am sorry, I did not hear you.

Mr. ScHERER. She said she had no knowledge of any such activity
since 1945.

Mr. Tavenner. My question related to prior to October 2, 1945, not
since. You have already answered that.

Mrs. Castellanos. I am sorry.

Mr. Tavenner. Let me withdraw the question and put it this way :
You have not been connected in any way with the Communist Party
since October 3, 1945 ?

Mrs. Castellanos. I have had no such connection since October 2,
1945.

Mr. Tavenner. Were you a member of the Communist Party on
October 1, 1945 ?

Mrs. Castellanos. I object to the question and also to this hearing
on each and all of the following grounds : Namely, one, the subpena
served on me, the committee's authorizing resolution, and also the
subject of this investigation, as announced in the oral opening state-
ment of the committee, do not define this authority and do not inform
me of the nature or the extent and limitations 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 in which to answer such accusation or dis-
pose of such questions, and would place me on trial and deprive me
of the right of being confronted with witnesses against me, of the
right of cross-examination, and of the presumption of innocence and
the rights of effective assistance of counsel for my defense, each and
all of which said things deprive me of the due process of the law of
the Constitution and of the rights guaranteed me by the sixth
amendment.

2. It is an attempt to inquire into matters which infringe on the
rights retained by the people of the United States guaranteed by the
9th amendment of the Constitution and also usurps the powers re-
served to the States or the people under the provisions of the 10th
amendment of the Constitution.

3. It is an unlawful

Mr. Scherer, May I ask how many more pages there are ?
Mrs. Castellanos. There is approximately one-third of a page.

3. It is an unlawful attempt to compel me to divulge information
concerning political beliefs, opinions, and activities and associations,
and those of other persons, and to cause injurious publicity to me and
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 speech and ex-
pression and of the freedom of expression and of the peaceable as-
sembly and association guaranteed to me by the first amendment of
the Constitution ; and

5. It is unlawful to attempt to compel me to be a witness against
myself in violation of the provisions of the fifth amendment.

Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell us please what occurred on either
October 1 or October 2, 1945, which has resulted in your testifying
now, that you have not been a member of the Communist Party since
that specific date of October 2 ?

HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1331

Mrs. Castellanos. I object to the question and also this hearing
on each and all of the grounds previously stated as grounds for my
objections to questions of this hearing.

Mr. Tavenner. Was not the Levering Act passed in 1950? Was
that about the date of it ?

Mrs. Castellanos. I believe it was passed in 1950.

Mr. Tavenner. Did that act contain a provision which required
one signing it to state that he had not been a member of tlie Com-
munist Party for a period of 5 years prior to the adoption of that
act?

Mrs. Castellanos. I believe it did.

Mr. Tavenner. Was that 5-year period October 2, 1945 ?

Mr. Collins. I think that the date was October 3.

Mr. Tavenner. It appears that I missed it 1 day. No ; I beg your
pardon. You have stated that you have not been a member since
October 2. The effective date of that 5-year period contained in the
Levering Act went back to and included October 3, so that puts you
exactly at the time that you would not be required under the Lever-
ing Act to state that you had been a member of the Communist Party.

Mrs. Castellanos. What question is it that you are asking me ?

Mr. Tavenner. The Levering Act which was adopted in 1950 had
a provision in it that if a person had been a member of the Communist
Party at any time since October 3, 1945, that fact would have to be
divulged.

Mrs. Castellanos. That is a statement on your part ?

Mr. Tavenner. Yes ; my question is, that being true, did that have
anything to do with your fixing the date of the time when you were
no longer a member of the Communist Party ?

Mrs. Castellanos. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Counsel, that is a date which
is difficult to fix precisely, but the date which I have mentioned is one
of which I am certain.

Mr. Tavenner. That is that you were no longer a member of the
Communist Party since October 2, 1945 ?

Mrs. Castellanos. Mr. Counsel, I have not stated that I was a
member of the Communist Party at any time prior to October 2,
1945.

Mr. Tavenner. I understand, but you have not been a member since
October 2, and that is all I said.

I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Scherer. The witness is excused.

(The witness was excused.)

Mr. Scherer. The committee will take approximately a 5-minute
recess.

(Brief recess.)

Mr. Scherer. The committee will be in session.

Before we proceed with the next witness, I have received the follow-
ing telegram :

Please clarify for the record that witness Brisker was associated with Ameri-
can Veterans Committee and not AMVETS. AMVETS, as you know, is chartered
by Congress and has no connection whatsoever with the American Veterans
Committee and rarely shares the views of the American Veterans Committee.
(Signed) Arthur Greenstreet, Commander, AMVETS, Veterans Memorial Build-
ing, Oakland, Calif.

94343— 57— pt. 2 9

1332 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.

I think the record is clear on tlie matter that developed with refer-
ence to the misiinderstandin()f with AMVETS and the American Vet-
erans Committee, but I think the telegram should be made a part of
the record at this point so there will be no question.

Mr. Ta\enner. Bea Melner, come forward, please.

It may be Beatrice.

Mr. SciiERER. Will you kindly raise your right hand, please. Do
you solemnly swear the testimony you are about to give at this hear-
ing shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so
help you God ?

Miss Melner. I do.

TESTIMONY OP REBECCA L. (BEA) MELNER, ACCOMPANIED BY
COUNSEL, WAYNE COLLINS

Mr. Tavenner. It is noted that the witness is accompanied by the
same counsel who accompanied the former witness.

Witness, your name is Beatrice Melner; you were born in New
York ; your occupation is a schoolteacher ; is that not correct ?

Miss Melner. No ; it is not correct.

Mr. Tavenner. What part of it is wrong.

I see I failed to save any time. I will break it down and take the
general routine. What is your name, please ?

Miss Melner. My name is Rebecca L. Melner.

Mr. Tavenner. Rebecca L. ?

Miss Melner. Yes.

Mr. Tavenner. Are you known at times as Bea ?

Miss Melner. At times I am known as Bea.

Mr. Tavenner. Other than that was my statement correct, or to
save time, were you born in New York ?

Miss Melner. I was born in Manhattan, the Borough of Manhattan,
in the city of New York.

Mr. Tavenner. You are now a schoolteacher?

Miss Melner. Yes ; I am.

Mr. Tavenner. How long have you lived in California ?

Miss Melner. I have lived in California since 1920.

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

Mr. Collins. We are going to raise the same jurisdictional ques-
tions that we raised as in the case of the last witness.

Mr. Tavenner. Very well. Let the record show that the same
jurisdictional objections as were made by the former witness are made
here. That is the witness who preceded this witness.

Mr. Collins. Are the rulings the same ?

Mr. ScHERER. Yes.

Miss Melner. I received a general elementary credential from San
Francisco State Teachers College in 1928. In 1951 I received a bache-
lor of arts degree from the same college. In between that time, I
studied at the University of Nevada, at the University of California.

I took graduate work at San Francisco State Teachers College,
and since 1951 I have taken further postgraduate work at San Fran-
cisco State Teachers College.

Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee, please, where you have
lived since 1945?

HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1333

Miss Melner. I have lived in San Francisco, Calif., since 1945.

Mr. Tavenner. During that period of time, you attended certain
educational institutions and received certain degrees since that time.
Was there a period of time that you taught, in between your attend-
ance at educational institutions?

Were there periods of time since you have been in San Francisco
tliat you taught between your sessions at school ?

Miss Melner. I have taught in San Francisco since 1926.

Mr. Tavenner. And intermittently since that time you have taken
this scholastic training that you mentioned ?

Miss Melner. I did this scholastic work during summer and through
evening courses.

Mr. TA^^NNER. During the period tliat you have been a teacher in
San Francisco, and I will limit that to the period since 1915, have you
been aware of the existence of an orgauized group of the Conmiunist
Party in San Francisco composed of proic^^sional people, r.UKmg tliem
being members of the teaching profession ?

Mr. Collins. Have you fixed that third date ?

Mr. Tavenner. I said since the first of 1915.

Mr. Collins. I am not sure she understands your question. Can
we have it re-read ?

Mr. Tavenner. Have you known of the existence at any time of
an organized group of the Communist Party in San Fi^ancisco com-
posed of professional peo])le, including teachers ?

Mr. Collins. Since October 3 ?

Mr. Ta\'enner. No; I said at any time, in order to eliminate con-
fusion about dates.

Miss Melner. Since October 3, 1945, to date, I have no such
knowledge.

Mr. Ta\t;nner. This is a very strange thing. The previous wit-
ness said she had no knowledge since October 2. You have no knowl-
edge since October 3. Can you explain that to me '(

Miss Melner. On and since October 3, 1915.

Mr. Tavenner. Then, your testimony is that, actually, since Octo-
ber 2, you have had no knowledge of Communist Party activities?

Miss Melner. That is so.

Mr. TA\rENNER. Is October 3, which is the first date on which you
said you had no knowledge, the date that the Levering Act provi-
sion applied to the 5 years which you could not have been a member
of the Communist Party ?

Miss Melner. October 3, 1945, is the date that I have fixed in my
mind because of the Levering Act.

Mr. Tavenner. Because of the Levering Act ? How did you know
on October 3, 1945, that there was going to be a Levering Act in 1950
which would have a 5-year provision in it which would happen to
begin on October 3 ?

Miss Melner. I did not know.

Mr. Ta\-enner. You have fixed the date October 3 because of the
Levering Act. Suppose there had not been any Levering Act. What
would the date have been then ?

Miss Melner. I can fix the dat^ precisely of October 3, 1945, be-
cause within 5 years after that date I signed the Levering Act oath.

1334 HEARINGS HELD EST SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.

Mr. Tam3nneb. If the Levering Act would have happened to have
said 10 years, would that have moved youi membership back 10 years
instead of 5 ?

Miss Melner, I believe the question is argumentative and
speculative.

^Ir. Tavexner. Do you refuse to answer ?

Miss Melner. Will you re-read that question, please ?

(The pending question was read by the reporter.)

Miss Melxer. 1 did not state I was a member.

Mr. Tavenner. Would it have moved back your knowledge

Mr. SciiERER. I direct you to answer the question.

Miss Melner. May I have that question again, please ?

Mr. Scherer. Proceed to the next question, Mr. Tavemier.

Mr. Tavexner. Were you a member of the Communist Party prior
to October 3, 1945?

JMiss JSIelner. Just a moment please. I wish to consult with my
counsel.

(The witness conferred with her counsel.)

1 wish to state that I am not a member of the Communist Party
and I further state that I was not a member on October 3, 19-15, and
have not been a member at any time since that date.

Mr. Ta\tenner. Now, will you answer my question, please?

Mr. Scherer. Yes, Madam, I direct that you answer the question.

Miss Melxer. Just a moment, please, I am getting advice from my
coimsel.

(The witness conferred with her comisel.)

Miss Melner. I object to the question and also to this hearing on
each and all of the following grounds, namely, one, the subpena
served on me, the committee authorizing resolution, and also the sub-
ject 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 limitations of these hearings or of
the mutters

]\Ir. Scherer. Just a minute. Is that the same paper that was read
by the preceding witness ?

Miss Melner. It is a little ditferent.

Mr. Tavenner. What difference?

Miss Melner. You have interrupted me.

Mr. Ta-vtenner. Yes ; and purposely. Wliat is the difference ?

Miss Melner. I do not know the exact difference.

Mr. Ta^^nner. Then you do not know whether there is any differ-
ence ; do you ?

Miss Melner. Yes; there are some differences. I cannot tell you
exactly M'hat they are.

Mr. TA^^NNER. Have you read the statement before ?

Miss Melner. I will not start again. I will start right here.

Do not define its authority and do not inform me of the purpose,
nature, and extent of this hearing, or the matters I am to testify to, or
infonn me of the nature or any accusation that has been brought
against me or give me a reasonable period of time in which to answer
any such accusation, or disclose the pertinency of the question, but
places me on trial and deprives me of the right of being confronted
with witnesses against me, of the right of cross-examination, and

HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1335

presumption of innocence and to tlie right of 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 and of the rights guaranteed to me by the sixth
amendment of the Constitution.

Tavo. It is an attempt to inquire into private affairs unrelated to
a valid legislative purpose and exceeds the power lodged in Congress
by article I of the Constitution and constitutes an unlawful exercise
of the exclusive power lodged in the judiciary by article HI of the
Constitution and of law-enforcement power lodged exclusively in the
Executive by article II of the Constitution and it also denies and dis-
parages rights retained by the people as guaranteed by the 9th amend-
ment of the Constitution and, also, usurps the power reserved to the
States or to the people by the 10th amendment of the Constitution.

Three : It is an unlawful attempt to compel me to divulge knowledge
concerning my past political beliefs, opinions, activities, and associ-
ations, 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.

Four: It constitutes an abridgm.ent of the freedom of 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; and

Five : It is unlawful to attempt to compel me to be a witness against
myself in violation of the provisions of the fifth amendment.

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

Mr. ScHERER. The witness is excused.

Mr. Tavenner. I would like to call at this time Mr. Benjamin
Dreyfus.

Mr. Purcell,. Mr. Chairman, just a short time ago, I appeared as
a witness for Mr. Charles Garry and I made a motion to quash the
subpenaing of that case. In the interest of time, may the record show
that the same motion is made to quash the subpena of service of sum-
mons upon Mr. Benjamin Dreyfus and that the subpena in this case
likewise bears the date of May 9, 1957, and that the motion is made
upon all of the grounds that were set forth by me at the time I was
representing Garry.

Mr. ScHERER. The record may so indicate.

Mr. Purcell. I assume you ruled you will not quash it ?

Mr. ScHEEER. No. That is a matter for court.

You do solemnly swear that the testimony you shall give at this
hearing shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,
so help you God ?

Mr. Dreyfus. I do.

TESTIMONY OF BENJAMIN DREYFUS, ACCOMPANIED BY
COUNSEL, JAMES C. PURCELL

Mr. Tavenister. Will you state your name, please ?
Mr. Dreyfus. Benjamin Dreyfus.

Mr. Tavenner. It is noted that the witness is accompanied by coun-
sel. Please identify yourself for the record.

94343— 57— pt. 2 10 _

1336 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.

Mr. PuRCELL. My name is James C. Purcell and I am a member of
the State of California bar and Supreme Court of the United States
and admitted to practice in all of the States of this court. I maintain
offices at 990 Geary Street in the city of San Francisco.

Mr. Tavenner. Where were you bom, Mr. Dreyfus ?

Mr, Dreyfus. Right here in San Francisco.

Mr. Tavenner. Do you now reside in San Francisco ?

Mr. Dreyfus. Across the bay, sir.

Mr. Tavenner. You are an attorney by profession ?

Mr. Dreyfus. I have the same qualifications as my attorney does;
yes, sir. I am admitted to all of the same courts that he is, including
the Supreme Court of the United States, and my office is at 703 Mar-
ket Street.

Mr. Tavenner. Will you advise the committee, briefly, what your
formal education has been in preparation for the practice of your pro-
fession ?

Mr. Dreyfus. Yes, sir. I attended grammar school and high
school in the Peninsula of San Mateo. I went to Stanford Univer-
sity and to law school.

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Dreyfus, I have observed from an issue of the
Daily People's World of April 26, 1950, that there was some litiga-
tion in the State of California over a sum of $2 million which was tied
up in San Francisco banks.

One of the parties in the litigation was the Bank of China and the
China National Aviation Corp.

The article indicates that you represented those corporations. Am
I correct in that ?

Mr. Dreyfus, Could I look at this article ?

Mr. Tavenner. Yes.

Mr, Dreyfus. Mr. Tavenner, with all due respect, I do not like
to be required under compulsory processes here to discuss matters
which appear in the public press, but I would like to go a little
further from the time I first received the subpena of the committee.

Following as it did so shortly after the criticism of the board of
governors of the State bar of California, I was seriously appre-
hensive that I was being called here because I was a lawyer.

Mr. Tavenner. Let me straighten you out on this. The institu-
tion of this investigation began on the 14th day of June 1956. It
was originally planned to conduct this hearing in the fall of 1956,
but because of other commitments that the committee had it could
not reach it.

This hearing was set to be held in April before the bar that you are
speaking of criticized this committee, so there is no connection what-
ever.

I have said that publicly when queried by the press. There is no
connection whatever between this investigation or the subpenaing
of any witness here and what may have transpired at an entirely
different hearing,

Mr. Dreyfus. I appreciate your statement, Mr. Tavenner, I am
required to reach my own conclusions in that regard, however, and
particularly since the first question to which you direct my attention
involves my clients, and it seems to me that to ask me about clients
that I had represented, seriously infringes upon me at the bar.

HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1337

Mr. Tavenner. I have asked you nothing involving a confidential
relationship between attorney and client, nothing whatever, and I
do not propose to.

Here is a newspaper article saying you represented two Chinese
corporations, and I want to ask you a few questions about it, if you
were employed or are in a position to know about what I am going to
ask you.

Mr. Dreyfus. That is exactly what I said. I realize it is late in
the day.

Mr. Tavenner. Do not let that bother you.

Mr. Dreyfus. I have been sitting here all day and I may be a little
bit tired, but I seriously believe that the question is directed to me
as an attorney here, called under a compulsory process of the com-
mittee, and I am required to be present and to disclose matters of
my clients, necessarily injurious to me as a member of the bar.

Mr. Tavenner. Let me disabuse you of what I see you have in
mind and go directly to the matters I want to inquire about.

Both of those corporations appear to be corporations organized
under the laws of the United States. I am not asking you to divulge
any confidential informatio]i, but tlie article sliows that notwith-
standing that, the present Chinese Government owns 75 or 80 percent
of the stock in the Aviation Corp. It owes a very substantial per-
cent to the Chinese Government of the capital stock of tlie other
corporation,

Mr. Scherer. Pardon me, Mr. Tavenner. You are talking about
the Chinese Communist Government as distinguished from the Chinese
Nationalist Government on Formosa ?

Mr. Tavenner. That is right, the present Chinese People's Repub-
lic.

The Foreign Agents Registration Act, I am confident, has never
been held applicable to a person representing a corporation or char-
ter and organized under the laws of tlie United States.

I am trying, now, to avoid all of the preliminary questions which
I would normally ask you, but you prefer not to be questioned about
them.

Have you given consideration to the question of advisability of
extending the provisions of the act in such a way as to limit to some
extent or, rather, to extend to some extent the present provisions of
the act so that it would apply to corporations which had been set up
by a foreign power under circumstances such as exist here by the
Chinese People's Republic, where it owned the great majority of the
stock?

Do you have any views on that ?

Mr. Dreyfus. No, sir.

Mr. TA^'ENNER. Of course, a corporation is a unit in itself. If, in-
stead of having formed this corporation, it had been the Chinese
Government which employed you to attempt to recover the $2 mil-
lion, would you not have been required to register under the Foreign
Agents Registration Act ?

]Mr. Dreyfus. May I ask this, Mr. Tavenner : Am I under investi-
gation here for some criminal offense or is this for some legislative
purpose ?

1338 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.

Mr. Tavenner. Not at all. This committee has been struggling
with the provisions of the Foreign Agents Kegistration Act, as to
whether or not it should be tightened in certain respects.

We have spoken, to some extent, in this hearing already with re-
gard to certain types of Communist Party literature that is coming
mto this country in violation of the provisions of that act.

I have said already that I consider that there is no violation of the
act involved here. The committee may desire to make some legislative
recommendations. It has been discussed on the subject that I have
been discussing with you.

Mr. Dreytus. Let me be sure I understand you — to legislations
that would make legal representation by attorneys of the act, would
be illegal ?

Mr. Tavenner, No; it would merely require registration under
the Foreign Agents Registration Act as is presently required now.

Mr. Dreyfus. Let me see if I understand your question. I think
I have forgotten it.

Mr. Tavenner. My question was this: Inasmuch as a corporation
is a unit in itself, and because of that apparently the Chinese Gov-
ernment, working through this corporation organized in the United
States, would not be in any sense subject to provisions of the act or
anybody representing that corporation

Mr. ScHERER. Wliereas it would be if it had not been acting through
a corporation.

Mr. Tavenner. That is what I am getting at.

I am not asking you to divulge any information that you obtained
in connection with the representation that you had according to the
paper, but are you in any position where you can offer any suggestion
regarding that ?

You are probably better acquanited with situations of that kind
than members of the committee.

Mr. Dreyfus. I undoubtedly should be more familiar with the pro-
visions of the Foreign Agents Registration Act than I am, but un-
fortunately I must — I hate to do it publicly — but plead some igno-
rance, and I am not an expert in that field.

Accordingly, I doubt that anything that I could suggest would be
of value, sir, in that regard.

May I have a moment to consult with Mr. Purcell ?

Mr. TA^^ENNER. Yes, sir.

(The witness conferred with his counsel.)

Mr. Dreyfus. May I add just one thing to my previous answer,
Mr. Tavenner? I certainly would heartily oppose any legislation or
amendments to such a bill that might require a lawyer to divulge
confidential information received from his client, whoever his client
may be. That is why I mentioned in the first instance tliat I was
somewhat apprehensive of tlie nature of the questions which the com-
mittee was doing, what tlie board of governors of the State bar was
doing, which I quite rightly criticized them for doing, interfering
with the rights of lawyers.

Mr. Tavenner. I made no such implication.

Mr. Dreyfus. I understood that and I am sure you can understand
my apprehensions.

HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1339

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Dreyfus, you have been active in the National
Lawyers Guild in the sense of occupying executive positions over a
long period of time ; have you not ?

Mr. Drettus. Well, now, Mr. Tavenner, I identify this question,
too, since it relates to a bar association, as having the latent possi-
bility of interfering with the independence of the bar, but I am sorry
that you are going into it for that reason. I am sorry that the com-
mittee thinks it is proper.

I do not want to ask you again, Mr. Tavenner, to state the perti-
nency or the relevence as you have done before. I know that both
constitutional lawyers and the Supreme Court opinions this Monday,
with the hearings that commenced on Tuesday morning that we have
all been grappling with new constitutional concepts, and I do not want
to ask you to go through the whole thing again.

But as I read the Watkins case, trying to understand it thoroughly,
it seems to me that a much more definite legislative purjDose ought to
be stated as a requirement to my answering such a question again
under compulsory processes, and I would appreciate it if you will
tell me what legislative purpose you have in mind in asking me that
question.

Mr. Tavenner. You were present when the statement was made a
little while ago with regard to the purpose and pertinency of the same
question I asked of another lawyer.

Mr. Dreyfus. I was here. I have been here all day.

I\Ir. ScHERER. Do you want Mr. Tavenner to explain to you the
pertinency of the question ? If you do, Mr. Tavenner will explain it
to you.

You said something there about the hour getting late, and you did
not want him to. I am not clear.

Mr. Dreyfus. Will you excuse me just one second, sir?

(The witness conferred with his counsel.)

Mr. Dreyfus. What I had in mind was this, Mr. Scherer, Mr.
Tavenner, I did not want Mr. Tavenner to repeat what I did hear
before and his explanation of the pertinency of questions related to
the bar association. As a lawyer, I am afraid that I do not join Mr.
Tavenner in his explanation of the sufficiency, but I wanted to take
it one step further and, therefore, I could not ask him to do that, but
beyond the pertinency provision, what is the legislative purpose?
What legislation do you have in mind ?

Mr. McIntosh. Excuse me for interinipting.

I think the committee was satisfied with the pertinency and rele-
vance to the legislative purpose and if you do not agree with it, there
is really no use for anyone to belabor the point further.

We are satisfied on the adequacy of the explanation that has been
given.

Mr, Dreyfus. The explanation of pertinency suffices to explain the
legislative pertinency.

Mr. McIntosh. You stated that you were in the room, and we have
gone through this on similar questions together with Mr. Tavenner's
recent remarks. We feel it is sufficient to comply with the require-
ments of the case. If we are not in agreement, let us make the dis-
agreement clear, and proceed to an answer.

1340 HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.

Mr. Dreyfus. I have no purpose whatever in belaboring the point,
sir, or extending the matter. I had conceived the two questions to be
different ones, Mr, Mcintosh.

Pertinency is one thing; the legislative purpose is still another,
and it was toward the latter

Mr. ScHERER. So there will be no question, Mr. Tavenner, explain
the legislative purpose and also the pertinency of the question.

Mr. Ta\t<:nner. As I explained formerly, the subject that the com-
mittee has been undertaking to investigate is the activities of the pro-
fessional cells of the Communist Party in San Francisco.

The extent, character, and objects of the Communist Party activi-
ties witliin that group, and, as I explained before, the legislative
purpose for inquiring into those subjects is the task and duty that the
committee has in the way it views the matter of considering whether
or not there is additional legislative action that should be taken re-
garding the Commimist Party, even if it goes to the extent of outlaw-
ing the Communist Party as such.

In other words, if the committee as a result of this and other in-
vestigations it is conducting, is of the opinion that the time has now
arrived in light of all of the circumstances that more stringent legis-
lation should be adopted, this committee wants to be able to advise
Congress of the fact upon which it feels such action should be taken
and to have the facts upon which it should make up its mind.

I have explained somewhat in detail, and it was also done by the
chairman in his opening statement, that this committee has been
pondering that question since 1950. This committee, although there
was a difterence of opinion among its members, did not feel like going
to that ultimate extent in 1950.

A compromise view was adopted. Many legislative bills have been
presented since that time on this subject that we are now considering.
This committee has withheld any judgment. It has stated in its an-
nual reports that it is not ready yet to come to any legislative con-
clusion as to just what precise legislation should be adopted, and
whether or not, in the evaluation of the situation as it exists today,
it is such a situation that the Communist Party should, by proper
legislation, be outlawed as such, and then that has been explained.

I do not think I have added anything in principle which has been
said. I think you are satisfied on the matter of pertinency. If you
desire a repetition of that, I will.

Mr. Dreyfus. No, sir ; I do not need any repetition.

Mr. Ta\^nner. As to the question of pertinency, I have traced the
importance of Communist Party work in many mass organizations and
particularly in the Lawyers Guild from the time of its inception.

We want to know what it is here and we want to know the extent
of its operations.

Mr. Dreyfus. I want to say this : I am certain that the committee
would not proceed knowingly, in an unconstitutional way. I am
sure that the committee would agree with me and I tliink if my estimate
of the impact of the Watkins case is correct, it does not require me to
answer such questions and they agree with me, nor can I really believe
that the committee would reconnnend such unconstitutional legisla-
tion as to outlaw a political party, so I must respectfully disagree with
you, Mr. Tavenner. as to the sufficiency of the legislative purposes as
you have explained them to me.

HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1341

Mr. ScHEEER. I direct you to answer the question.

Mr. Dreyfus. Notwithstanding the objections that I have made, I
am still directed to answer ; is that correct ?

Mr. ScHERER. That is correct.

Mr. Dreyfus. I do not understand it. Yes; it is true. Yes; I have
been in the National Lawyers Guild for a long time and I am very
proud of that bar association. Its activities particularly in the field
of the independence of the bar, for which 1 feel very deeply con-
cerned for a number of years, Mr. Tavenner, have kept me a member
and I have been very glad to have been a member.

Mr. Tavenner. You were secretary in 1941, treasurer in 1944, execu-
tive secretary in 1945, secretary in 1917, secretary in 1949, secretary in
1950.

You were a delegate in 1954, according to information that I have
here. Do you think that is substantially correct?

Mr. Dreyfus. It sounds rather flattering, Mr. Tavenner. I have
no independent recollection of the dates about which you speak.

Mr. TA^^iNNER. Are you a member now ?

Mr. Dreyfus. Yes.

Mr. Ta\t:nner. During that period of time when you held those
responsible offices, were you a member of the professional cell of the
Communist Party here in San Francisco which has been generally
referred to as the professional cell composed of lawyers, or at a time
when the lawyers were members of a general professional cell ?

Mr. Dreyfus. Here again, as indicated at the earlier questions, I
cannot see any lawful, legitimate purpose. I appreciate that we are
all having difficulty with all of the new constitutional questions which
we are confronted with, and, frankly, you are trying very hard to meet
the requirements of the Constitution as imposed upon this committee.

I do not think the fault has been yours that you have been unable to
do so, but I am sure that you have been, at least to my satisfaction as
a constitutional lawyer, and I am a fair one, and I am able to see the
legislative, lawful, valid purpose of this committee's purposes and I
must decline to answer the question.

Mr. Scherer. Witness, I direct you to answer the question. We do
not accept your declination to refuse to answer for the reasons given.

Mr. Dreyfus. I do not quite understand that.

Mr. McIntosh. You are directed to answer the question.

Mr. Dreyfus. May I consult with counsel on that ?

Mr. McIntosh. Yes.

(The witness conferred with his counsel.)

Mr. Dreyfus. Mr. Chairman, I must interpose the objections that
I have stated to the committee already, the fifth amendment to the
Constitution, the first amendment to the Constitution, the first amend-
ment, which I am so delighted to see has new dignity as a result of the
Supreme Court's recent decision in the Watkins case.

Mr. Scherer. I accept your declination.

Mr. Dreyfus. That is very gracious of you.

Mr. Scherer. Do jon have any further questions ?

Mr. Tavenner. Yes, sir ; I do.

Will you tell the committee please, if you know, what the size of
the membership is now in the Haymarket group of the Communist
Party which we understand is a name which has been given to an

1342 HEARINGS HELD m SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.

organized group of professionals composed of members of the legal
profession ?

Mr. Dreyfus. Excuse me, sir.

(The witness conferred with his counsel.)

Mr. Dreyfus. Mr. Tavenner, I identified that question as substan-
tially similar to the next previous question. I, therefore, interpose
as reasons for my reason for declining to answer, I believe that is the
form that the chairman recommended to previous witnesses ; I inter-
pose all of the objections that I have made to the next previous ques-
tion, and I am afraid I must add this, sir, if you persist in asking
questions of that nature, substantially in the same period, that I will
be forced to conclude that your purpose in doing so cannot be a legis-
lative one, but must be one criticized by the Supreme Court in the
Watkins case, such method of bringing ridicule.

Mr. Tavenner. On the contrary, if I asked you only the question
of whether you had been a member of the Communist Party, you
would say that is all I wanted to know when actually I am here
trying to obtain facts regarding the operations of that group; so,
if I ask them one way, you criticize us, if I ask the other way we
are criticized, too ; so let me pose another question.

Will you tell the committee, please, in what type of activities that
group of the Communist Party is now engaged ?

Mr. Dreyfus. That is exactly the same question in a different form.

Mr. TA^^NNER. No ; there is a great deal of difference.

Mr. ScHERER. Would you answer the question or decline to an-
swer it ?

Mr. Dreyfus. I intended to decline to answer the question identify-
ing it as substantially the same question upon the same grounds.

Mr. Scherer. Proceed to the next question.

Mr. Tavenner. In what mass organizations are the members of that
group working now ?

Mr. Dreyfus. As I said a moment ago, persistence by you in ask-
ing questions of this character in this area of this nature force me
to the conclusion that your only purpose in asking them is to do
exactly what the Supreme Court said this committee had been up to
before and should not do, had no constitutional power to do, to bring
some form of ridicule or shame upon me and I deny that you have
any right to ask me those questions.

Mr. Tavenner. On the contrary if I did not ask, you would say the
same thing, that all I wanted to do was to embarrass you.

Mr. Dreyfus. If you are saying that for some time I had little or
no sympathy with this committee, I am afraid you would be right.

Mr. Tavenner. Would you answer the question ?

Mr. Dreyfus. I declined to answer the question as I attempted to
do, on the several grounds that I previously indicated.

Mr. Ta\^nner. Are you a member of the Communist Party ?

Mr. Dreyfus. I identify that as the same question.

Mr. Scherer. I direct you to answer.

Mr. Dreyfus. Yes; my position is the same. I decline to answer
upon the same grounds as I previously stated.

Mr. Ta^tenner. I have no further questions.

Mr. Scherer. The witness is excused.

(The witness was excused.)

HEARINGS HELD IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. 1343

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Chairman, it is now 10 minutes of 6. It is
quite apparent that we will not be able to complete the work that the
committee had planned to do. We have some witnesses — not very
many — but we have some witnesses who have been subpenaed, but
who have not been called.

The new constitutional problems that have been mentioned here by
nearly every witness for 4 days, resulting in the reading of large por-
tions of the decision into the record, the necessity on my part, as a
result of raising questions as to the pertinency of a particular question
which is quite apparent, I think, in most instances on their face, has
necessitated my repeating time and time again, as I am required to do
under the Watkins case, the subject that tlie witnesses then are being
inquired about and the pertinency of the question, along with the
connected reasoning of the committee as to how that question is related
to the subject.

The result of it is that it has prolonged this hearing, I am certain,
many, many hours beyond which anyone could have contemplated.
Repetition of that time and time again has prevented us from com-
pleting this work.

I think there is nothing for the committee to do but decide sometime
later when it will hear the other witnesses.

Mr. ScHERER. What you have said is true. The committee concurs
in that recommendation.

The hearing is adjourned.

(l^Hiereupon, at 5: 50 p. m., Friday, June 21, 1957, the hearing in
the above-entitled matter was adjourned, subject to the call of tbe
Chair.)

INDEX

Individuals

Page

Aaron, David 1304

Acheson, Dean 1154

Andersen, George R 1242, 1290, 1291

Arnautoff, Victor 1166, 1167, 1293

Athearn, Leigh 1165

Atkinson, Dave 1294

Atkinson, Laura 1294

Balcomb, Lucy 1134, 1250

Barankovics, Stevan 1097

Barry, Clemmie 1132, 1250

Barry, Sue (also knovpn as Yudauka) 1159

Bineman, Sol (Solomon) 1157,1259-1262 (testimony), 1289

Bouscaren, Anthony 1183

Boylan, Tom 1133, 1250

Bransten, Louise 1295, 1296

Brisker, Estelle (Mrs. Sydney Brisker) 1168

Brisker, Sydney H 1168, 1292, 1297-1300 (testimony), 1331

Brockhaus, Verlag F 1234, 1235

Brodsky, Joseph 1304

Browder, Earl 1124

Brown, Archie 1132, 1250

Brown, .T. A 1273

Bniemi, Ralph 1159

Burrell, Mary (Mrs. Ray Burrell) 1166,1212,1293

Burrell, Ray 1166, 1293

€aldwell, Christopher 1213

Callahan. Charlotte 1132, 1250

Canon, Robert W 1272

Canright, Norman 1167, 1294

€arson. Mini 1134, 12.50

Castellanos, Jane (nee Robinson) 1292,1320-1331 (testimony)

Chekalin, M 1218

Cherry, Francis A 1244

Collins, Wayne 1326, 1332

Collins, William 1143

Colton, Ellis 1168,1169,1217,1218,1220-1245 ( testimony ), 1232-1234

Connelly, Dorothy Healey 1152, 1171

Conner (Frank J.) 1123

Darwin, Jay A 1105 (testimony), 1209, 1314-1317 (statement)

Delany, Elmer P 12.55, 1256

Dennis, Eugene 1219

Dimitrov, George 1117, 1219

Dodd, Bella V 1126, 1127, 1130

Dow, Harold 1166, 1292

Dreyfus, Benjamin 1165,1166,1335-1342 (testimony)

Duclos, Jacques 1113, 1119, 1120

Edises, Bertram 1165

Einstein, Albert 1271

Ekbo, Garrett 1166

Elkins, Morton L 1160, 1172-1178 (testimony)

Elsesser, Rikee 1168, 1214

Eshleman, John M. (Jack) 1159,1277-1281 (testimony)

Eshorn, Hilda 1167

ii INDEX

Page

Folkoff, Isaac (Dad) 1167, 1293, 1294

Foster, William Z 1218, 1219

Frierson, Bill 1134, 1250

Fuchs, Herbert 1191, 1192, 1323

Funn, Dorothy K 1119, 1125

Galloway, Harold A 1202, 1277

Garfield, Morton M 1157, 1273-1275 (testimony)

Garry, Charles 1165, 1290, 1301-1314 (testimony)

Garry, Louise (Mrs. Charles Garry) 1290, 1295

Gatewood, Ernestine 1200, 1201

Gladstein, Richard 1165

Glass. Ann 1160, 1296

Glass, John 1160

Golden, John R 1317

Gordon, Asher 1157, 1263-1268 (testimony), 1298, 1300

Gordon, Lillian 1296

Greenstreet, Arthur 1331

Grossman, Aubrey 1165

Guest, David 1218

Heller, Mark 1272

Halperin, Morris 1168, 1209

Hanchett, Edward L. (Ned) 1134, 1135-1140 (testimony, 1142, 1160, 1291

Hardwick, John 1160

Hardwick, Thomas D 1178-1182 (testimony), 1292

Hartle, Barbara 1272

Hartman, Louis Earl 1149-1156 (testim.ony)

Hitchcock, George 11S2-11S8 (testimony)

Horowitz, John 1134,1140-1143 (testimony), 1160, 1292

Irvine, Ray 1132, 1250

Jeffers, Dorothy 1167,1210-1220 (testimony),

1243, 1244, 1253, 1282-1296 (testimony), 1299

Jerome, V. J 1125, 1218

Kaplan, Leon 1134, 1250

Keller, Julius 1290

Keller. Mrs. Julius 1290

Kermish, Irving 1096-1099 (testimony), 1245

Kerner, William 1292

Khrushchev 1183, 1185, 1231

King (Earl) 1123

Kinkead, Beatrice 1133. 1250

Kiss, Sandor 1097

Klein. Joseph 1118

Kottnauer, Doris 1293

Lambert, Rude 1132,' 1250^

Lavino, Ernest 1132, 12-50

Lawson. John Howard 1156

Lenin, V. I 1218, 1219

Leonard, Marjorie 1168

Leonard, Norman 1099, 1106, 1220, 1298

Levitan, Mrs. Lawrence. (See Siris, Evelyn.)

Lindberg, John 1294

Lindbergh, Virginia 1132, 1250

Liu, Shao-ch'i 1218

Maclnnis, James Martin 1263

Mack, Julian W 1096, 1297

Mah. Dan (Kew) 1133,1250,1282

Maltz, Albert 1219

Marasse, Doris 1165

Mass, John 1161

Massev, Henry 1132, 1250

McMurrav, Lloyd E 1172, 1178, 1193. 1259, 1268

McNeil, Jackie 1133, 1250

McTernan, Francis J., Jr 1245, 1252

1 Appears "Rudie" in these references.

INDEX ill

Page

Melner, Rebecca L. (also known as Bea Melner) 1160,1292,1332-1335

(testimony)

Miggs, Alice 1214

Miller, Helen (Mrs. Hugh Miller) 1295,1323

Miller, Hugh B 1290, 1291, 1295, 1302, 1317-1326 (testimony)

Miller, Irene 1291

Mooney (Tom) 1123

Neimeyer, Gerhart 1183

Nelson, Eleanor 1323

Nissen, Robert J 1202-1208 (testimony)

O'Conor, Herbert 1095

Orr, Paul 1130, 1133, 1250

Orr, Violet (Mrs. Paul Orr) 1132,1250

Packard, Emmy Lou 1293

Patten, Beverly Mikell. (See Patten, Jack.)

Patten, Jack (also known as Beverly Mikell Patten 1109-1134

(testimony), 1138, 1156-1171 (testimony), 1175, 1181, 1244, 1250*

1259, 1292.

Patten, Peggy 1293

Patterson, William L 1288

Payne, Earl 1272

Payne, Rose (Mrs. Earl Payne) 1268-1273 (testimony)

Pecora, Ferdinand 1304

Pittman, John 1132, 1250, 1251

Pockman, Aline (Mrs. Leonard Pockman) 1167,1296

Pockman, Leonard 1160, 1167, 1211, 1296

Pogue, Margery 1134, 1250

Polonsky, Abraham (Lincoln) 1156

Pool, Evelyn Hurst 1112

Posev. Mack 1133, 1250

Purcell, James C 1301, 1335

Ramsay (Ernest G) 1123

Reno, Philip 1191, 1192

Reed, John 1197, 1198

Resner, Herbert 1133, 1250

Richards, Harvey 1133, 1245-1252 (testimony)

Richmond, Al 1232

Riemer, Mortimer 1304

Roberts, Bob 1112

Roberts, Holland 1232

Robeson, Paul 1288, 1289

Robinson, Jackie 1289

Robinson, Jane. (See Castellanos, Jane.)

Rubin, Sidney 1160, 1188-1193 (testimony)

Sacher, Harry 1304

Salt, AYaldo 1156

Sarasohn, Peggy (R.) 1106-1108 (testimony), 1168

Sarvis, David 1193-1202 (testimony)

Sawyer, Harold 1165, 1214-1216, 1290

Scheunemann, Edward 1323

Schneiderman, William 12-32

Schwartz, Harry 1183

Scott, Mary. {See Shepardson, Mary.)

Scribner. Jane 1134, 1143-1147 (testimony), 1160, 1291, 1292

Seigel, Henry 1134, 1250

Shepardson, Mary (nee Thygeson; also known as Mary Scott) 1211,

1214, 1252-1255 (testimony)

Shorr, Frances (Mrs. Lev Shorr) 1166,1293

Shorr, Lev 1166, 1293

Sibbett, Ewing 1165

Silberstein. Robert 1304

Silver, Lillian 1294

Silver, Max 1103

' Appears as "Patton" in this reference.

iv INDEX

Page

Siris, Evelyn (Mrs. Lawrence Levitan) 1168, 1256-1259 (testimony), 1289-

Smith, Vern 1294

Smolan, Ada (L.) 1133,1250

Solomon, Charles 1182

Speiser, Lawrence 1135, 1140, 1149, 1188

Stack, Walter 1133, 1250

Stalin, Joseph 1219

Stein, Arthur 132a

Stevenson, June 1132, 1250

Stout, Ann 1132, 1250

Street, Emerson 1159, 1294

Strong, Edward 1287

Sun, Tan-Wei 1230

Treuhaft, Decca (Mrs. Robert Treauhaft) 1168, 1295

Treuhaft, Robert 1165, 1168

Voich, John 1233, 1234, 1242

Walker, George 1242

Ward, Angela (Mrs. Estolv Ward) 1098,1099-1104 (testimony)

Ward, Estolv llOa

Watsou, Frances (Mrs. Morris Watson) 1168, 1295

Watson, Morris 1159, 1168

Weiss, Max 1218

Wheeler, Juanita 1232

Wheeler, AVilliam A 1311

Wilber, Hanna 1290

Wilby, Celia 1293

Williams, Bertha 1160

Williams, Rhys 1218

Witt, Nathan 1304

Wolf, Ann 1168

Yates, Al 1134, 1250

Yates, Oleta O'Connor (Mrs. Al Yates) 1131, 1134, 1250, 1251

Young, Ed 1295

Yudauka. {See Barry, Sue.)

Organizations

American Bar Association 1095

American-Russian Institute 1292

American Trust Co 1233

American Veterans Committee 1299-1332

AMVETS 1292, 1293, 1299, 1331, 1332

Bank of China 1336

Bar Committee Against Test Oaths for Lawyers 1312

Burlingame High School 1179

CIO. {See Congress of Industrial Organizations.)

California Labor School 1103,

1107, 1139, 1187, 1198, 1199, 1280, 1292

California Labor Theater 1199

California State Bar Association 1089-1096

Central Labor Council 1123, 1127

China National Aviation Corp 1336, 1337

City College of San Francisco 1111, 1143, 1160

Communist Party of the Soviet Union 1183

Communist Party of the United States of America 1117

California 1132

Berkeley, Professional Section 11.53

Los Angeles 1171

San Francisco (City) 1114

Newspaper Workers Club 1158, 11.59

Professional Section 1101, 1114-1116, 1121, 1141,

1156-1171, 1215, 1275, 1282-1285, 1289-1296

Christopher Caldwell Club 1213

Doctors' Group 11.57, 1158, 1289, 1290

Executive Committee 1284

Haymarket Club 1214, 1290, 1291

New Eric Club _^ 1213

INDEX V

Communist Party of the United States of America — Continued

California — Continued Page

San Francisco — Continued

Professional Section — Continued

North Side Club 1165,1213,1280

Richmond Club 1213

South Side Club 1165

Teachers' Group 1160

San Francisco (Couutj^) 1243

Coimty Committee 1115, 1132-1134

County E]xecutive Committee 1115

Washington (State) :

Everett 1113

Seattle 1113

Communist Political Association, San Francisco County Committee 1131, 1250

Congress of Industrial Organizations 1105

California Industrial Union Council 1103, 1105, 1315

San Francisco Industrial Union Council 1105

Federation for Repeal of the Levering Act 1163

Foreign Languages Press 1230

Foreign Languages Publishing House 1230

Independent Progressive Party, California : Central Committee 1104, 1274

Independent Socialist Forum 1183, 1185

International Book Store, Inc 1168, 1169, 1216, 1217, 1221,

1230-1232, 1234, 1242

Interplayers (theater group) 1183

Joint Action Council for Repeal of the Levering Act 1137, 1163

Lawyers Security League (New York City) 1304

League of Women Voters 1295

Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, International, Local 6 (San

Francisco) ^ 1176

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 1254, 1285

National Council of the Arts, Sciences, and Professions :

Cultural and Scientific Conference for World Peace, March 25-27,

1949, New York City 1154

East Bay 1154

National Lawyers Guild 1304

San Francisco 1165, 1166, 1302, 1303, 1339, 1341

Newspaper Guild, American 1158, 1293

OflSce and Professional Workers of America, United 1292

Oregon State College 1189

San Francisco Labor School 1177

San Francisco State College 1111, 1160, 1161

Socialist Workers Party 1183

Teachers, American Federation of 1126-1128

California : San Francisco 1139, 1142

New York City, Local 5 1128

Washington State 1122, 1123

United States Government :

Interior Department 1320

National Labor Relations Board 1189, 1191, 1192, 1304

State Department _ __ 1154

WPA 1125

University of New Mexico II94

Washington Committee for Democratic Action 1322, 1323

Women's International League for Peace and Freedom 1295

Yoimg Communist League 1186

Antioch College Branch 1197, 1198

Publications

American Teacher 1128

China Reconstructs 1230

Communist Position on the Negro Question, The 2_2 1287

Daily People's World 1132

Great Pretense, The "SSSSS. 1183

History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union ~I__ 1211

Jenminjihpao (newspaper) 1230

y% INDEX

Page

Magyar-Nemzet 1097

Militant 1183

Moscow News 1230

New Frontiers 1186

Once More About the Historical Experience on the Dictatorship of the

Proletariat 1230

Our Party 1220

Party Review, The 1220

People's China 1230

Soviet Union 1221

Village Moves to Socialism, A 1230

BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY

3 9999 05706 3172

(,.

d
c

^•^ Vr;t itilf ^

Ul'b

5^" pis /- z^

^17V

P0J4<^')3 ptS" 5^

)^>r

Mw^A

Jl^

C<^*'^Vt«lftcV>-5 ^/— Z.

5^>^

'''^^f's^ /3^^

3i?a

^v\fJo/6> ph)-^

^^>q

Sc^ t^r^TK^ ^l_^

5\>t?

^cftj ;.

'JihW