(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Children's Library | Advanced Microdevices Manuals | Linear Circuits Manuals | Supertex Manuals | Sundry Manuals | Echelon Manuals | RCA Manuals | National Semiconductor Manuals | Hewlett Packard Manuals | Signetics Manuals | Fluke Manuals | Datel Manuals | Intersil Manuals | Zilog Manuals | Maxim Manuals | Dallas Semiconductor Manuals | Temperature Manuals | SGS Manuals | Quantum Electronics Manuals | STDBus Manuals | Texas Instruments Manuals | IBM Microsoft Manuals | Grammar Analysis | Harris Manuals | Arrow Manuals | Monolithic Memories Manuals | Intel Manuals | Fault Tolerance Manuals | Johns Hopkins University Commencement | PHOIBLE Online | International Rectifier Manuals | Rectifiers scrs Triacs Manuals | Standard Microsystems Manuals | Additional Collections | Control PID Fuzzy Logic Manuals | Densitron Manuals | Philips Manuals | The Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly Debates | Linear Technologies Manuals | Cermetek Manuals | Miscellaneous Manuals | Hitachi Manuals | The Video Box | Communication Manuals | Scenix Manuals | Motorola Manuals | Agilent Manuals
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Interlocking subversion in Government Departments. Hearing before the Subcommittee to Investigate the Administration of the Internal Security Act and Other Internal Security Laws of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Eighty-third Congress, second session,first session]"

rG" 



^ Qjs i^Jfndl 



"* 



ud^ 









i 



^ri'v! 



-I* 







Given By 

US. Si. TS 



3 d 



INTERLOCKING SUBVERSION IN 
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS 






HEARING v 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE THE 

ADMINISTRATION OF THE INTERNAL SECURITY 

ACT AND OTHER INTERNAL SECURITY LAWS 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

EIGHTY-THIRD CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON 

INTERLOCKING SUBVERSION IN GOVERNMENT 

DEPARTMENTS 



JUNE 4 AND 11, 1953 



PART 11 



Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 




-&- 



3 

UNITED STATES 
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 



32918° WASHINGTON : 1953 



Boston Public Library 
Superintendent of Documents 



COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

WILLIAM LANGER, North Dakota, Chairman, 

ALEXANDER WILEY, Wisconsin PAT MoCARBAN, Nevada 

WILLIAM E. JENNER. Indiana HARLEY M. KILGORE. West Virginia 

ARTHUR V. WATKINS, Utah JAMES O. EASTLAND, Mississippi 

ROBERT C. HENDRICKSON, New Jersey ESTES KEFAUYER, Tennessee 

EVERETT McKINLEY DIRKSEN, Illinois WILLIS SMITH. North Carolina 

HERMAN WELKER, Idaho OLIN D. JOHNSTON, South Carolina 

JOHN MARSHALL BUTLER, Maryland THOMAS C. HENNINGS, Jr., Missouri 



Subcommittee To Investigate the Administration of the Internal Security 
Act and Other Internal Security Laws 

WILLIAM E. JENNER, Indiana, Chairman 
ARTHUR V. WATKINS, Utah PAT McCARRAN, Nevada 

ROBERT C. HENDRICKSON, New Jersey JAMES O. EASTLAND, Mississippi 

HERMAN WELKER, Idaho WILLIS SMITH, North Carolina 

JOHN MARSHALL BUTLER, Maryland OLIN D. JOHNSTON, South Carolina 

Robert Morris, Chief Counsel 
Benjamin Manuel, Director of Research 

II 



CONTENTS 



Testimony of — Page 

Coo, Charles J. (Robert), June 11, 1953 707-723 

Herriek, Elinore, June 4, 1953 657-607 

Mins, Leonard E., June 11, 1953 679-701 

Saposs, David J., June 4, 1953 667-678 

Wuchinich, George S., June 11, 1953 702-707 

in 



INTERLOCKING subversion in government 

DEPARTMENTS 



THURSDAY, JUNE 4, 1953 

United States Senate, 
Subcommittee To Investigate the 
Administration of the Internal Security Act 

and Other Internal Security Laws of the 

Committee on the Judiciary, 

Washington, D. C. 
The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10 : 10 a. m. in room 
318, Senate Office Building, Senator William E. Jenner (chairman 
of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present : Senators Jenner and Welker. 

Also present: Eobert Morris, subcommittee counsel; Benjamin 
Mandel, director of research ; and Robert McNamas, staff member. 
The Chairman. The committee will come to order. 
Will Mrs. Herrick come forward, please ? 

Mrs. Herrick, would you hold up your right hand and be sworn to 
testify? 

Do you swear that the testimony that you will give in this hearing 
will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help 
you God. 

Mrs. Herrick. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF MKS. ELINORE HERRICK, NORWALK, CONN. 

The Chairman. You may state your name to the committee. 

Mrs. Herrick. Mrs. Elinore M. Herrick, H-e-r-r-i-c-k. 

The Chairman. Where do you reside, Mrs. Herrick? 

Mrs. Herrick. 35 France Street, Norwalk Conn. 

The Chairman. What is your business or profession? 

Mrs. Herrick. I am personnel and labor relations director for the 
Herald Tribune, in New York, and I am also a member of the editorial 
board. 

The Chairman. You may proceed, Mr. Morris, with the questioning 
of the witness. 

Mr. Morris. Mrs. Herrick, for how long have you held those posi- 
tions with the New York Herald Tribune ? 

Mrs. Herrick. Since the summer of 1945, August 1, I think. 

Mr. Morris. What are your academic degrees, Mrs. Herrick? 

Mrs. Herrick. A mere A. B. 

Mr. Morris. From what university did you obtain your A. B. ? 

Mrs. Herrick. Antioch College. 

Mr. Morris. What year ? 

657 



658 INTERLOCKING SUBVERSION IN GOVERNMENT 

Mrs. Herrick. 1929. 

Mr. Morris. You have been associated with the National Labor [Re- 
lations Board, have you not, Mrs. Herrick % 

Mrs. Herrick. Yes, I have. 

Mr. Morris. Will you give us a brief description of your sphere of 
duty with the National Labor Relations Board. 

Mrs. Herrick. Well, you don't want me to begin with the Board 
that preceded what we now know as the National Labor Relations 
Board ? 

Mr. Morris. I think so. I think it would be good for our record 
to have that as fully as possible in the record. 

Mrs. Herrick. When the NRA started, it had section 7-A in it, 
you remember, and in New York City the NRA people set up a special 
Mediation Board to deal with the strikes that were plaguing us at 
that time, and I was made chairman of that Board, which ultimately 
grew to a panel of some 66 public, labor, and employee representation. 

Then Senator Wagner set up the first National Labor Board, I 
think in September 1934. I may be off on it a month or so. At that 
time I was asked to be chairman of the New York-New Jersey-Con- 
necticut setup. I felt that I couldn't, because it was going to be an 
unpaid job, and I had to work for my living. So they made me exec- 
utive vice chairman at a salary, which amount I have forgotten. 

I did that until the Schecter Chicken case came along, and that 
Board was knocked out because the NRA was declared unconstitu- 
tional. 

There were a couple of months when, by Executive order, the work 
we were doing was authorized to be continued, and finally the Wagner 
Act, the first National Labor Relations Act, was passed, and the organ- 
ization then changed to a division of the country into regions, and I 
was made regional director again for most of New York State, up to 
the Albany area, and Connecticut up to New Haven, and New Jersey 
down to Trenton, and continued in that capacity as regional director 
for the second region of the NLRB until August 1942. 

Mr. Morris. I see. That was the extent of your service with the 
Board ? 

Mrs. Herrick. At that time I resigned to take an industrial job. 

Mr. Morris. In New York City ? 

Mrs. Herrick. Well, more or less. It was for the Todd Shipyard 
Corp., New York, but we had yards from Maine around to Seattle. 

Mr. Morris. Mrs. Herrick, have you been the author of any books 
on labor relations ? 

Mrs. Herrick. Not on labor relations. I have written a lot of arti- 
cles, and I have written one book on the special problems of women 
in industry, for Funk & Wagnalls, and any number of short articles 
for the space under the cartoon space on the editorial page, and edi- 
torials on labor and economics, and for the New York Times Sunday 
magazine and the Forum — which is now defunct — for the Reporter. 
I have forgotten what all. 

Mr. Morris. Mrs. Herrick, in the course of your employment with 
the National Labor Relations Board, did you have any experience with 
any Communist unions? 

Mrs. Herrick. Yes, I did, and particularly in NRA days, and I 
think the first one was the Fur Workers Union, with Ben Gold and 



INTERLOCKING SUBVERSION IN GOVERNMENT 659 

Irving Potash, who never denied or concealed the fact that they were 
Communists. 

Mr. Morris. What was the extent of your experience with that par- 
ticular union? 

Mrs. Herrick. There were organizational strikes going on in the 
fur trade in New York, in which that union was the leader, and I was 
really frankly horrified at the brutality of their methods, the totali- 
tarian approach to the rights of workers, and it was a very upsetting 
experience. I, of course, have seen it repeated in many other situa- 
tions. That was the first. 

Mr. Morris. Now, Mrs. Herrick, you say you saw some evidence 
of what we might call the class struggle approach to the whole field 
of industrial relations? 

Mrs. Herrick. Completely so. 

Mr. Morris. I wonder if you could amplify that a bit for us? 

Mrs. Herrick. Well, it was very disturbing to me when the Govern- 
ment was making what I felt to be very constructive efforts to protect 
the right to organize, that all the battle cry, particularly strident in 
the case of the left-wing unions, was to picture the employer as neces- 
sarily a villain. I had worked myself before my Antioch days, for 
a firm I considered a very excellent employer, and I had been not 
only an hourly paid worker, but a supervisor for them, and I couldn't 
see it in black and white terms, necessarily. 

Mr. Morris. Well, now Mr. Chairman, as you know, we have had 
testimony here in the last few weeks of Mr. Edwin S. Smith, who was 
a member of the National Labor Relations Board up until 1940 or 1941. 

We have also had testimony from the Secretary of the National 
Labor Relations Board at that time, Mr. Nathan Witt. 

We have had evidence that both of these gentlemen were active 
members of the Communist Party during that time, and both of them 
when called before the committee and asked about certain practices 
and certain organization affiliations of theirs, invoked the privilege on 
the grounds that their answers might tend to incriminate them. 

Did you encounter those two gentlemen, Mrs. Herrick? 

Mrs. Herrick. I certainly did. 

Mr. Morris. I wonder if you could tell of your experiences with 
Mr. Edwin S. Smith as a member of the Board, and Nathan Witt, 
as Secretary of the Board? 

Mrs. Herrick. Well, you could hardly separate the experiences. 
I for a long time was very critical of what I felt were policies by the 
Board, and I felt Witt played a large role in formulation of policies. 

I remember shortly after the Wagner Act was declared constitu- 
tional, that I had my first experience with an employer, a very sub- 
stantial employer who was confronted with a demand for bargaining 
by two rival unions, and the poor company wanted to file a petition 
and have an election and have somebody tell them "with whom shall 
we bargain ?" And, according to the rules that had been laid down, 
and I couldn't find any spelling out of that in the act itself, we were 
only allowed to accept petitions from the unions. I felt an employer 
was really in a hell of a fix under the circumstances; somebody ought 
to be able to help him. 

I quite agreed with the Board's theory up to a point : Namely, that 
you couldn't give an employer the right to come in and file a petition 



660 INTERLOCKING SUBVERSION IN GOVERNMENT 

when there was only one union because he could file a petition at a 
very strategic time, to defeat the union before it had really organized, 
and I thoroughly agreed to that approach ; but when two unions made 
claims, threatened strikes, or even struck, I really felt that something 
had to be done. 

I first came directly at loggerheads with Smith and Witt over that, 
and I remember speaking at a staff meeting and urging that we change 
our rule to the two-union approach to it. 

Mr. Morris. Mrs. Herrick, may I break in there? I wonder if at 
the outset of your description of your dealings with these two gen- 
tlemen, whether or not you could in general tell us whether they were 
influential in shaping the policies of the Board in those days? 

Mrs. Herrick. Oh, very much so. Madden, who was the chairman 
was an awfully nice person, but really saw through their eyes. I 
always felt that it was because he was such a nice person that he just 
didn't think anybody else could be otherwise, a little naive about 
various things. 

Mr. Morris. And you do say because of the condition you describe 
in the case of the chairman, that the member, Edwin S. Smith and the 
secretary, Nathan Witt, were able to exercise a great influence over the 
policies of the Board? 

Mrs. Herrick. A very great influence. 

Mr. Morris. Will you continue, Mrs. Herrick? I think you were 
describing generally what role they played in the formation of poli- 
cies, and your own experience with them. 

Mrs. Herrick. Yes. 

Then I felt, too, that when it came to the trial of a case, we would 
subpena the witnesses that whatever union it might be wanted, and 
took the position that we wouldn't subpena witnesses that an employer 
wanted, because if they were going to be friendly to them presumably 
it would influence them to come. Well, I saw situations where an 
employer wanted to subpena a union member, perhaps a union mem- 
ber whom the union itself would not want to call as a witness, because 
his testimony might be adverse to the union. So, as I recall — and this 
is also many years ago — my next big argument with the Smith-Witt 
group on the Board came over the subpena, the right of an employer 
to ask the Government to subpena witnesses they wanted, my feeling 
being that, while the Wagner Act was designed to protect the rights 
of labor, it had to be administered in a way which also recognized 
implicit rights of employers, too, to be a fair and balanced adminis- 
tration. 

Well, it took about 2 years of argument to get the rule changed on 
petitions. 

Then the third thing that stands out in my memory as a source of 
often violent conflict between me and the others, was the dismissal of 
charges, which was then within the power of the regional director. 

I felt if a union filed a charge and, after really thorough investiga- 
tion, it couldn't be sustained and couldn't have issued a formal com- 
plaint and go under a formal hearing, ending up maybe in the courts, 
that the employer was entitled to have the record show in effect that 
the charges were not sustained, and I believed they should be dismissed. 

Smith and Witt believed that we should let the unions withdraw 
them without prejudice, which, of course, as you being a lawyer know, 
means that they could have refiled them at some subsequent date. 



INTERLOCKING SUBVERSION IN GOVERNMENT 661 

Well, I just felt that that was not proper administration, and 
argued for it. Well, it was in the area of discussion of those particu- 
lar administrative problems that I felt that the Smith and Witt influ- 
ence was very, very strong. I think Donald Smith was also a member 
then, but he didn't really come out very much. 

Mr. Morris. May I ask this, Mrs. Herrick : Did you notice whether 
Witt would act under the instruction of the Board, or did he pretty 
much pursue an independent course? 

Mrs. Herrick. At this point in time, I would say that he would act 
independently a great share of the time, and when he and I would 
tangle, he inevitably felt the need of some Board backing, which he 
always got. 

Mr. Morris. What difficulties arose, Mrs. Herrick, in connection 
with the International Mercantile Marine Co. case. 

Mrs. Herrick. Well that was the first case where an employer sought 
the right to petition for an election, and there, if I recall correctly, it 
was a row between an A. F. of L. telegraphers union, and the newly 
formed American Radio Telegraphers' Association. I don't know 
whether it was then part of the CIO. It later was. I don't know 
recall that. And that was the beginning of my consistent effort to try 
to get the ruling changed. 

Mr. Morris. Did you generally have much experience in the diffi- 
culties that arose in the communications field? 

Mrs. Herrick. Well, I had a lot of cases. I remember the Postal 
Telegraph Co. and the Western Union. This group was quite active 
in the martime situation. With the handling of, you know, 5,000 cases 
a year, I don't remember. 

Mr. Morris. Who was Mr. William Leiserson, Mrs. Herrick? 

Mrs. Herrick. Mr. Leiserson happened to have been my professor of 
economics when I was a student at Antioch. In fact, I more or less 
went to Antioch because he was there, and was recognized as one of our 
experts in the field of mediation, as well as economics. He later became 
a member of the National Labor Relations Board. 

I would say he succeeded Donald Smith, perhaps, but I am just not 
sure. 

Mr. Morris. Now, did he have the same kind of difficulties that you 
did, within the Board ? 

Mrs. Herrick. I gathered that he had, from various things he said 
to me from time to time, and he was very aware of my difficulties. 

Mr. Morris. Do you mean that he was generally in sympathy with 
you ? 

Mrs. Herrick. What did you say? 

Mr. Morris. Do you mean that he was generally in sympathy with 
you in your position ? 

Mrs. Herrick. Yes. I know from things he said to me at various 
times that he felt that Witt was not impartial in his handling of cases, 
a feeling that I also had ; and that he felt that there were procedural 
irregularities, shall I say, in the conduct of the secretary's office ; and I 
think he had quite a tussle. 

I don't remember just when he told me, but I believe it was at some 
point in there while I was still with the Board, he told me that he had 
refused to participate in decisions on some cases that Witt, he felt, had 
mishandled. 

32918°— 53— pt. 11 2 



662 INTERLOCKING SUBVERSION IN GOVERNMENT 

Mr. Morris. And that generally coincides with your own experi- 
ences ? 

Mrs. Herrick. Yes. 

Mr. Morris. Now, have you told us in full of your relations with 
what the executive staff, the Washington staff was doing during this 
period ? Have you given us a full description of it ? 

Mrs. Herrick. Well, I might just add that there were, supervision- 
wise, certain things that occurred. The regional officers were sup- 
posed to be under the direction of a field division which was set up at 
some point in the development of the Board's administrative system. 
I couldn't tell you the exact time or year. That office was under the 
secretary's office, as was also a review section which reviewed the re- 
ports of formal hearings. 

The field office reviewed all reports from the regional offices, and 
the secretary through the Field Office Section, exercised his supervi- 
sion over the regional offices, and I had a considerably stormy experi- 
ence quite often in the process of being reviewed by the Field Division. 

Mr. Morris. Who was in charge of the review board generally, Mrs. 
Herrick. 

Mrs. Herrick. Well, I don't remember precisely, because actually 
it was so tied up with Witt. 

Mr. Morris. Tied up with Witt or by Witt ? 

Mrs. Herrick. Tied up with Witt, that anyone who was directly 
in charge — well, it is so long ago I don't remember names, frankly. 

Witt did have two special agents. Fred Krivonos and Robert Gates., 
were names I think I shall never forget. 

Mr. Morris. Will you spell that first name for us? 

Mrs. Herrick. K-r-i-v-o-n-o-s. 

Mr. Morris. You say they were both assistants of Witt, who did 
review work? 

Mrs. Herrick. In the field offices, and they would visit the various 
field offices. 

Mr. Morrts. What was the role of Thomas I. Emerson ? 

Mrs. Herrick. Well, he succeeded Witt. Witt, I think, was head 
of the review section, and then he succeeded Benedict Wolf, as secre- 
tary of the board, or they may have come up from the assistant gen- 
eral counsel's job. Emerson finally succeeded Witt on the review 
business. 

Mr. Morris. Generally, what position did Thomas I. Emerson take? 
Did he take a position with 3^011 on these various difficulties or did he 
side with Witt? 

Mrs. Herrick. I haven't any idea, because I really didn't have 
much to do with him and I don't know what he did. 

Mr. Morris. Mrs. Herrick, may we get back to this review situa- 
tion? You had mentioned the two assistants of Witt. Will you tell 
us what their general role was? 

Mrs. Herrick. Well, to be frank, some of us regional directors, 
like Frank Bowen out West and myself, we called them the goon 
squad. 

Mr. Morris. Goon squad? 

Mrs. Herrick. Goon squad, a waterfront term. They did investi- 
gate in a very odd manner, I thought. They came to my office once, 
and I must say I am not telling anything that hasn't become officially 
on the record, at prior Senate and House committee hearings. 



INTERLOCKING SUBVERSION EST GOVERNMENT- 663 

Mr. Morris. Even if it were not, Mrs. Herrick, we want your full 
recollection of these details. Remember that you are speaking under 
oath before an official body, and we want your full recollection of what 
happened. 

Sirs. Herrick. Well, Krivonos and Gates were sent out to make a 
study of my office, I was told. When they came they were to appraise 
the work of the office and take measures to improve it. 

When they came I asked them what their standards of measuring 
or improving the work of the office were, and they refused to give me 
any information, and I said I thought that that was very improper, 
that as the head of the office I certainly had a right to know by what 
criteria the work for which I took full responsibility was going to be 
appraised. And I got no satisfaction. 

I had to concede the right of my superiors in Washington to in- 
vestigate my office, and so when they said they wanted to go through 
all the files, all the files were made available to them and they spent, 
I think it was, 3 weeks or nearly a month going over files, and I never 
found out what they were up to or after, or what their purpose Avas; 
and finally I asked how long they were going to stay and they said 
they didirt know. I asked what they had found out, what their 
criticisms were, and they said "We cannot talk to you," or words 
to that effect, and to my great surprise they left abruptly that night. 

I didn't know whether they were coming back. A few days later, 
3 or 4 days later, I received word from Washington that they were 
coming back and wanted to see me in my office after office hours. I 
thought that was kind of odd, but I saw them and then asked them 
what they had found, what their measurements for appraising the 
work of the office were, and they refused to give me any information. 
They said this time they had come up under instructions to talk 
privately with every person on my staff and to tell those persons how 
they were to do their work. 

Well that is when I hit the ceiling, I think understandably so. Xo 
responsible administrator will take that lying down. 

So I composed a rather peppery telegram which I sent off to the 
Board. 

Mr. Morris. Now, Mr. Mandel do we have a copy of a telegram that 
Mrs. Herrick sent on February 21, 1939 ? 

Mr. Mandel. Yes. 

Mr. Morris. Will you read it, please? 

Mr. Mandel (reading) : 

This investigation has been conducted virtually behind locked doors, in secrecy, 
and in such a thoroughly objectionable manner that far from being conducive to 
improved administration the investigation has caused the deplorable slump in 
the morale of the Board's largest and most important field office. It is the pro- 
cedure one might expect from the OGPU but not from fellow administrators of 
an agency of the American Government. 

Mr. Morris. Was that the telegram you sent, Mrs. Herrick? 

Mrs. Herrick. That is right. 

Mr. Morris. In other words, you felt it was conducted so surrepti- 
tiously and in such a clandestine fashion that you characterized it as 
work of the people in the OGPU ? 

Mrs. Herrick. It was not intended to be constructive. 

Mr. Morris. It was not intended to be constructive? 

Mrs. Herrick. No. 



664 INTERLOCKING SUBVERSION IN GOVERNMENT 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Leiserson sent a telegram at that time; did he not? 

Mrs. Herrick. To whom? 

Mr. Morris. To the Board. 

Mrs. Herrick. I don't know. 

Mr. Morris. Will you continue with your description? 

Mrs. Herrick. Well, I don't remember exactly what happened ex- 
cept the investigation was called off after that telegram was received, 
and it is my recollection that I was called down to Washington and 
more or less bawled out by the Chairman of the Board, and that wasn't 
the first time. 

Senator Welker. Who was the Chairman of the Board ? 

Mrs. Herrick. Mr. Madden, J. Warren Madden. And I went on 
doing the job the way I thought it ought to be done. Another running 
dispute that I had specifically with Nat Witt was over the way I 
handled cases of charges of unfair labor practices. 

I always felt that the best way, and that was based on my experience 
during the NKA and the first NLRB, that the best way to (a) get at 
truth and (b) promote industrial peace which I conceive was the prime 
objective of the work, was to get both parties, the employer and the 
union in together, after a charge had been filed, and try to arrive at 
the truth in that way. It has been my experience that if a worker 
is charging his foreman with violation of the law in some respect, he 
tends to exaggerate when he does it ex parte, so to speak, and he comes 
closer to the real facts when it isn't ex parte, and furthermore the 
fact is that if you can get in a dispute the early stages before it is 
personalized, and people's passions have jelled to a white fire of 
irritation, or what-have-you, you have a better chance of working out 
a proper solution. 

Mr. Witt's feeling was that the union's case should be fully investi- 
gated first, affidavits made, and all that sort of business, and then you 
confront the employer in a much more formalized fashion with what- 
ever the investigation has disclosed. 

That was, in my opinion, a one-sided procedure that wasn't really 
designed to accomplish the purposes of the law. So I had sort of a 
running battle for years with Mr. Witt over the way I called people 
together and tried to settle things, and that stands out m my 
recollection. 

Mr. Morris. Mrs. Herrick, how often did Witt, for instance, visit 
you at your office? 

Mrs. Herrick. Well, at first I didn't think too much about it, and 
then it became quite apparent to me after a month or so that he was 
coming to my office every Saturday morning, often in the office only 5 
minutes, and practically never speaking to me. I could understand 
his not wanting to speak to me, but I thought official business war- 
ranting travel to New York and back required more than 5 minutes in 
the office. 

Mr. Morris. You thought that is was unusual ? 

Mrs. Herrick. I thought it was unusual. 

Mr. Morris. Did you ever find out the real motive behind that? 

Mrs. Herrick. I never found out actually and positively. I was 
told by another agency that it was on personal business having to do 
with his political activities, but I don't know whether that was true 
or not. 



INTERLOCKING SUBVERSION IN GOVERNMENT 665 

Mr. Morris. I do not know whether we are qualified as to whether 
we should ask the witness who told her? 

The Chairman. It would just be hearsay. 

Mr. Morris. Who was Benedict Wolf, Mrs. Herrick? 

Mrs. Herrick. He was Mr. Witt's predecessor as secretary of the 
Board. 

Mr. Morris. What was his particular position with regard to you? 

Mrs. Herrick. Well, so-so. We got along fairly well. He more or 
less left me alone to do things. You see, I don't have any records now, 
but I did make a practice of making regular reports public, and they 
were always carried in full by the New York Times and full news 
stories, but not necessarily full text in the Tribune and in other papers. 

Wolf just simply accepted the fact that I was running the office. He 
didn't really interfere much. 

Mr. Morris. Mrs. Herrick, would you tell us what steps you finally 
had to take to protect yourself against Witt's tactics? 

Mrs. Herrick. Well, it wasn't just Witt. It was the general feeling 
of unease that I had. So I had, fortunately, a very trustworthy file 
clerk, and worked out with him a procedure for guarding the files. 
Incidentally, at one time through a mutual friend I did consult J. 
Edgar Hoover about what would be wise precautions, and got some 
suggestions from him. So we documented every piece of paper that 
went into the files accurately, numbered all the pages of affidavits — 
you know, the usual things that you do to make sure that when you 
take a file out you can tell if anything has been removed — and every 
day the file clerk would give me a list of all the files that had been 
withdrawn that day and by whom, and he would give me a list of all 
the files that were not returned at the end of the day and who had 
them. He had to go around and personally check on the desks, to 
make sure who had them so that they couldn't be passed from one to 
another. 

Mr. Morris. Was anyone placed there to watch you, Mrs. Herrick ? 

Mrs. Herrick. I rather suspected it, and then there came an inci- 
dent that made me feel pretty sure. 

There was a girl named Mary Bobrovich, B-o-b-r-o-v-i-c-h, who 
started out as a stenographer, and became the supervisor of the steno- 
graphic pool. When we moved our offices from the Woolworth Build- 
ing to 120 Wall Street — and that I think was in 1937, shortly after 
the act was declared constitutional — she came to me and she asked me 
where her desk was to be. And I said, "Out in the stenographic pool, 
of course." She said, "I want it outside your office door." I said, 
"Why V She said, "So I can keep in touch with what goes on." And 
I have the feeling — when I do, I don't use very ladylike language, 
so I won't tell you what I said, but it was to the effect that her desk 
would be one city block away from mine, believe you me; and later 
a committee of the employees union of the staff took it up with me as 
a grievance, and I was in difficulties, as far as I was concerned. I am 
still furious when I think of the nerve of it. 

That, of course, was over, and I think the girl was very stupid to tip 
her hand so clearly, but I suppose she had been ordered to get her 
desk somewhere near my office and she was doing her best. 

Mr. Morris. I wonder if you could tell us what precautions you took 
in order to insure fairness in labor cases of the Board, because of the 
difficulties of which you have told us? 



666 INTERLOCKING SUBVERSION IN GOVERNMENT 

Mrs. Herrick. That was a terrific problem, during dealings with 
one field examiner, with the resulting treatment and if the union tried 
to get that examiner again. I instituted a very strict system of con- 
trol of the assignment of cases. No one could assign cases except 
myself. Even if a union would drift into a friendly examiner's 
office and leave the charge with him, the charges had to be initialed by 
me before they could be docketed. 

I made an immediate record of every charge on my own personal 
card file system, and I assigned the examiners. 

My effort was to assign cases in this way, so far as the size of my 
staff permitted and the volume of work permitted. With examiners 
that I had question marks in my mind about, I tried to give them 
election cases, most of the election cases, because in an election you 
have an employer representative present and you have a representa- 
tive of any union or unions that are interested, and the Federal exam- 
iner really is under eagle-eye supervision by people who have an 
interest at stake. Then, as to the rest, I tried to guard against assign- 
ing cases that were brought in by left-wing unions to examiners that 
I wasn't very sure would handle them judicially, fairly, impartially ; 
and I made a very strenuous effort to prevent my examiners, even those 
I had confidence in, from building up what I would call a clientele 
among the unions, so that not even my right-hand man or woman in 
whom I had absolute confidence, would ever build up a caseload that 
covered only 2 or 3 unions. 

Then I also made a practice every single week of going through 
every single open file, and making my own analysis of the case, and 
if it seemed to have bogged down — and there were some cases where 
I felt that our efforts to develop proof were more tending toward a 
harassment of the employer than really to get at proof — I would re- 
assign the case and quite often would hold a joint conference, with 
myself, to try and clear it up. 

Mr. Morris. Mrs. Herrick, I wonder if you could tell us what dif- 
ficulties you encountered with Nathan Witt in connection with con- 
current investigations of cases? 

Mrs. Herrick. That is that policy where I felt that you should find 
out all you could about the case and not confine your investigation 
first solely to the union's side of it ; that it was just as important if you 
had an affidavit after interview with a worker who charged that the 
foreman had done thus and so, that you had an opportunity to inter- 
view the foreman just the way you had the worker; and, as I believe I 
earlier indicated, that was frowned upon by Mr. Witt. 

Mr. Morris. Now, is there anything else, Mrs. Herrick, that you 
think this committee should know in connection with the investiga- 
tion that we are conducting into the role of, say, Mr. Witt and Mr. 
Smith, in the National Labor Relations Board? We would like to 
learn as much as possible what these gentlemen did. You are a quali- 
fied witness, Mrs. Herrick, in the sense that you were there, you saw 
what they did, you were part of the whole National Labor Relations 
Board setup, and you saw these people perform firsthand. 

It is that sort of information that we need in order for the committee 
to evaluate the influence of Smith and Witt on the Board. 

Mrs. Herrick. Well, I can only say that there seemed to me to be 
a very strong influence that Smith and Witt exerted, that the attitude 



INTERLOCKING SUBVERSION IN GOVERNMENT 667 

was one that followed — well, what shall I say — for lack of a better 
expression, some of the theory of class warfare. 

I remember one time — one further incident comes back to me, and 
I think it was shortly after the act was declared constitutional. 

Up to that time, every employer, even if we only wanted to hold an 
election, had been hauling; us into court on injunctions, and so forth, 
and, of course, the atmosphere changed after the Supreme Court up- 
held the constitutionality of the act. 

But we had a very big employer in that immediate period, who con- 
sented voluntarily to letting my office run an election among his em- 
ployees, and that was the first time such a thing had happened to me; 
nothing but injunctions before then ; and I really was impressed with 
the fair-mindedness of the employer in saying, "I am not going to 
fight. If our employees want to be represented by a union, let's find 
cut, and surely the Government agency is the best one to do it." 

So I rather praised this company. It happened to be the General 
Electric Co. I praised them in public statement to the press, and an- 
nounced that this was the first consent election in the second region, 
and I wasn't very popular with Witt for having made a statement 
expressing appreciation of the employer's attitude. 

Mr. Morris. Now, Mrs. Herrick, there is another gentleman, Mr. 
Allan Rosenberg. 

What role did he have in the Board ? Do you remember him? 

Mrs. Herrick. I remember the name. 

Mr. Morris. You do not remember what role he played ? 

Mrs. Herrick. No, I don't ; I just remember the name. 

Mr. Morris. We have no further questions. 

The Chairman. We thank you, Mrs. Herrick, for your testimony 
here this morning. 

The Chairman. Call the next witness. 

Mr. Morris. The next witness is Mr. David Saposs. 

The Chairman. Mr. Saposs, will you stand and be sworn? 

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

Mr. Saposs. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF DAVID J. SAPOSS, WASHINGTON, D. C. 

The Chairman. Will you state your name for the committee? 

Mr. Saposs. David J. Saposs, S-a-p-o-s-s. 

The Chairman. Where do you reside ? 

Mr. Saposs. 1660 Lanier Place NW., Washington, D. C. 

The Chairman. What is your business or profession ? 

Mr. Saposs. I am an economist. 

The Chairman. Mr. Morris, you may proceed with the questioning 
of the witness. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Saposs, were you the Chief Economist for the 
National Labor Relations Board? 

Mr. Saposs. Yes. 

Mr. Morris. For what period of time ? 

Mr. Saposs. From the fall of 1935 to the fall of 1940. 

Mr. Morris. That was during the period of time that Edwin S. 
Smith was a member of the Board and Nathan Witt was secretary ? 



668 INTERLOCKING SUBVERSION IN GOVERNMENT 

Mr. Saposs. He became secretary in 1938, as I recall it, but before 
that he was attorney in charge of reviewing cases, but they were both 
with the Board during the period I was there. 

Mr. Morris. What academic degrees do you hold ? 

Mr. Saposs. I did my undergraduate work and part of my graduate 
work at the University of Wisconsin, and the remainder of my grad- 
uate work at Columbia University. 

Mr. Morris. Will you give us a short sketch of your experience in 
the field of industrial relations, and generally in the field of labor 
work ? 

Mr. Saposs. Since about 1911 I have specialized in the field of 
what is commonly known as labor economics. I spent considerable 
time, 10 years, at the University of Wisconsin, and then I was with 
the Industrial Commission of the State of New York, with the Car- 
negie Foundation Study of Immigrants, and with various Gover- 
ment agencies, like the Labor Board, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 
the Coordinator of Inter- American Affairs, the War Production 
Board, the Office of Military Government for Germany, the Marshall 
Plan Organization, and I am now Special Assistant to the Commis- 
sioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, United States Department 
of Labor. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, at this point I think I would like 
to put into the record a summary of the efforts made by the chair- 
man of this committee to prevent the certification of the American 
Communications Association as the bargaining unit for some 5,000 
employees of Western Union in New York. 

In the course of the hearings, 2 weeks ago, I think during the time 
that Nathan Witt, the secretary of the National Labor Board, about 
whom we have had so much testimony today, was giving his testimony, 
that the accumulation of facts were brought into the record to show 
that a recertification at this time of the American Communications 
Association as bargaining representative of the employees of the 
Western Union posed a threat to the internal security of the United 
States. 

The chairman put into the record the fact that all the tie lines of 
the Western Union, tie lines in the Pentagon, various key strategic 
centers, the Navy Communications Center for instance, the Brook- 
lyn piers, the transport service, were all being manned by employees 
who were organized by people who it was testified at the time were 
Communist organizers. 

It was pointed out that very often the shop stewards had access to 
various messages sent coded and uncoded, that went through New 
York to the various areas overseas. 

The chairman put in the record the fact that this indeed posed a 
threat to the security of the country. In the event that the present 
emergency should grow greater, we would have these people with 
access to the vital communications of the country. 

After the chairman had recognized that threat, he had a session 
with the National Labor Relations Board. Three members of the 
Board were present, and at the termination of that conference the 
chairman of this committee took certain action which I would like 
to mention for the record right now : 

On May 29, 1953, Senator Jenner sent a letter to Senator H. Alex- 
ander Smith as chairman of the Senate Committee on Labor and 



INTERLOCKING SUBVERSION IN GOVERNMENT 669 

Public Works. He sent a similar letter to the chairman of the Senate 
Judiciary Committee, to the House Judiciary Committee, and to the 
chairman of the House Labor Committee. The letters to the four 
chairman were identical. 

I am now reading, Mr. Chairman, the letter sent by you to the 
Honorable H. Alexander Smith, Chairman, United States Senate 
Committee on Labor and Welfare: 

Dear Senator : On Tuesday, May 2G, during the course of a hearing on inter- 
nal security, a situation developed which related to the internal security of the 
country. I summarized it as follows : 

In 1951, the Internal Security Subcommitte of the Senate Committee on the 
Judiciary held extensive hearings on the American Communications Associa- 
tion. In those hearings, the Communist control over that labor organization 
was amply established. This American Communications Association is now 
the certilied bargaining agent for some approximately 5,000 employees of the 
Western Union Telegraph Co. in the metropolitan area of New York City, 
some 200 employees of the Western Union Cable Co. of New York City, for 
RCA communications on the east and west coasts, and for employees in certain 
broadcasting stations, mostly in New York and in Philadelphia. Recently, a 
National Labor Relations Board secret-ballot election, among Western Union 
employees in New York City, was held on May 19, 1953, when the employees 
voted, 2,421 to 1,619, in favor of the American Communications Association, 
as against the American Federation of Labor. 

Another National Labor Relations Board election is now being held among 
approximately 1,S00 employees of the American Cable & Radio Co. and the 
American Communications Association is on the ballot. The results of this 
election are to be announced on the 28th of May. 

This Internal Security Subcommittee has taken cognizance of this situation 
at this time in view of the following facts found after preliminary survey by 
the staff of this subcommittee : 

The main office of the Western Union Telegraph Co. is located in the Western 
Union Building at 60 Hudson Street, New York, N. Y. Telegraph circuits to 
all major cities in the United States terminate or relay through this building. 
Telegraph messages of all kinds are handled by the employees, the majority 
of whom are members and under the control of the American Communications 
Association. Many of these messages are Government messages. For example, 
the following Government agencies are served by telegraph circuits, "tie lines," 
connecting the main Western Union office and the agency offices. The follow- 
ing is a partial list of these circuits: United States Defense Department Signal 
Center of the First Army Headquarters, Fort Wadsworth ; United States Naval 
Air Station, Floyd Bennett Field, Brooklyn ; New York Port of Embarkation in 
Brooklyn ; United States Naval Shipyards, Brooklyn ; Sea Transport Station, 
Atlantic Division, Army Piers 1, 2, 3, and 4; United States Navy Naval Com- 
munications Service, 90 Church Street, New York; Governors Island and Fort 
Jay, Second Service Command. The importance of the Western Union Tele- 
graph Co. and the Western Union Cable Co. in our country's defense program 
can be judged by the following which appeared in the company's annual report 
for 1952 : "More deep-sea amplifiers were placed in service, further increasing 
international-cable capacity. Increased service requirements of the Armed 
Forces, other governmental departments, and defense industries were fully met. 
Of special importance was the expansion of the extensive leased communication 
systems furnished by Western Union for governmental and other large cus- 
tomers. The company was awarded Government contracts by the Air Force, 
the Navy, and the Signal Corps for the development of special electronic equip- 
ment and for other projects, involving a total of $6,000,000". 

The Senate Internal Security Subcommittee takes cognizance of this situation 
as possessing a threat to the internal security of this country. 

Yesterday, the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee met with Ivar Peterson, 
Acting Chairman of the National Labor Relations Board, and Members Abe 
Murdock and John Houston, and entered into executive discussion. A copy 
of the transcript of that discussion is attached herewith. 

At the termination of this sesion, as chairman of the Internal Security Sub- 
committee, I made the following recommendations : 

1. That the whole matter be brought to the attention of the President of the 
United States ; 

32918°— 53 — pt. 11^—3 



670 INTERLOCKING SUBVERSION IN GOVERNMENT 

2. That the NLRB not certify the American Communications Association as 
the bargaining representatives of the employees of Western Union and the 
American Cable & Radio Co. 

3. That in view of the NLRB's objection that they could not withhold cer- 
tification with possibly being held in contempt of the district court, the NLRB 
obtain a stay from Judge Letts which would enable it to withhold certification 
of the ACA as a bargaining agent. 

4. That appropriate legislation, now pending before the Congress which would 
remedy the present situation, be expedited. 

Accordingly, as chairman of the Internal Security Subcommittee, I ask that 
you give consideration to the enactment of whatever legislation there is before 
your committee that would remedy the present danger to the country. 
Sincerely, 

William E. Jenner, 
Chairman Internal Security Subcommittee. 

The letter was also sent to the President of the United States, de- 
scribing the situation to him. 

Yesterday, Senator Jenner received by messenger a five page letter 
from Ivar H. Peterson, Acting Chairman of the National Labor 
Relations Board, in which he outlined reasons why the Board was 
reluctant or unwilling to take the action for which Senator Jenner 
had asked, and I would like the five page letter to go into the record. 

The Chairman. It may go into the record and become a part of 
the record. 

(The letter referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 235" and fol- 
lows:) 

Exhibit No. 235 

National Labor Relations Board, 
Washington 25, D. C, June 2, 1953. 
Hon. William E. Jenner, 

Chairman, Internal Security Subcommittee, 
Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 
United States Senate, Washington 25, D. C. 

My Dear Senator Jenner: Last Thursday, May 28, the three members of 
this Board then present in Washington and the Board's Solicitor and Associate 
Solicitor met, at your invitation, in executive session with you and members 
of the staff of the Internal Security Subcommitte of the Senate Committee on 
the Judiciary. 

To explain the purpose of the meeting, you read into the record a statement 
you had made during the May 26 hearing of the subcommittee on the threat to 
the internal security of this country arising from the employment in strategic 
posts by certain communications companies of members of the American Com- 
munications Association and from the certified bargaing status of that union 
in those companies. Your statement called attention to the fact that in a 
secret ballot election, held by this Board on May 19 among Western Union 
employees in New York City, the American Communications Association had 
polled 2,421 votes to 1,619 votes cast for the affiliate of the American Federation 
of Labor. Your statement went on to say that, on the basis of recited facts 
found after preliminary survey by the staff of the subcommittee, "The Senate 
Internal Security Subcommittee takes cognizance of this situation as possessing 
a threat to the internal security of this country." Thereupon, you asked this 
Board for advice on how to meet this situation. 

At the outset, the Board explained that, in so far as the problem was one 
of access by employees to classified or strategic information, the Western 
Union Co., like any other employer, was free under the law to discharge or 
transfer or remove any employee for any reason other than his union member- 
ship. This point, we might add, was made clear in a very early decision of 
the United States Supreme Court (N. L. R. B. v. Jones d Laughlin, 301 U. S. 1 
(1937)). The testimony of Mr. J. L. Wilcox, vice president in charge of em- 
ployee relations for Western Union, before the subcommittee (report of 1951 
Hearings on Subversive Infiltration in the Telegraph Industry, p. 91) is simply 
not an accurate statement of the company's legal rights. This aspect of the 



INTERLOCKING SUBVERSION IN GOVERNMENT 671 

problem, it seems to us, could properly be dealt witb by the employer or, par- 
ticularly with respect to those operations performed under Government con- 
tract, by the Department of Defense. We merely wish to underscore the fact 
that the Labor-Management Relations Act of 1947, which this Board adminis- 
ters, presents no obstacle to the discharge of Communists or their sympathizers. 

On the question whether this Board could withhold certification of the 
American Communications Association as collective-bargaining representative 
for the employees of Western Union among whom it won the consent election 
conducted on May 19, we explained that in our view section 9 (c) (1) of the 
Labor-Management Relations Act of 1947 made it mandatory for the Board 
to certify the results of the election in the prevailing circumstances. We 
pointed out that, as the officers of the successful union had tiled with the 
Board the non-Communist affidavits required by the act, we had no alternative 
but to issue the certification. It was our view that the denial of the benefit 
of a certification to this union — even for reasons of national security — would 
be in contravention of the opinion of Judge Letts in the questionnaire case, 
now on appeal before the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. In- 
deed, it was suggested that failure of the Board to act in these circumstances 
might be deemed contemptuous of the order of Judge Letts which is now opera- 
tive and outstanding against each member of the Board. The only avenue of 
relief from a possible contempt adjudication, we indicated, would be by way 
of an application for a stay of the Court's mandate. 

In closing the meeting, you said that the subcommittee would seek to expedite 
the enactment of legislation, and you requested the Board to give further thought 
to presently available legal measures for withholding certification, including the 
possibility of obtaining a stay of the Court's mandate. 

Since last Thursday the Board has given serious consideration to the means 
available to it for dealing with the very grave problem which you described 
and which, as our testimony before several committees of the Congress will 
show, we have long recognized. We have explored thoroughly the wisdom and 
efficacy of all possible alternatives and have concluded, most reluctantly, that 
each of them is of such dubious validity and outcome that none can conscien- 
tiously be undertaken at this time. 

First, we considered simply withholding certification of the American Com- 
munications Association for the New York City employees of Western Union. 
Apart from our view, expressed last Thursday, that such inaction would be 
inconsistent with the mandate of the statute we must administer, the Board 
anticipates, from past experience, that the union will proceed in the district 
court for a mandatory injunction to compel us to issue the certificate. In 
such a proceeding, which could be brought within the next few days, we would, 
it seems to us, be without any real defense. As the existence of a question 
concerning representation was stipulated by all parties to the consent-election 
agreement, including the employer, and as the election was won without objec- 
tion by the American Communications Association, the Board has no discretion 
to hold back the certificate. Under these circumstances, and in the absence of 
a showing that the union will not accord fair and equal representation to all 
employees in the bargaining unit under section 9 (a) of the statute, issuance 
of a certificate is merely a ministerial act. Nor could we successfully contend 
that considerations of national security justify our failure to act. The law 
of the District of Columbia, the only venue for suit against the Board, has 
been clearly stated in Judge Letts' unreversed opinion. It is that, as long as 
the union's officers have filed current non-Communist affidavits with the Board, 
we may not withhold benefits to which the union is entitled under the statute. 
But even without that opinion, the legislative history of the non-Communist 
affidavit provision of the statute shows that Congress adopted that device as 
the sole means within the purview of the Labor Relations Act of dealing with 
the threat to national security presented by Communist controlled and domi- 
nated unions. The opinion of the Supreme Court upholding the constitutionality 
of the non-Communist affidavit makes that clear (A. C. A. v. Douds, 339 U. S. 3S2 
(1950)). It seems to us, therefore, that we could not seriously argue before 
a court that this Board has the power to impose sanctions other than those 
which Congress specifically prescribed. 

In the case decided by Judge Letts the validity of the Board's action, there 
enjoined, turns upon the inherent authority of the Board, as a means of pre- 
venting abuse of its processes, to inquire into the bona fides of the affidavits filed. 
The Board did not devise or justify the questionnaire technique there attempted 
as an alternative to the non-Communist affidavit method Congress had provided 



672 INTERLOCKING SUBVERSION IN GOVERNMENT 

• 
for dealing with the Communist threat. Our sole purpose, and the only one we 
deemed legally defensible, was to protect from fraud and abuse the very method 
Congress has selected to achieve its objective. We could not even defend our 
action there on the ground that a Federal grand jury had concluded that the 
operations of the unions in question were inimical to our security interests and 
that the non-Communist affidavits of their officers were worthless and in the 
nature of a subterfuge. Indeed, Judge Weinfeld, in later granting the unions' 
motion to expunge the presentment, held that the comments of the grand jury 
were in derogation of the principle of separation of powers of the judicial and 
executive branches of the Government. 

On the first alternative, i. e., withholding certification, we must therefore con- 
clude that our legal position is so tenuous as to deter us from pursuing it. Even 
its value as a means of delay, assuming we could conscientiously act for such 
purpose, is extremely doubtful. A suit for a mandatory injunction could be 
instituted by the American Communications Association within a few days. Such 
suits are, in their nature, brought to compel prompt action of the kind here 
involved. The case would undoubtedly be set for argument promptly and decision 
might very well be handed down from the bench. Another court victory against 
the Government by the American Communications Association would, we fear, 
only enhance the union's standing in these critical times. 

We have also given much thought to the application for a stay of Judge Letts' 
mandate. This procedure might be predicated on the theory that the withholding 
of a certificate would contravene the Court's order. Such step, as further reflec- 
tion reveals, is of very questionable value in achieving the subcommittee's pur- 
pose. The Court might well regard the order itself, as distinguished from Judge 
Letts' opinion, as not literally applicable to a denial of benefits for national 
security reasons. It would therefore deny the application. Or if the court found 
the application appropriate, it would, we think, almost certainly refuse to grant 
the extraordinary relief sought for lack of legal or equitable justification and 
because of the advanced status of the main proceeding on the merits. In either 
case a denial of our application would leave the union free to bring suit for a 
mandatory injunction, with the results we have already foreseen for such a 
proceeding made even more likely by the Board's failure in its attempts to 
obtain a stay. 

The other basis on which a stay of mandate could be sought would be on the 
representation that the Board found it necessary at this time, for reasons of 
national security, to require answers to our questionnaires before certifying the 
American Communications Association. On this approach we would in essence 
be asking the court to recognize and sanction the exercise of authority which 
we have so far been told we do not have and which is at the very heart of the 
main proceeding. It is difficult for us to foresee a successful outcome, par- 
ticularly in view of the advanced state of the main proceeding. But even if we 
were to succeed through the questionnaire method, the subcommittee's objective 
would be advanced little, if at all. Affirmative replies would give us no alter- 
native but to issue the certificate, even though we would surely transmit those 
replies to the Department of Justice for possible criminal action. Negative 
answers are hardly to be expected. 

The more we have assessed the situation the more apparent it has become that 
we are without real recourse at this time. We hesitate to contribute in any way 
toward another court victory for the wrong side by instituting or inviting legal 
proceedings that have such poor prospect of success. There is too much at stake. 
Our best judgment at this point is that less harm to the national interest will 
come of proceeding to certify than of taking our chances on the outcome in the 
courts of our very weak legal position on a denial of certification. A favorable 
opinion of the court of appeals in the questionnaire case, to be argued shortly, 
may afford a basis for nullifying the certificate. Of course, we feel that the 
enactment of legislation of the kind we have recommended to the legislative 
committees of the Congress would be a much better answer to this very difficult 
and serious problem. 

I should like again to express the Board's appreciation for the opportunity 
you have so kindly given us to explore with you the possible avenues of approach 
to a goal we all desire to attain. 
Very sincerely yours, 

Ivar H. Peterson, 

Acting Chairman. 



INTERLOCKING SUBVERSION IN GOVERNMENT 673 

(The following letter was subsequently received and ordered into the 
record at this point by the chairman :) 

Exhibit No. 236 

The "Western Union Telegraph Co., 

Employee Relations Department, 

New York, N. Y., June 8, 1953. 
The Honorable William E. Jenner, 

Chairman, Internal Security Subcommittee, 
Senate Committee on Judiciary, 

Washington, D. C. 

My Dear Senator Jenner : Newspapers throughout the country, reporting on 
your efforts to prevent certification of the American Communications Associa- 
tion as bargaining representatives for employees of the Western Union Tele- 
graph Co. in New York City, have also carried stories quoting from Mr. Ivar 
Peterson's letter of June 2 to you, in which, as acting chairman of the NLRB, 
he responds to your request for advice in dealing with this problem. Incidentally, 
the NLRB again certified ACA on June 3. 

Mr. Peterson's letter, explaining in some detail the several approaches to the 
problem explored by the Board, concludes that there is just nothing the Board 
can do to help in this situation. Gratuitously, he infers that the problem is 
really one to be solved by the Western Union Telegraph Co. Mr. Peterson's let- 
ter states that my testimony before the subcommittee is simply not an accurate 
statement of the company's legal rights. To this I take the strongest possible 
exception. 

Mr. Peterson says that "insofar as the problem was one of access by em- 
ployees to classified or strategic information, the Western Union Co., like any 
other employer, was free under the law to discharge or transfer or remove any 
employee for any reason other than his own union membership." And again "this 
aspect of the problem it seems to us, could properly be dealt with by the em- 
ployer or, particularly with respect to those operations performed under Gov- 
ernment contracts, by the Department of Defense." Possibly Mr. Peterson does 
not know that the two top officers of ACA are not now and never have been 
employees of Western Union. How does he propose we "discharge" them? 

Now with respect to employees, surely no one is more familiar than you, 
Senator, with the complexities of proving an individual to be subversive. How- 
ever, let me assure you that had the company any evidence of subversion on 
the part of any of its employees it would diligently pursue any and every remedy 
available to it. 

Mr. Peterson's letter also states, as one of the reasons impelling the Board 
t<> certify ACA. the fact that the existence of a question concerning representa- 
tion was stipulated to by all parties to the consent-election agreement, includ- 
ing the employer. Again I ask, what would Mr. Peterson have had us do? 
Would he have had the company decline to sign such a stipulation, which would 
have automatically insured retaining the ACA without giving our employees a 
chance to vote for another union? 

I might point out in this connection that the very existence of ACA in West- 
ern Union stems from a decision made by the NLRB in 1944. At that time, when 
a national election was conducted among Western Union employees to determine 
whether AFL or ACA would represent them, the Board decided to split the com- 
pany into seven bargaining units, one of which was the New York Metropolitan 
area wbere ACA was known to have strong support. While AFL was the winner 
by a large majority on a national basis, ACA won a majority vote in New York 
and thus, solely by reason of the NLRB decision, maintained its representa- 
tion of some 5,000 employees in that area. The remaining 35,000 employees of 
this company are represented by AFL. 

The split of the company into several bargaining units at the time, it should 
be emphasized, was utterly at variance with previous Board action with respect 
to bargaining practice in the industry. Collective bargaining in the telegraph 
industry had universally been carried on on a systemwide basis. In sharp con- 
trast with its decision in the later Western Union case, the Board had held 
previously, on petition of ACA, that the former Postal Telegraph System consti- 
tuted a single unit, and from 193S until the merger in October 1943, bargain- 
ing in the Postal System was carried on with ACA as a single representative, 
on a systemwide basis. 



674 INTERLOCKING SUBVERSION IN GOVERNMENT 

We are happy that you and your committee associates have evidenced so clearly 
your recognition of the fact that the problem of subversion in industry is truly 
a national one, which cannot be solved by Western Union or any other industry 
acting alone. Industry must have the support and positive help of the Gov- 
ernment and we are indeed grateful for your good efforts in this connection. 
Very truly yours, 

J. L. Wilcox, Vice President. 

Mr. Morris. Now, Mr. Saposs, in your capacity with the National 
Labor Relations Board are you able to give any comment on the sit- 
uation that has just been described before you? 

Mr. Saposs. No; I am not familiar with that situation. That de- 
veloped long after I had been connected with the Board. 

Mr. Morris. Well, I mean the situation that we described. I am not 
asking your experience about the particular situation, but about the 
position that this committee finds itself in when faced with this par- 
ticular problem: namely, that a union is organized by people who 
have been shown to be Communists ; and the question is whether or 
not they should be certified ? I understand that you have done a lot 
of work along these lines, as to what unions should be certified and as 
to what unions should be disestablished. I wonder if you have any 
views on this situation ? 

Mr. Saposs. Knowing the conspiratorial nature of Communists, and 
knowing the manner in which they inject themselves and infiltrate into 
unions for the purpose of sabotage and espionage, I believe this is an 
extremely serious case, and it seems to me there should be a way of 
acting to prevent them from carrying in their conspiratorial and es- 
pionage activities to the detriment of our country. 

Mr. Morris. Now, Mr. Saposs, you were an official of the Board 
when Witt and Smith were exerting an influence on the Board ? 

Mr. Saposs. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Morris. Are you able to testify as to whether or not Edwin S. 
Smith and Nathan Witt were able to exercise a strong influence of the 
policies of the Board ? 

Mr. Saposs. Well, Nathan Witt, first, as I mentioned, was the at- 
torney of the Review Board, which was the unit which reviewed all 
cases and, of course, in reviewing cases, it was possible to interpret and 
analyze data. 

Later on when he became Secretary, he was, of course, the executive 
office of the Board, which gave him full responsibility for the staff in 
the National Labor Relations Board, except the attorneys, and it gave 
him responsibility for the staff in the regions, the hiring of the regional 
directors, the hiring of the field examiners; again, everyone in the 
regional offices, except the attorneys. 

In addition thereto, of course, all the routine work of the Board, 
such as, for instance, the assigning of the order in which cases were 
to be heard, the citing of how the material pertaining to particular 
cases was to be presented to the Board in executive session — all of 
that gravitated and was carried through the Secretary of the Board, 
and therefore, Nathan Witt, as Secretary of the Board, was undoubt- 
edly the most influential person in the conduct of the affairs of the 
Board. 

Mr. Morris. Did Mr. Smith have an influential position on the 
Board? 

Mr. Saposs. Well, Edward Smith was a member of the Board, of 
course, and was always a very close, or sort of buddy or crony of 



INTERLOCKING SUBVERSION IN GOVERNMENT 675 

Nathan Witt, and, so far as I was able to observe, as the Chief Econ- 
omist of the Board, they were the two people that evidently exercised 
the greatest influence. 

Mr. Madden, the Chairman of the Board, seemed to be always 
preoccupied with the legal problems and legal principles of the 
Board, and paid very little attention to the administrative problems; 
so that in that case both Nathan Witt and Edwin Smith were in the 
position to actually run the Board. 

Mr. Morris. And they did so ? 

Mr. Saposs. Oh, yes ; no doubt about it. They enjoyed it. 

Mr. Morris. I wonder if you would just amplify a little more 
about the powers that Nathan Witt had at that time? 

Mr. Saposs. Well, as I mentioned, he was able if any case came in — 
any case that came in, of course, came to him directly. 

He was able to decide the order in which it was to appear. He was 
the one that presented a digest to the Board as to the issues in the 
case. He recommended to the Board what particular action should 
be taken, and so on, and in that way, of course, he had a tremendous 
influence; and also by appointing. You see, the civil service did not 
apply to the employees of the NLRB, and by appointing field exam- 
iners who were the ones, of course, who made the investigations, 
by apointing the regional directors, by controlling the staff at the 
national headquarters, he was, of course, in a position to exercise the 
greatest influence of anybody connected with the Board including the 
Board members. 

Mr. Morris. Now, Mr. Saposs, were you able to observe while you 
had this particular duty with the Board any Communist agitation? 

Mr. Saposs. Yes; there was, of course, constant agitation on the 
part of Communist-front organizations. 

Mr. Morris. Can you remember any of the Communist fronts to 
which you refer? 

Mr. Saposs. As I recall, it was the League for Peace and Democ- 
racy, and then there was the Women's — I forget the name of it — a 
women's organization. 

Mr. Morris. Was it the League of Women Shoppers ? 

Mr. Saposs. League of Women Shoppers, the Washington Book 
Shop. 

Petitions were always being circulated and donations were solicited 
in the Board during the office hours. 

Mr. Morris. So the solicitations of these various organizations 
which have been listed by the Attorney General to be Communist 
organizations went on during office hours? 

Mr. Saposs. Yes. 

Mr. Morris. Was that done very frequently, Mr. Saposs ? 

Mr. Saposs. It was routine, I should say. 

Mr. Morris. Do you think Mr. Witt and Mr. Smith, about whom 
we have been talking, knew about that? 

Mr. Saposs. Oh, it was pretty generally understood that it was being 
done with their approval and support. 

Mr. Morris. When you say it was generally understood, sir, you 
mean that there were conversations to that effect? 

Mr. Saposs. The staff people knew that it was done with their 
support and approval, and were undoubtedly influenced in signing 



676 INTERLOCKING SUBVERSION IN GOVERNMENT 

petitions and making donations, were influenced because of the fact 
that these two people, who were influential people, approved of these 
activities. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Saposs, what was the role of Thomas I. Emerson 
at this time ? 

Mr. Saposs. He succeeded Nathan Witt as the head of the Review 
Division, and in that role was really responsible for hiring all the at- 
torneys. Generally the practice was that the attorneys started in the 
Review Division and, after being there, they were assigned to other 
positions, either in the field, or to other positions within the Board. 
He was the key person in the hiring of attorneys. That was one of his 
responsibilities, in which he was in a position, of course, to exercise a 
great deal of influence. 

The other one was the fact that the cases, after they were heard in 
the field and came to the Washington headquarters, were reviewed 
under his supervision, and in the important cases, of course, he always 
took a keen interest. So he was in a position to influence the reviews 
in all cases before they got to the Board. 

Mr. Morris. Now did he generally share the outlook and the posi- 
tion that was held by Smith and Witt? 

Mr. Saposs. Yes, he was pretty sympathetic to that role. He was, 
of course, a key member of the National Lawyers' Guild and was very 
active in it, and it was commonly understood insofar as the National 
Labor Relations Board was concerned, that he was of sort of a trium- 
virate, that it was Ed Smith and Nate Witt and Tom Emerson who 
were the triumvirate, and the key people who influenced the direction 
and activities and the hiring of staff within the Board. 

Mr. Morris. And you were able to observe that they made up the 
triumvirate, on the basis of your long experience with the Board. 

Mr. Saposs. Yes. 

Mr. Morris. Now it is on that basis that you testify this morning? 

Mr. Saposs. It is on the basis of my experience as chief economist 
of the National Labor Relations Board and, of course, I had an oppor- 
tunity to be around and observe and learn. 

Mr. Morris. Now, did you ever encounter in your official capacity, 
or were you ever in a position to observe in your official capicity any 
favoritism toward Harry Bridges' union by the National Labor Rela- 
tions Board ? 

Mr. Saposs. He was sort of regarded as a hero by these people. I 
remember Edwin Smith devoting a lot of time in trying to convince 
me that Harry Bridges was the greatest labor leader in the United 
States, and the general sentiment among those people was about the 
same. 

Mr. Morris. Now, did you know a man named Allan Rosenberg? 

Mr. Saposs. Yes. 

Mr. Morris. What was Allan Rosenberg's position? 

Mr. Saposs. He was Nathan AVitt's assistant, and a very energetic, 
dynamic, keen individual, who was sort of regarded as Nathan Witt's 
hatchetman. 

Mr. Morris. Allan Rosenberg? 

Mr. Saposs. Yes, Allan Rosenberg. 

Mr. Morris. I would like you to develop a little more, Mr. Saposs, 
the favoritism toward the Harry Bridges' union proposals, and the 
various labor situations that involved Bridges on the Pacific coast. 



INTERLOCKING SUBVERSION IN GOVERNMENT 677 

Mr. Saposs. The only specific situation that I can cite here is my 
function as the chief economist, which was to supervise the staff of 
people that did the economic research which was used in connection 
with the work of the Board, particularly in hearings. 

When the longshoreman's case of the Pacific coast came up I was not 
asked to participate or prepare any economic data in that case. 

However, when the record was presented, and I had an opportunity 
to investigate it, I was surprised that it was primarily a record of the 
economic history of labor relations and collective-bargaining proce- 
dures on the Pacific coast. 

My surmise is that they deliberately kept me from preparing any of 
the material because by that time they knew what my point of view 
was and they knew what my general understanding was of the maneu- 
vers, the manipulations of the Communists and the fellow travelers. 

Mr. Moreis. What position did you hold at this particular time? 

Mr. Saposs. I was the chief economist of the National Labor Rela- 
tions Board. 

Mr. Morris. You were chief economist at that time? 

Mr. Saposs. Presumably in charge of the preparation of all economic 
data that is to be used by the Board and particularly that was to be 
introduced into hearings, where records were made. 

Mr. Morris. As a matter of fact, they actually accepted Bridges' 
recommendations at that time? 

Mr. Saposs. You see, I was not in any of the hearings, and I was 
kept out of the case. My only knowledge is that this economic mate- 
rial that was introduced was not introduced through me as the regular 
official who was supposed to handle and introduce data of that kind. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Saposs, you are here in Washington, are you not? 

Mr. Saposs. Yes. 

Mr. Morris. I think for the particular purpose of the hearing today, 
Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Saposs has given his full testimony. 

There is one other thing. 

Was there a Miss Dubois? I do not have the first name, 

Mr. Saposs. I don't recall the first name either. Dubois came into 
the picture in this manner : 

Edwin Smith as one of the Board members, asked me to hire her 
as an economist on my staff. I asked what her qualification was and, 
as he put it in his own language, she was a "psychologist with a passion 
for economics." 

I said that that hardly qualified her to be an economist in the Division 
of Economic Research, and I couldn't recommend that she be hired. 

Shortly thereafter I had to leave Washington to act as an expert 
witness for the NLRB. I was gone about 3 weeks or a month. When 
I returned I found that Miss Dubois was on my staff, paid a salary 
higher than most of my staff members who were trained economists, 
and who were very good workers. I refused to give her any assign- 
ments, and refused to recognize her as an employee of the Economic 
Division, and went to Chairman Madden and told Chairman Madden 
that I would under no circumstances have her on my staff as an econ- 
omist because she didn't qualify ; that by keeping her on the staff as 
an economist and paying her a salary much higher than most of the 
competent economists that I had were receiving would demoralize the 
staff. 

3291S°— 53— pt. 11 4 



678 INTERLOCKING SUBVERSION IN GOVERNMENT 

Chairman Madden then ordered her removed from my division 
which was, of course, my main concern. A day or two later Edwin 
Smith telephoned and asked me to come to his office, and he was very 
indignant, scolded me, and otherwise expressed great disapproval, why 
I didn't keep her on the staff. I listened, and when he was finished 
I got up and walked out. She later got a job at the CIO in the research 
department. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have Mr. Mandel supply 
at this point in the record the proper name of the Miss Dubois we were 
talking about, lest there be any misunderstanding or wrong identity. 

The Chairman. That may be done. 

(Mr. Mandel, the research director, ascertained her name to be 
Marian.) 

Mr. Morris. That is all, Mr. Saposs. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Saposs. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, the next witnesses will relate to our 
educational hearings. 

(Whereupon, at 11:15 a. m., the committee proceeded to further 
open session.) 



INTERLOCKING subversion in government 

DEPARTMENTS 



THURSDAY, JUNE 11, 1953 

United States Senate, 
Subcommittee To Investigate the 
Administration of the Internal Security 

Act, and Other Internal Security Laws 

of the Committee on the Judiciary, 

Washington, D. C. 
The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10 : 55 a. m., in room 
318, Senate Office Building, Senator William E. Jenner (chairman of 
the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present : Senators Jenner, Welker, McCarran, and Johnston. 
Also present: Robert Morris, subcommittee counsel; Benjamin 
Mandel, director of research; and Robert C. McManus, research 
analyst. 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order. 
Mr. Mins, would you be sworn to testify ? 

Mr. Mins. I shouldn't like to have photographs taken while I am 
testifying. 

The Chairman. Do you swear that the testimony you will give in 
this hearing will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 
truth, so help yon God? 
Mr. Mins. I do. 

The Chairman. If you want to take photographs, take them now, 
and do not interfere with the witness while he is testifying. 

Mr. Mins. The lights will be off while I am testifying, I take it? 
Mr. Morris. Is any light disturbing you ? 
Mr. Mins. Yes. 

The Chairman. You can use the lights on the committee or on the 
audience, just as long as you keep them off the witness. 

TESTIMONY OP LEONARD E. MINS, NEW YORK, N. Y., ACCOMPANIED 
BY HIS ATTORNEY, SAMUEL P. SHAPIRO, NEW YORK, N. Y. 

The Chairman. Will you state your full name for the reporter? 
Mr. Mins. Leonard E. Mins, M-'i-n-s. 
The Chairman. Where do you reside, Mr. Mins ? 
Mr. Mins. 130 West 57th Street, New York 19. 
The Chairman. What is your business or profession ? 
Mr. Mins. Playwright and translator. 

The Chairman. Let the record show that Mr. Mins is before the 
committee with his attorney. 

679 



680 INTERLOCKING SUBVERSION IN GOVERNMENT 

I believe you have given your name in executive session, and it 
can be carried forward in open session. The attorney is Mr. Shapiro, 
of New York. 

You may proceed. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Mins, you describe yourself as a playwright. 
What have you written, play wise ? 

Mr. Mins. I have been coauthor of a play, Temper the Wind, which 
was produced on Broadway in the season of 1946-47. It ran, I think, 
for 35 performances, or something of that sort. 

I have adapted 4 or 5 plays by Viennese and German authors, none 
of which has been produced, although, if I am not mistaken, I received 
advances against production, which never came through. 

Mr. Morris. I see. In what languages are you skilled ? 

Mr. Mins. I know French, German, and Russian. 

Mr. Morris. How do you earn your livelihood at the present, Mr. 
Mins? 

Mr. Mins. By translating. 

Mr. Morris. For whom do you translate ? 

Mr. Mins. Various clients who want translations of a commercial or 
technical nature. 

Mr. Morris. I wonder if you would advise us as to who is your most 
important client ? Who is the greatest source of your livelihood ? 

Mr. Mins. I cite my privilege under the fifth amendment, that no 
person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. 

Mr. Morris. You mean that if you told us the principal source of 
your income at this time you would be putting into the public record 
here today evidence that would at least form a link in a chain of 
circumstances that would lead to your conviction, Mr. Mins? 

Mr. Mins. I stand upon my previous answer to your question. 

Mr. Morris. And you understand that that is the legal import of 
your refusing to answer here today ? 

Mr. Mins. I am not a lawyer, and I don't understand legal imports, 
Mr. Morris. 

The Chairman. You have counsel with you, Mr. Mins. 

Mr. Mins. He asked whether I understand it. My understanding is 
that I have the privilege of citing pertinent passages in the fifth amend- 
ment to any passages which I believe that they deserve the answer. 

The Chairman. That is correct. Let me also say that any time you 
want to consult your counsel, you may do so. 

Mr. Mins. Thank you. 

Mr. Morris. The committee would like to be sure that you under- 
stand the import of your invoking the fifth amendment, because it 
would not want you to invoke the fifth amendment without proper 
cause, and get yourself in legal difficulty. 

Mr. Mins. Mr. Morris, I have done, as you may imagine, some home- 
work, since I got your subpena. This homework consisted largely of 
reading the test passages in the pertinent decisions and the like, in 
addition to the testimony of persons who did the invoking before your 
committee and other committees. 

Mr. Morris. And you feel that you can legally invoke the rights as 
you did here today? 

Mr. Mins. I believe so. 

Mr. Morris. Now, Mr. Mins, you have worked for the Office of Stra- 
tegic Services ; have you not ? 



INTERLOCKING SUBVERSION IN GOVERNMENT 681 

Mr. Mins. I have. 

Mr. Morris. Will you tell us the circumstances leading up to your 
retention by that organization? 

Mr. Mins. I plead the privilege of the fifth amendment, that no 
person shall be compelled to be a witness against themselves. 

Mr. Morris. You mean that if you answered that question, describ- 
ing to this committee the circumstances leading up to your becoming 
an official of the Office of Strategic Services, which was a wartime 
intelligence service of the United States Government, that you would 
be testifying against yourself? 

Mr. Mins. Would you repeat that question ? 

(The record was read by the reporter.) 

Mr. Mins. I stand by my previous answer. 

Mr. Morris. Now, you were, were you not, a research analyst, con- 
cerned with the collection and analysis of information from all sources 
on the Soviet Union for the Office of Strategic Services, Mr. Mins ? 

(Witness confers with counsel.) 

Mr. Mins. I think that all questions connected with the nature of 
my work for OSS, the people I was in contact with during the per- 
formance of my duties for OSS, and all other information thereto 
pertaining, are covered by an agreement binding me to treat as an 
official secret all such matters, which I signed upon employment in 
OSS, and, if I am not mistaken, resigned upon termination. 

I also believe that as an agency of the executive branch of the Gov- 
ernment, my work in OSS is privileged, under the separation-of- 
powers clause of the Constitution. 

The Chairman. Well, of course, this committee does not recognize 
the privilege under the separation-of-powers clause. We recognize 
your refusal to answer by involving the fifth amendment, that you 
are not required to give testimony against yourself. 

Mr. Mins. I would like to ask you, Senator, does the committee 
recognize a binding agreement between a wartime agency of the 
United States Government and an employee, as binding thereafter 
for life? 

The Chairman. No; because the information may be declassified 
and, if so, it is public information. 

Mr. Mins. Under your ruling, Senator, therefore, I invoke the 
privilege of the fifth amendment, that no person shall be compelled 
to be a witness against himself. 

The Chairman. The committee recognizes your refusal. 

Mr. Mins. Thank you, Senator. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Mins, have you been in the service of the Soviet 
military intelligence? 

Mr. Mins. My answer to that question is the invocation of the fifth 
amendment, that no person shall be compelled to be a witness against 
himself. 

Mr. Morris. Are you at the present time in the service of the Soviet 
military intelligence? 

Mr. Mins. I invoke the text of the fifth amendment as before. 

Senator McCarran. At the time you were in the employ of the 
United States Government, were you employed by or in the Soviet 
military service? 



682 INTERLOCKING SUBVERSION IN GOVERNMENT 

Mr. Mins. Senator, I give you the answer you have reason to ex-* 
pect. I invoke the privilege of the fifth amendment, that no person 
shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. 

Senator McCarran. You are invoking that ? 

Mr. Mins. I am invoking it most specifically in the terms used in 
the Constitution. 

Senator Johnston. So you acknowledge that if you should answer 
the question that you were not a Communist when you were drawing 
pay from the Federal Government, that it might incriminate you? 

Mr. Mins. Acknowledge what? Are you asking me a question? 

Senator McCarran. Yes. 

Mr. Mins. I acknowledge nothing. I state merely for the record 
that no person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.. I 
am not a lawyer, and I am not a court, interpreting the Constitution. 
I am reading to you the text as I found it there. 

Senator Johnston. If you were not employed by some other gov- 
ernment outside of the United States when you were drawing pay 
from the United States, how would that incriminate you? 

Mr. Mins. Do I have to answer that, sir ? 

Senator Johnston. Yes. 

Mr. Mins. My answer is the same as before, that no person shall be 
compelled to be a witness against himself, as provided for in the 
fifth amendment. 

The Chairman. You invoke the fifth amendment? 

Mr. Mins. Precisely. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Mins, did you not in the course of your duties 
with the OSS complete a survey on oil resources and oil production 
in a part of Asia, in connection with the strategic survey of that area 
that was being prepared by the Military Intelligence of the General 
Staff of the United States Army? 

(Witness confers with counsel.) 

The Chairman. Let the record show that the witness, before re- 
sponding to the question, confers with his counsel. 

Mr. Mins. I shall invoke the text of the fifth amendment, that no 
person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Mins, you are a teacher at the Workers' School, 
are you not ? 

Mr. Mins. I invoke the privilege of the fifth amendment text, pre- 
viously recited. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, I think our record amply shows that 
the Workers' School is a Communist training school here in the 
United States. 

The Chairman. It does. 

Mr. Morris. You have been a writer for the New Masses, have you 
not, Mr. Mins? 

Mr. Mins. I invoke the privilege of the fifth amendment, that no 
person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. 

Mr. Morris. You have also worked for the International Union of 
Revolutionary Writers in Moscow, have you not. 

_ Mr. Mins. I invoke the privilege of the fifth amendment, as pre- 
viously cited. 

Mr. Morris. Have you also worked for the Power Institute of the 
Academy of Sciences in Moscow ? 



INTERLOCKING SUBVERSION IN GOVERNMENT 683 

Mr. Mins. I invoke the same privilege, of the fifth amendment, 
previously cited. 

Senator McCarran. Are you an American citizen ? 

Mr. Mens. Yes. 

Senator McCarran. Where were you born ? 

Mr. Mins. Strange, isn't it ? Yonkers, N. Y. 

Senator McCarran. Where ? 

Mr. Mins. Yonkers, N. Y. 

Senator McCarran. How old are you ? 

Mr. Mins. 53. 

Mr. Morris. You are the brother, are you not, of Henry Felix Mins, 
Jr., a New York school teacher, who appeared before this committee 
last fall ? 

Mr. Mins. I am. 

Mr. Morris. Was an iron shop operated by your father some years 
ago at 240 West 27th Street, and later at 339 West 24th Street, head- 
quarters for the Communist Party of New York? 

Mr. Mins. I invoke my privilege under the fifth amendment, that 
no person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. 

Mr. Morris. Did you know a gentleman named Nicholas Dozen- 
berg? 

Mr. Mins. I invoke the same privilege previously cited. 

Mr. Morris. Have you met Nicholas Dozenberg? 

Mr. Mins. I invoke the same privilege previously cited. 

Mr. Morris. Have you been, Mr. Mins, instrumental in introduc- 
ing the Communist International Magazine to be published in the 
United States? 

Mr. Mins. I invoke the same privilege of the fifth amendment, 
previously cited. 

Mr. Morris. Did you write a review of the Communist International 
Magazine in the Daily Worker of May 4, 1934? 

Mr. Mins. I invoke the same privilege, of the fifth amendment, 
previously cited. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Mandel, will you identify that document, please? 

Mr. Mandel. I have here a photostat of the Daily Worker, May 4, 
1934, page 5, containing an article entitled "C. I." — that being an 
abbreviation of Communist International — "C. I. Magazine to Be 
Published in the United States." 

Reflects advances made by the Communist Party of United States during past 
year. Reviewed by Leonard Mins. 

The Chairman. The article may go into the record and become a 
part of the record. 

(The article referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 237" and 
follows:) 

Exhibit No. 237 

[From the Daily Worker, New York, May 4, 1934] 
C. I. Magazine To Be Published in the United States 

REFLECTS ADVANCES MADE BY THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF UNITED STATES DURING 

PAST YEAR 

Reviewed by Leonard Mins 

With the American publication of Nos. 2 and 3, volume II, the Communist In- 
ternational, official organ of the Executive Committee of the Comintern, enters 
upon a new phase in its expansion over all the world. The publishing of the C. I. 



684 INTERLOCKING SUBVERSION IN GOVERNMENT 

in this country marks a decisive step forward in the basic theoretical political 
education of the revolutionary working class in the United States and reflects the 
advances made by the Communist Party of the United States of America during 
the past year. 

The Communist International now appears twice a month in English, Russian, 
German, French, Chinese, and Spanish ; it is published in more different lan- 
guages and at more widely distant points than any other journal in the world, as 
befits the organ of the international fighting working class. 

The editorial in No. 2 reviews the 17th Congress of the Communist Party of 
the Soviet Union, "the congress of victors, the congress of the construction of 
classless society." The magnificent achievements of the workers of the Soviet 
Union are graphically summarized in the fact that "on the eve of the first 5-year 
plan the U. S. S. R. occupied fifth place among the countries of the world. On 
the eve of the second 5-year plan, it had advanced to third place in the world 
and second place in Europe." 

Comrade Stalin's analysis in discussing the revolutionary situation throughout 
the world is a timely admonition to the Communist Parties : 

"A revolutionary crisis is maturing and will continue to mature. * * * But 
the victory of the revolution never comes by itself. It has to be prepared for 
and won. And only a strong proletarian revolutionary party can prepare for and 
win victory." 

An article on the revolutionary battles in Cuba gives a concise summary of 
political events in the Yankee semicolony since the rise of the Grau-Batista 
government. 

Once More About Work in the Reformist and Fascist Unions, by Comrade 
Piatnitsky of the ECCI, again raises the extremely vital question of the defects 
of Communist work in the labor unions. Taking concrete examples from the 
activities of the Swedish, Polish, German, and British Communist Parties, 
Piatnitsky points to the Communists' general failure to consolidate their gains 
made during the leadership of strikes — which is a major defect in our trade- 
union work in the United States as well. 

The issue concludes with Comrade Earl Browder's speech at the 13th plenum 
of the ECCI, which should be read and studied for its cogent analysis of the New 
Deal and the problems facing the party in the months to come. 

The leading article in No. 3 of the Communist International, by V. Knorin, an 
outstanding leader of the Communist Party in Germany, surveys the "Vanguard 
struggles of the second round of revolutions" signalized by the revolutionary 
events in France and Austria last February. What has happened in Vienna and 
in Paris is a timely object-lesson to the workers of the United States in their 
mobilization against the New Deal regime. 

Fifteen Years of the Communist International, planned as theses for party 
instructors, is a very valuable and concise summary of the history of the interna- 
tional working class as reflected in the development of its world leadership, the 
Comintern. The colonial and national questions, trade-union work, the betrayal 
role of the Socialists, the rise of fascism, and the problems facing the Communist 
Party leading the proletariat toward Soviet power through revolutionary strug- 
gle are brilliantly analyzed in these theses issued by the Agitprop of the 
Comintern. 

Comrade Rust, of the Central Committee of the CPGB, discusses the advance 
of communism in Great Britain during the past 15 years in his article on the 
problems of uniting all the revolutionary forces in Britain into a single, power- 
ful. Communist Party. The lessons of the Communist work in England are of 
considerable importance for us in the United States. 

The issue concludes with two valuable reports on the problems of provocateurs 
and illegality. Comrade Bronkovsky, of the Communist Party of Poland, dis- 
cusses the recent exposure of agents-provocateur who had wormed their way into 
responsible posts within the Polish Pai'ty. The methods used by that party in dis- 
closing and getting rid of these provocateurs within the ranks should be carefully 
studied by every party member here in the United States as a vital part of our 
constant, ever-vigilant efforts to keep the party ranks free of stool pigeons and 
police spies. 

Comrade Richter furnishes another valuable article on Questions Arising in 
Communist Parties in Going Over to Illegality. He makes the experience of the 
German Communist Party in its transition from a legal mass party to a party 
working under difficult underground conditions against Fascist terror available 
to the brother Communist Parties throughout the world. With the growth of 
terroristic repression in the United States — see Imperial Valley, the Alabama 



INTERLOCKING SUBVERSION IN GOVERNMENT 685 

sharecroppers, and the general tightening of police measures against Communist 
activity — the party members must devote considerable study to the problems 
facing the party in building the apparatus and in the methods of work necessary 
for illegal activity. 

At 10 cents per issue and $2 for a year's subscription, the Communist Inter- 
national is indispensable for every class-conscious worker. It is imperative that 
every party organization, beginning with the factory nucleus, that all workers' 
schools, that every workers' club, make the Communist International a part of 
its regular periodical file for reading and study by its members. No proletarian 
library is complete without this important current survey of revolutionary prob- 
lems and the work of the Communist Parties all over the world. Spread the 
Communist International, popularize its contents, organize discussion of the out- 
standing problems raised in each issue — make it part of our revolutionary life 
here in the United States. 

Senator Johnston. Are you the same Leonard Mins? 

Mr. Mins. I plead the privilege of the fifth amendment, Senator. 
Did you hear me? 

Senator Johnson. You deny that you are Leonard Mins? 

Mr. Mins. The name is Mins. I plead the privilege of the fifth 
amendment. 

Senator McCarran. Do you deny that you are Leonard Mins; is 
that right? 

Mr. Mins. I deny nothing, Senator. I state that no person shall 
be compelled to be a witness against himself. 

Senator McCarran. Did you not take an oath that you were Leonard 
Mins here ? 

Mr. Mins. I stated I am not denying Leonard Mins. 

Senator McCarran. You are Leonard Mins? 

Mr. Mins. Obviously. You are Senator McCarran. 

Mr. Morris. The point is, Are you the Leonard Mins, though, who 
wrote the article in the Daily Worker? 

Mr. Mins. It is to that that I am pleading the fifth amendment. 

The Chairman. I think that the record is clear. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Manclel, will you read the first paragraph of that 
article? 

Mr. Mandel (reading) : 

With the American publication of Nos. 2 and 3, volume 11, the Communist 
International, official organ of the executive committee of the Comintern, enters 
upon a new phase in its expansion all over the world. The publishing of the 
Communist International in this country marks a decisive step forward in the 
basic theoretical political education of the revolutionary working class in the 
United States and reflects the advances made by the Communist Party of the 
United States during the past year. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Mins, in your application for Federal employ- 
ment, can you recall answering a question which read : 

Did you advocate or have you ever advocated or are you now or have you 
ever been a member of any organization that advocates the overthrow of the 
Government of the United States by force or violence? 

Mr. Mins. I plead the privilege of the fifth amendment that no 
person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. 

Mr. Morris. In other words, do you recall ever having answered 
the question which I read ? Do you feel that if you did recall answer- 
ing that question, you would be testifying against yourself? 

Air. Mixs. I have cited the privilege of the fifth amendment. 

The Chairman. And you invoke that privilege to the question? 

Mr. Mins. I invoke that privilege. 

32918°— 53— pt. 11 5 



686 INTERLOCKING SUBVERSION EST GOVERNMENT 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Shapiro, I offer you this document. Will you 
show it to the witness and ask him if that is his signature that appears 
thereon ? 

(Document handed to witness's counsel.) 

Mr. Mure. Your question, Mr. Morris? 

Mr. Morris. Is that your signature that appears on that document, 
Mr. Mins? 

Mr. Mins. I plead the privilege of the fifth amendment, that no 
person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. 

Mr. Morris. Thank you, Mr. Shapiro. 

Mr. Shapiro. You are welcome, Mr. Morris. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, I would like to call your attention to 
the fact that question No. 17 is so worded and that Mr. Mins at that 
time answered the question "No," according to the document. 

I would like the whole document to go into the record, Mr. Chair- 
man. It contains much biographical detail. It gives Mr. Mins' 
references in connection with his application for employment with 
the OSS, and many other pertinent bits of information 

(Witness confers with counsel.) 
that would be relevant to our inquiry. 

Mr. Chairman, I call your attention to the fact that this is a sworn 
statement that Mr. Mins made on this occasion. 

The Chairman. The entire document will go into the record and 
become a part of the record. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 2-38" and 
follows :) 



INTERLOCKING SUBVERSION IN GOVERNMENT 687 




688 INTERLOCKING SUBVERSION IN GOVERNMENT 





INTERLOCKING SUBVERSION IN GOVERNMENT 689 




690 



INTERLOCKING SUBVERSION IN GOVERNMENT 




INTERLOCKING SUBVERSION IN GOVERNMENT 



691 




692 



INTERLOCKING SUBVERSION IN GOVERNMENT 




INTERLOCKING SUBVERSION IN GOVERNMENT 



693 




694 



INTERLOCKING SUBVERSION IN GOVERNMENT 




INTERLOCKING SUBVERSION IN GOVERNMENT 



695 




696 



INTERLOCKING SUBVERSION IN GOVERNMENT 




INTERLOCKING SUBVERSION IN GOVERNMENT 



697 



698 



INTERLOCKING SUBVERSION IN GOVERNMENT 




INTERLOCKING SUBVERSION IN GOVERNMENT 



699 




700 INTERLOCKING SUBVERSION IN GOVERNMENT 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Mins, you translated a volume called Electric 
Power Development in the U. S. S. R., did you not? 

Mr. Mins. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against 
himself. I, therefore, invoke the privilege of the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Morris. That is put out by the U. S. S. R. Committee for Inter- 
national Scientific and Technical Conferences, is it not? 

Mr. Mins. Same answer, sir. 

Mr. Morris. Where were you when you translated this book, Mr. 
Mins? 

Mr. Mins. I invoke the same privilege cited before. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Mins, I wonder if you would tell us on how many 
occasions you have been to Moscow ? 

Mr. Mins. I shall read you a text. No person shall be compelled 
to be a witness against himself, a privilege granted me by the fifth 
amendment, which I hereby invoke. 

Mr. Morris. I wonder, Mr. Mins, if you would describe to this com- 
mittee your experiences with Soviet military authorities in the United 
States and abroad? 

Mr. Mins, I cite the privilege of the fifth amendment — that no 
person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. 

The Chairman. And you invoke that privilege ? 

Mr. Mins. I invoke that privilege. I am sorry I left the words out. 

Mr. Morris. In the United States you have worked for aircraft com- 
panies, have you not ? 

Mr. Mins. I cite the privilege of the fifth amendment — that no per- 
son shall be compelled to be a witness against himself — and I invoke 
that privilege. 

Mr. Morris. You mean that if you told us whether or not you 
worked for the Standard Aircraft and the Wright-Martin Aircraft 
Corp., which facts you have put on your application for employ- 
ment, that would be testifying against yourself? 

Mr. Mins. I cite the privilege of the fifth amendment and invoke 
the previously cited privilege. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Mins, when you made out this application for 
Federal employment on the 8th day of January in 1943, were you 
telling the truth to the United States Government? 

Mr. Mins. I invoke the privilege of the fifth amendment — that no 
person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. 

Mr. Morris. Is your wife Ann G. Mins? 

Mr. Mins. My wife is Ann G. Mins ; yes. 

Mr. Morris. Was she born Baumberger? 

Mr. Mins. She was. 

Mr. Morris. Has she been a New York schoolteacher ? 

Mr. Mins. She has. 

Mr. Morris. To your knowledge, has she been a member of the Com- 
munist Party? 

Mr. Mins. Same answer: No person shall be compelled to be a 
witness against himself, a privilege that I invoke herewith. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Mins, how many members of your family have 
been schoolteachers ? 

Mr. Mins. One — my immediate family? 

Mr. Morris. First your brothers and sisters. 

Mr. Mins. My brother and my two sisters. 

Mr. Morris. Your brother, Henry George Mins? 



INTERLOCKING SUBVERSION IN GOVERNMENT 



701 



Mr. Mins. And my two sisters. 

Mr. Morris. Identify them, please? 

Mr. Mins. Helen Ann Mins, now Helen Ann Mins Robbins, and 
Sophie Evelyn Mins, now Sophie Evelyn Finger. 

Mr. Morris. Does either of them still teach ? 

Mr. Mins. No. 

Mr. Morris. Now, your wife has been a teacher. Has any of your 
brothers-in-law or sisters-in-law been a teacher? 

Mr. Mins. Yes. I am sorry — my brother's wife was a teacher. 

Mr. Morris. Have you ever met in Communist Party meetings with 
those people ? 

Mr. Mins. I invoke the privilege of the fifth amendment, previously 
cited. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, I think, in view of the answers given 
by this witness, that I would refrain from asking any further ques- 
tions. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions ? 

If not, you will be excused. 

Mr. Mins. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Wuchinick. 

(The following document was ordered printed at this point by the 
chairman:) 

Exhibit No. 239 

United States Civil Service Commission 

service record division 

Washington 25, D. C, June 5, 1953. 

STATEMENT OF FEDERAL SERVICE 

Notice to individuals. — This record should be preserved. Additional copies of 
service histories cannot be furnished due to limited personnel in the Commission. 
This record may be presented to appointing officers for their inspection. 

Name : Mins. Leonard E. 
Date of birth : 1-20-00. 

Authority for original appointment (Examination from which appointed or 
other authority — Executive Order, Law, or other exemption) : Excepted — Title 2, 
U. S. Code 140. 



Effective date 


Nature of action 


Position, grade, salary, etc. 


Apr. 22,1942 
July 1, 1942 


Temporary Appointment 


Social Science Analyst, $3,800 per annum, Li- 
brary of Congress, Division of Special Informa- 
tion, Washington, D. C. 


July 1, 1943 


Leave without pay 





Above record by telephone— Library of Congress, Mar. 1, 1944. 



A. M. Deem, 
Chief. Audit Section. 



The above transcript of service history does not include salary changes, intra- 
agency transfers within an organizational unit not involving changes from one 
official headquarters or duty station to another, and promotions or demotions, 
since Federal agencies are not required to report such actions to the Commis'sion. 

The Chairman. Will you be sworn to testify? Do you solemnly 
swear that the testimony you give in this hearing will be the truth, 
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? 

Mr. Wuchinich. I do. 



702 INTERLOCKING SUBVERSION IN GOVERNMENT 

TESTIMONY OF GEORGE S. WUCHINICH, MALVERNE, N. Y., ACCOM- 
PANIED BY JOSEPH TOREK, ATTORNEY AT LAW, WASHINGTON, 
D. C. 

The Chairman. You may be seated. Will you state your full name 
to the reporter? 

Mr. Wuchinich. My name is George S. Wuchinich. 

Mr. Morris. Will you spell that for the reporter, please? 

Mr. Wuchinich. I should, that's right, counsel, W-u-c-h-i-n-i-c-h. 

Mr. Morris. Where do you reside, Mr. Wuchinich? 

Mr. Wuchinich. Malverne, N. Y. 

Mr. Morris. What is your precise address ? 

Mr. Wuchinich. 12 Clarkson Street. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Wuchinich, what is your present occupation? 

Mr. Wuchinich. Well, Mr. Morris, I have a good answer for that 
because my occupation over the last 30 years, and it involves my pres- 
ent, has been that of clerk, typist, stenographer, credit manager, export 
manager, salesman; I have been trained as an engineer; I have been 
a spy for the United States Government ; I have been a paratrooper ; 
I have been a swimmer; I have been everything that my country 
wanted me to be, but one thing I have been that's common to every- 
body : I have been unemployed, too, and have been unemployed at a 
time when I think that most of the American people didn't like that 
occupation. 

The Chairman. Will you answer the question ? What is your pres- 
ent occupation ? 

Mr. Wuchinich. Gentlemen, why do you want to know where I 
work? 

Senator McCarran. What is your present occupation ? 

The Chairman. Will you answer the question? 

Mr. Wuchinich. You follow the pattern of blacklisting people, 
getting them out of jobs. Why do you bring me here? I don't know. 
But I'll tell you this much, Senator Jenner : I refuse to give that an- 
swer under my privilege of the fifth amendment. 

The Chairman. In other words, are you now a member of the Com- 
munist Party? 

Mr. Wuchinich. Senator Jenner, that question has become the 
laughing stock of the world. Here is 

Senator McCarran. Answer the question. 

The Chairman. You can answer the question. Are you a member or 
are you not a member of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Wuchinich. Senator Jenner, you brought me here. I don't 
know why. I'll give the answer. 

The Chairman. Will you answer the question ? 

Mr. Wuchinich. I'll give the answer ; yes, but I'll take my time 
because I'm a citizen. You must remember that flag stands behind 
me that stands behind you. 

The Chairman. We are here to elicit information. This is a duly 
constituted committee of this Congress. You are here to answer ques- 
tions and give information. 

Mr. Wuchinich. I will give you my answer 

The Chairman. I want to know whether or not you are a member 
of the Communist Party. 



INTERLOCKING SUBVERSION IN GOVERNMENT 703 

Mr. Wuchinich. I refuse to answer that question under the priv- 
ilege of the fifth amendment which is not to bear witness against 
myself. 

The Chairman. All right. You may have some idea why you are 
here now. Proceed, Mr. Morris. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Wuchinich, you have been an official of the Office 
of Strategic Services, the wartime intelligence service of the United 
States, have you not? 

Mr. Wuchinich. Indeed, and I am very proud of it. I think I did 
more than you, counsel, for the defense of my country. You may 
have a paratrooper haircut, but I don't believe you earned it. I have 
worn this haircut for 10 years. 

The Chairman. We will strike that voluntary statement of the wit- 
ness from the record. It is not responsive to the question. Proceed, 
Mr. Morris. 

Mr. Wuchinich. Indeed it is. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Wuchinich, were you a member of the Communist 
Party while you were an officer of the OSS ? 

Mr. Wuchinich. No, sir. 

Mr. Morris. Were you a member of the Communist Party prior to 
the time you became associated with the OSS ? 

Mr. Wuchinich. I refuse to answer that question under the same 
reasons that I gave before. 

Mr. Morris. Did you rejoin the Communist Party after you left 
OSS? 

Mr. Wuchinich. You guys must be awful afraid. 

Senator McCarran. Answer the question. 

Mr. Wuchinich. I refuse to answer for the same reason. 

Senator McCarran. What reason ? 

Mr. Wuchinich. The fifth amendment, which my ancestors, my- 
self as one of them, fought to defend, the Bill of Rights, which we 
need more in this world in our country. 

Senator Johnston. Do you consider yourself a true American? 

Mr. Wuchinich. I consider myself a true American, indeed I do. 
Let me answer that question. You asked me. I'll give you the 
answer and right from the heart. I have here when General Eisen- 
hower was head of the ETO, I have here a general order and I will 
read it to you and I want it in the record. This is the award of the 
Distinguished Service Cross via my country to me, so that I sacrificed, 
if I had to, my life, and here's how it reads. I'm a little nervous and 
I'll stand up. I feel better standing up. 

Award of the Distinguished Service Cross — 

Take this down clearly, Mr. Reporter. 

By direction of the President, Sth of November, 1944 — 

at a time when I believe Senator McCarthy got out of the Army. I 
still was in until 1946. 

Under the direction of the Army regulation 00045, as amended, the Distin- 
guished Service Cross was awarded by the theater commander to the following- 
named officer : George S. Wuchinich — 

That's me, ladies and gentlemen, and you schoolchildren too, look 
good, that's me. 

0519S16, captain, then first lieutenant, First AUS— 



704 INTERLOCKING SUBVERSION IN GOVERNMENT 

which means Army of the United States — 

Company B, 2677th Regiment, Office of Strategic Services, for extraordinary 
heroism — ■ 

people — 

in connection with secret military operations in the Balkans against an armed 
enemy during the period of November 28, 1943, to July 26, 1944. Captain Wuch- 
inich's descent by parachute into enemy-occupied territory, his leadership and 
his resolute conduct in the face of great peril throughout the extended period in 
the successful accomplishment of an extremely hazardous and difficult mission 
exemplified the finest traditions of the Armed Forces of the United States. 

That's why I say that flag should be beside me, but that isn't all. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman — ■ — 

Mr. Wuchinich. I'll answer this question. 

Mr. Morris. I think this man has spoken enough. 

Mr. Wuchinich. I'm a citizen. I was called here. The question 
was asked. 

The Chairman. It may go in the record and now will you be seated ? 
Let us have a little decorum here. 

Mr. Wuchinich. I have some more in the Office of Strategic 
Services. 

The Chairman. You can put it all in, but I will ask you this ques- 
tion : At the time you received the award, were you a member of the 
Communist Party ? 

Mr. Wuchinich. No, sir. 

The Chairman. All right; now be seated, please. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, there has been testimony before an- 
other committee that this gentleman has been a member of the Com- 
munist Party in Pennsylvania and a close associate of Steve Nelson. 
I would like to ask this witness about that testimony. 

Do you know a man named Steve Nelson ? 

Mr. Wuchinich. I know many people. 

Mr. Morris. Do you know Steve Nelson ? 

Mr. Wuchinich. I know many people all over the world. 

The Chairman. Will you answer the question, please, Mr. Witness? 

Mr. Wuchinich. Do you want to tighten the screws on everybody ? 

The Chairman. It is a very simple question : Do you know a man 
by the name of Steve Nelson ? 

Mr. Wuchinich. Lots of them sometimes, but not in this court. 

The Chairman. This is not a court. 

Mr. Wuchinich. All right ; in the committee room. 

The Chairman. Will you answer the question : Do you know Steve 
Nelson ? 

Mr. Wuchinich. I refuse to answer that question under the privi- 
lege of the fifth amendment, which is not to bear witness against 
myself. Why don't you ask me if I know Mr. Morris ? 

The Chairman. Do you know Mr. Morris % 

Mr. Wuchinich. I wouldn't be proud to know him. 

The Chairman. However, you do not use the fifth amendment to 
refuse to answer that you do not know him, do you ? 

Mr. Wuchinich. Why should I ? He's trying to destroy us. He's 
trying to destroy of the Bill of Rights. I'm defending it. I gave — 
not one of you gentlemen offered your life for your country to do the 
service that I did. 

The Chairman. Will you be seated, please ? 



INTERLOCKING SUBVERSION IN GOVERNMENT 705 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Wuchinich, would you tell the committee about this 
service that you rendered? You were liaison with the Tito Com- 
munist forces in Yugoslavia, were you not? Was that the nature of 
your service? 

Mr. Wuchinich. If you gentlemen — you are asking the question. 
I'll answer it, but I must insist on a fair hearing, the system of Amer- 
ican fair play, and I will tell you about the Office of Strategic Services. 

The Chairman. Answer the question. 

Mr. Wuchinich. He's asking me. I can't answer 

The Chairman. Read the question, please, Mr. Reporter. 

(The record was then read by the reporter as follows :) 

Would you tell the committee about this service that you rendered? You were 
liaison with the Tito Communist forces in Yugoslavia 

Mr. Wuchinich. There are two questions there : Would I tell about 
the service I rendered to my country ? The second question : Did I 
perform liaison service? 

The Chairman. Strike the first question. Will you answer the 
second question ? 

Mr. Wuchinich. I want to answer the first question. 

The Chairman. We will get all the answers if you just cooperate 
with the committee. Were you sent here by the Communists to carry 
on this tirade about this committee ? 

Mr. Wuchinich. No, sir; I am an irate citizen, married, and have 
three children. 

The Chairman. Are you a member of the Communist Party now ? 

Mr. Wuchinich. I refuse to answer that question under the priv- 
ilege of the fifth amendment. 

The Chairman. Then were you sent here to carry on this tirade 
before this committee? 

Mr. Wuchinich. No, sir; I wasn't, 

The Chairman. Then please answer the question. 

Mr. Wuchinich. But I feel about this: No man risks his life the 
way I am. 

The Chairman. I am sick of that. Many millions of men risked 
their lives and they can come before this committee and answer the 
question as to whether or not they were a member of the Communist 
Party. Let me remind you that Benedict Arnold was also a member 
of the Armed Forces of the United States. 

Mr. Wuchinich. You are implying I am a traitor. 

The Chairman. I am not implying anything. Answer the question. 

Mr. Wuchinich. Do you go to the VA hospital? Were you oper- 
ated on ? Do you have fevers ? You look pretty healthy to me. You 
say you're sick. I'm a sick man. I'm a disabled veteran and I have 
more scars on me from operations than probably you have, 

The Chairman. We want the questions answered, sir. 

Mr. Wuchinich. I'll answer your accusation just as you have to 
me. I am not Benedict Arnold. 

Senator Johnston. Did the Russians put any scars on you ? 

Mr. Wuchinich. I beg your pardon ? 

Senator Johnston. You have never fought the Russians, have you? 

Mr. Wuchinich. Fought the Russians ? 

Senator Johnston. Fought their system of government or anything 
else? 



706 INTERLOCKING SUBVERSION IN GOVERNMENT 

Mr. Wuchinich. No ; I haven't fought there, too. 

Senator Johnston. You have not fought their way of living either, 
have you? 

Mr. Wuchinich. I don't know about Russia. I know about my 
own country, and it's a mighty shame that a man like me has to be 
brought here and crucified in the press and everything. Why, you're 
stealers of bread from children. I have three kids. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Wuchinich 

Mr. Wuchinich. That's what you are. 

Mr. Morris. Will you answer the question, please? The question 
was put to you : Were you a liaison with the Communist Tito forces 
in connection with your work in OSS ? 

Mr. Wuchinich. My government instructed me to lead the first 
American independent intelligence mission to Europe almost a year 
before D-day, and in those instructions I was told to make contact with 
the resistant forces in northern Yugoslavia, and from the size of you, 
I don't think you could go through a door. You couldn't go on a para- 
chute. I did. 

The Chairman. You will strike the last part of the voluntary state- 
ment of the witness. Please respond to the question. 

Mr. Wuchinich. I'm excited. Who wouldn't be ? 

Mr. Morris. In connection with your OSS duties, were you also sent 
as liaison with the Chinese Communists in north China ? 

Mr. Wuchinich. When I returned from Yugoslavia, I was secretly 
flown out. My country asked me if I would volunteer. Remember, 
I was 35 years of age, had defective vision. The Army wouldn't 
accept me for combat service, but OSS did, and then I volunteered 
again for China, but I didn't specify that I should go to the Com- 
munists or the Nationalists or to anyone. I said I wanted to finish 
the job, and that was in November 1945, and I didn't get out until 
1946 from Fort Belvoir Regional Army Hospital. I volunteered 
twice for my country, and I have nothing but the defense of her 
interests. 

Senator McCarran. Could we have the answer read back? 

Mr. Morris. You did contact the Chinese Communists? 

Mr. Wuchinich. Got the second question. No, on that, I was given 
in China the assignment to proceed to north China to the Province 
of Shansi to make contact with Marshal Yen — I believe he is the 
infamous guy in the book, I don't know, Bitter Tea of General Yen, 
something like, that highly romantic god, but in the process to go 
north and to secure all intelligence that I could that was to the best 
interests of the American people, and in the process of that, I didn't 
make contact with the Chinese Communists as a mission. I was ac- 
tually saved in a battle in the Chinese temple far north where there 
were no white men around, and it so happened that in the midst of 
this battle when I was getting my radio set ready to send a message 
to headquarters, that we were surrounded in a battle between the Com- 
munists, the Nationalists, the puppets, the Ming-Bins, the militia, who 
the devil knows. All the devil knows I had four guys. The war was 
over by August 15, and here we were in the midst of the battle. 

The Communists won that battle and, in the process, discovered 
that we were in the temple and took us along with them. That's how 
contact was made, if you want to call it such. I say if the other side 
had won, I probably would have been a dead Joe by then. 



INTERLOCKING SUBVERSION IN GOVERNMENT 707 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, I have no more questions to ask of this 
witness. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions ? 

You will be excused. 

(The document requested printed by Mr. Wuchinich is as follows:) 

[army seal] 

George S. Wuchinich : To you who answered the call of your country and 
served in its Armed Forces to bring about the total defeat of tbe enemy, I ex- 
tend the heartfelt thanks of a grateful Nation. As one of the Nation's finest 
you undertook the most severe task one can be called upon to perform. Because 
you demonstrated the fortitude, resourcefulness, and calm judgment necessary 
to carry out that task, we now look to you for leadership and example in 
further exalting our country in peace. 

(Signed) Harry S. Truman. 

The White House. 

Call the next witness. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Charles Coe is the next witness. 

The Chairman. Mr. Coe, will you be sworn to testify? Do you 
swear that the testimony you give in this hearing will be the truth, 
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? 

Mr. Coe. That's right. 

TESTIMONY OF CHAELES J. (ROBERT) COE, BROOKLYN, N. Y., AC- 
COMPANIED BY ISIDORE G. NEEDLEMAN, ATTORNEY AT LAW, 
NEW YORK, N. Y. 

The Chairman. Will you state your full name to the reporter? 

Mr. Coe. Charles J. Coe. 

The Chairman. Where do you reside, Mr. Coe ? 

Mr. Coe. Well, I would like to — I gave that in executive session. 
I would like to be excused from giving the address here because I 
had a broadcast, nationwide broadcast, threatening me with being 
shot. There have been incidents around the house which therefore 
move me to ask that the address be skipped. 

The Chairman. We have it in the executive session. I withdraw 
the question. 

Mr. Coe. I could state then, if you want to have it in, but if you 
ask that the press be notified that I am not a fugitive and was not 
under subpena, then I will give the address. 

The Chairman. I withdraw the question. You may proceed, Mr. 
Morris, with the questioning of the witness. 

Mr. Morris. What is your present occupation, Mr. Coe? 

Mr. Coe. I am a writer and do research. 

Mr. Morris. For whom do you work, Mr. Coe? 

Mr. Coe. Under the fifth amendment, I decline to answer that 
question on the basis that it might be self-incriminating. 

Mr. Morris. You mean if you told this committee the source of 
your livelihood at the present time, you would be incriminating your- 
self? 

Mr. Coe. Well, Mr. Morris, I have heard you draw that infer- 
ence 

Mr. Morris. You used the language. 

Mr. Coe. I did not use that language, Mr. Morris, and if I might 
answer the question, I say that this fifth amendment has a long his- 



708 INTERLOCKING SUBVERSION IN GOVERNMENT 

tory, of which I am sure that you as a lawyer are familiar with, and 
that instead of drawing inferences when a witness uses it, that the 
use of the fifth amendment in our courts through our American his- 
tory is such that no inference should be drawn, and in view of the 
fact that the Senators here have sworn to uphold the Constitution, 
it seems to me grossly unfair that every time a witness avails him- 
self of the fifth amendment that he should be castigated and bullied 
and bulldozed, as has been the case here. 

Mr. Morris. Has anyone bulldozed you here today, Mr. Coe? 

Mr. Coe. Yes, you are doing it right now. 

Mr. Morris. I am doing that now ? 

Mr. Coe. In my opinion, yes. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, we have 

Mr. Coe. Might I ask, by the way, that these bright lights be turned 
aside ? It's hard to testify. 

The Chairman. Keep the cameras off of the witness. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Coe, you are also known as Bob Coe, are you not? 

Mr. Coe. That's a nickname I have had since childhood. 

Mr. Morris. And you are brother of Frank Coe? 

Mr. Coe. That's correct. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, we have testimony before this commit- 
tee in executive session that this witness here today was a member of 
a Communist cell in Washington back in the early thirties at a time 
when the Communist organization that has succeeded in penetrating 
the Government was having its start. The testimony was to the effect 
that this gentleman, Harold Ware, John Herman, Eleanor Nelson, 
Henry Khine, Jessica Buck, Bob Coe, Victor Perlo, George Silverman, 
and Henry Collins were active in a cell that had penetrated the Gov- 
ernment in the early 1940's, and the witness has been asked here today 
to answer whether or not that is accurate testimony. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Morris. Were you a member of a Communist cell in Washington 
in the early 1930's? 

Mr. Coe. May I consult counsel ? 

The Chairman. You may at any time. 

Mr. Coe (after conferring with counsel). Under the fifth amend- 
ment, the witness declines to answer. 

Mr. Morris. From what university did you graduate, Mr. Coe? 

Mr. Coe. University of Chicago. 

Mr. Morris. Iu what year ? 

Mr. Coe. Well, I didn't bring my class certificates with me. I was 
served with a blank subpena and I didn't know that this was material 
for internal security. 

Mr. Morris. Very many people know the year of their graduation 
from university and I presumed you would know it. 

Mr. Coe. I would be apprehensive of giving an answer to this 
committee without checking the facts very carefully at any time. 
I'm sure you want the facts. 

Mr. Morris. Have you ever been a member of any faculty at any 
time ? Did you teach at any university ? 

Mr. Coe. May I consult counsel on that ? 

The Chairman. You may. 

(Witness confers with counsel.) 



INTERLOCKING SUBVERSION IN GOVERNMENT 709 

Mr. Morris. That question, for your information, is addressed to 
teaching on a recognized faculty in the United States. 

Mr. Coe. Well, could the counsel be more specific? 

Mi*. Morris. Were you on the faculty of Brown University for a 
period of time ? 

Mr. Coe. I don't know whether it could be considered on the faculty. 
I believe I had a teaching fellowship or assistantship of some sort 
there. 

Mr. Morris. When was that, Mr. Coe ? 

Mr. Coe. Again, I didn't check the record. 

Mr. Morris. Will you please tell us approximately ? 

The Chairman. Approximately. 

Mr. Coe. I'm sure it's probably more than 20 years or so ago. 

The Chairman. Plow long were you there ? 

Mr. Coe. Again, I haven't looked into it and I would hesitate— — < 

The Chairman. Approximately; a year, 2 years? 

Mr. Coe. I would hesitate to give a flat answer, set a date which I 
haven't refreshed my memory on, but I believe again that same 20 
years ago it might have been a matter of a year and a half or 2 years, 
or something of that sort. 

The Chairman. Thank you. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Coe, do you recall that in 1932 a special delegation 
arrived in the United States from Moscow to start activities among 
farmers and among rural districts in the United States, this delega- 
tion being made up of a man named Otto Ostram, Henry Puro, Lem 
Harris, Jerome Hellerstein, John Barnett, and Harold Ware? Do 
you recall such a delegation? 

Mr. Coe. May I consult counsel ? 

The Chairman. You may. 

Mr. Coe (after conferring with counsel). Under the fifth amend- 
ment, I would decline to answer that on the basis that it might tend 
to be self-incriminating. 

Mr. Morris. Did you know a man named Otto Ostram, O-s-t-r-a-m? 
• Mr. Coe. I decline to answer under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Morris. Do you know Henry Puro, P-u-r-o? 

Mr. Coe. I decline to anwer under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Morris. Did you know Lem Harris? 

Mr. Coe. I decline to answer under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Morris. Did you know Jerome Hellerstein? 

Mr. Coe. I decline to answer on the basis of the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Morris. Did you know Harold Ware ? 

Mr. Coe. I decline to answer on the basis of the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Morris. You have been associated for many years with an 
organization called Farmer Kesearch, Inc., have you not? 

Mr. Coe. Again I decline to answer on the basis of the fifth amend- 
ment. 

Mr. Morris. You are presently associated with Farmer Kesearch, 
are you not? 

Mr. Coe. I thought I made it clear, I tried to, but I decline to answer 
that question on the grounds of the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Morris. You have presently an office at 39 Cortlandt Street, 
do you not ? 



710 INTERLOCKING SUBVERSION IN GOVERNMENT 

Mr. Coe. I decline to answer on the basis of the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Morris. Is not 39 Cortlandt Street, headquarters of Farm Re- 
search, Inc. ? 

Mr. Coe. I decline to answer on the basis of the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Morris. Do you know in connection with this Farm Research, 
Inc., a gentleman named Webster Powell ? 

Mr. Coe. I decline to answer on the basis of the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Morris. Do you know Lillian Gales, G-a-1-e-s? 

Mr. Coe. I decline again to answer on the basis of the fifth amend- 
ment. 

Mr. Morris. Do you know Jerry Ingersoll ? 

Mr. Coe. Under the fifth amendment, I decline to answer. 

Mr. Morris. And Charles Garland. Did you know Charles- Gar- 
land? 

Mr. Coe. Under the fifth amendment, I decline to answer. 

Mr. Morris. Did you write a publication, Farmers, in 1914, by 
Charles J. Coe, editor of Facts for Farmers? 

Mr. Coe. I decline to answer on the basis of the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Morris. Did you write a pamphlet called Food Now or Coffins 
Later, by Charles J. Coe ? 

Mr. Coe. I decline to answer on the basis of the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, may so much of these pamphlets go 
into the record as may be pertinent to our inquiry ? 

The Chairman. They will go in the record and become a part of the 
record. 

(The information referred to was marked "Exhibits 240 and 241" 
and follow :) 

Exhibit No. 240 

Farmers in 1944 

By Charles J. Coe, editor, Facte for Farmers 

NEW YORK ; FARM RESEARCH, INC 

Published by Farm Research, 39 Cortlandt Street, New York 7, N. Y., March 
1944. Printed in U.S.A. ' 

Exhibit No. 241 

Food Now or Coffins Later 

the meaning of the world food crisis 

By Charles J. Coe 

CONTENTS 

I. World Food Crisis 
II. Is Food Being Used as a Political Weapon? 
III. America Wants No Betrayal of the Peace 

Published by Farm Research, 39 Cortlandt Street, New York 7, N. Y., July 
1946. Printed in U. S. A. 

AUTHOR AND PAMPHLET 

Charles J. Coe, the author of this pamphlet, is one of the foremost authorities 
in the U. S. A. on agrarian problems. President of Farm Research, Inc.,, and 
editor of Facts for Farmers, his background includes several years as Fellow of 
the Brookings Institution and teacher of economics at Brown University. He 
has written and lectured extensively on farmers and their problems, and 
has won wide recognition as a distinguished specialist in this field. 



INTERLOCKING SUBVERSION IN GOVERNMENT 711 

Here are some comments on his newest pamphlet, Food Now or Coffins Later : 

"Lifts the curtain on the use of hunger as a political weapon. The same selfish 
forces that are writing this hunger policy abroad and are trying to lose the 
peace are also responsible for the artificial food shortages and price-gouging 
at home. — Cedbic Fowler, Editor of FTA News, published by the Food, Tobacco, 
Agricultural and Allied Workers Union, C. I. O. 

"Food Now or Coffins Later is the best analysis of the world food situation that 
I have yet seen. This pamphlet reveals the historical facts behind the curtain 
of lies and confusion used by reactionary politicians and monopolies. It should 
be read by every farmer in America who is interested in winning the peace of 
the world." — Frances Leber, Director of Education, Eastern Division of the 
Farmers Union. 

"Food Now or Coffins Later should serve the American people as a guide to 
action for achieving long lasting world peace through plenty." — Meyer E. Stern, 
District Director, District 6, Packinghouse Workers Union, C. I. O. 

"This pamphlets plows deep into the serious question of food and famine. It 
should be read by every farmer in the L T . S. A." — Homer Ayers, Farm Relations 
Director, United Farm Equipment and Metal Workers of America, C. I. O. 

For additional copies and more information, write to : Farm Research, Inc., 
39 Cortlandt Street, New York 7, N. Y. 

Mr. Morris. Have you written under the name of Robert Digby ? 

Mr. ( 1 oe. I decline to answer under the basis of the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Morris. Did you write an article in the Communist, the official 
organ of the Communist Party, in August 1942. page 620, under the 
name of Robert Digby? 

Mr. Coe. I decline to answer on the basis of the fifth amendment of 
the Constitution of the United States. 

Mr. Morris. Another such article, October 1943, page 934 ? 

Mr. Coe. I decline to answer under the basis of the fifth amendment 
of the Constitution of the United States. 

Mr. Morris. Have you ever written under that name for Political 
Affairs, a publication of the Communist Party of the United States, 
in February 1945 ? 

Mr. Coe. I decline to answer on the basis of the fifth amendment of 
the Constitution of the United States. 

Mr. Morris. February 1946? 

Mr. Coe. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. February 1947? 

Mr. Coe. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. January 1948? 

Mr. Coe. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. For the Daily Worker, September 27, 1942, page 9? 

Mr. Coe. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. December 17, 1944. page 4? 

Mr. Coe. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. September 2, 1945? 

Mr. Coe. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. February 19, 1950? 

Mr. Coe. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Are you in charge of farmwork for the Communist 
Party at this time? 

Mr. Coe. May I consult counsel? 

The Chairman. You may. 

Mr. Coe. (After conferring with counsel). Under the fifth amend- 
ment, I decline to answer. 

Mr. Morris. In connection with your work with Farmer Research, 
have you received subsidies from the Communist Party? 



712 INTERLOCKING SUBVERSION IN GOVERNMENT 

Mr. Coe. May I consult counsel on that ? 

The Chairman. You may. 

Mr. Cob (after conferring with counsel). Could you repeat that 
question ? 

Mr. Morris. Will you read that ? 

(The pending question was then read by the reporter.) 

The Chairman. Farmer Research, Inc. 

Mr. Coe. I thought I made it clear that everything that concerned 
my relationship with an organization that you mentioned, I am declin- 
ing to answer on the grounds under the fifth amendment, it might tend 
to be incriminating and similarly to this question. Therefore, I must 
decline to answer on the basis of the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Morris. Have you met in secret session of the Communist 
Party with the following Communist Party officials: Isidore Begun? 

Mr. Coe. Again, I decline to answer — 

Mr. Morris. Max Weiss? 

Mr. Coe. I decline to answer on the basis of the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Morris. Bill Norman? 

Mr. Coe. I decline to answer on the basis of the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Morris. Henry Winston \ 

Mr. Coe. I decline to answer on the basis of the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Morris. Robert Hall? 

Mr. Coe. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Doxey Wilkerson ? 

Mr. Coe. Same answer. 

Mr. Morris. Have you been connected with a publication called 
Facts for Farmers, Inc., Washington, D. C. ? 

Mr. Coe. I decline to answer on the basis of the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Morris. xVre you acquainted with a gentleman named Max 
Lowenthal ? 

Mr. Coe. I was asked that at the executive session. I think I said 
I did know of a clothing outfit by that name, but I declined to answer 
when it was made clear that the Max Lowenthal that you were asking 
about was a Government employee at some time. 

The Chairman. You decline to answer under the fifth amendment ? 

Mr. Coe. Under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Morris. Have you been the recipient of any of the proceeds 
of the so-called Garland fund? 

Mr. Coe. May I consult counsel ? 

The Chairman. You may consult counsel. 

Mr. Coe (after conferring with counsel). If you are talking about 
me personally, the answer is "No". 

Mr. Morris. Well, your organization, Farmer Research, Inc. ? 

Mr. Coe. I decline to answer on the basis of the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Morris. And the same question addressed to the proceeds of 
the Robert Marshall fund \ 

Mr. Coe. I decline to answer on the basis of the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Morris. Do you know Archie Wright? 

Mr. Coe. I decline to answer under the fifth amendment of the 
Constitution of the United States. 

Mr. Morris. Do you know a man named Meyer Parodneck? 

Mr. Coe. I decline to answer on the basis of the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Morris. To your knowledge, has either one of those two gentle- 
men been associated with farmwork? 



INTERLOCKING SUBVERSION IN GOVERNMENT 713 

Meyer Parodneck is an attorney, is he not, specializing in farm- 
work ? 

The Chairman. Yon may consult your counsel. 

Mr. Coe. (after conferring with counsel). Under the fifth amend- 
ment, I decline to answer. 

Senator McCarran. What was that last answer? 

(The answer was then read by the reporter.) 

Mr. Morris. In connection with the question addressed to you, 
Mr. Coe, about your being a secret member of the cell, a Communist 
cell in Washington in the early thirties, which proved to be the genesis 
of the Communist infiltration of government, I think we asked you 
whether or not you were a member of the cell and met with members 
of the government who were members of the Communist Party at 
that time and I think you refused to answer that question on your 
constitutional privilege; is that not right, Mr. Coe? 

Mr. Coe. Could I consult with counsel on that? 

The Chairman. You may. 

Mr. Coe (after conferring with counsel). The answer, I believe, 
was given before that, under the fifth amendment, I decline to answer. 

Mr. Morris. Were you employed by the United States Government 
during that period? 

Senator McCarran. What period? 

Mr. Morris. That is the early 1930's, Senator. 

Mr. Coe. I believe that for a few months I had a Government job 
which involved NRA codes, classifying them or something of that 
sort. 

Mr. Morris. Were you a Communist at that time ? 

Mr. Coe. I decline to answer on the basis of the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Mandel, will you identify this particular docu- 
ment, please? 

Mr. Mandel. This is photostat of the Daily Worker for October 
29, 1942, page 4, which contains an article entitled "Farmers Do Won- 
ders, But Planning Needed," by Bob Digby. 

Mr. Morris. Did you write that article ? 

Mr. Coe. Under the fifth amendment, I decline to answer. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, may that go into the record? 

The Chairman. It may go in the record and become a part of the 
record. 

(The. document referred to was marked "exhibit No. 242" and 
follows :) 

Exhibit No. 242 

[From the Daily Worker, New York, October 29, 1942] 

Farmers Do Wonders, But Planning Needed 

By Bob Digby (Special to the Daily Worker) 

Washington, Oct. 28. — "The farmers have done a magnificent job of food pro- 
duction this year," declared Secretary of Agriculture Wickard as he paid tribute 
to the farmers for having broken all food records previously established. '"It 
looked like a superhuman assignment to set a new record for the third year in a 
row," he said in commenting upon the 6 percent increase in farm production 
which the Department of Agriculture had set as the national goal after Pearl 
Harbor. 

Originally, food goals called for an increase of only 3 percent over 1941, but 
these goals were later advanced to the 6 percent mark. Despite considerable 
douut over the possibility of achieving these goals, the reports now show that 



714 INTERLOCKING SUBVERSION EST GOVERNMENT 

farmers have produced a total output of 10 percent more than the 1941 volume. 
This is 27 percent greater than the average for the years 1935-39. 

Secretary Wickard pointed out that favorable weather and other conditions 
had much to do with the victory crops that were harvested this year and warned 
against any complacent attitude toward the problems of 1943. He stated : 

"Farmers have produced a record crop this year, but it would be foolhardy to 
assume complacently that this production can be repeated again next year. The 
very abundance of our production this year is lulling some people into a feeling 
of false security. It is because this danger exists that I feel so strongly that 
our 1943 requirement must be carefully planned now." 

SEEK NEW BOOSTS 

Farm goals have not yet been announced for 1943, but the Department of Ag- 
riculture has already said that increases would be asked for all products except 
wheat and cotton. Farmers face the problem of achieving this task with less 
manpower and less machinery than in 1942. 

Much of the work on this year's crop was done before Pearl Harbor, and 
most of it was done before the manpower crisis became acute. With 7 1 /2 million 
men scheduled to take up arms this year and with war plants looking for new 
sources of recruitment, the drain upon agricultural manpower is expected to 
become more serious in the months ahead. 

Yesterday the press announced that the War Manpower Commission has de- 
veloped a program for freezing farm labor. While this may help, particularly 
as regards the draft, there is danger that, without an overall manpower plan 
covering all phases of the problem, the farmers may have the same experience 
as in copper mining. Labor-freezing there has resulted in some places in making 
the job unattractive to new workers. 

CENTRAL PLANNING 

In its most recent report, the Tolan committee scored "the conflicting orders 
and demands emanating from Washington" and expressed its sympathy for the 
plight of local draft boards. It stressed the need for central planning and placed 
the blame for confusion on "the absence of any responsible central authority for 
determining how the requirements of this mass army and of the industrial army 
needed to provide it with war goods are going to be met." 

The National Farmers Union has already endorsed the call for a planned, 
war-managed economy. The chairman of its legislative committee, M. W. 
Thatcher, recently told Congress that no price schemes, such as those proposed 
by the farm bloc, would solve the farmers' problems. 

"For the duration we must move out of an economy controlled by prices into 
a war-managed economy in which the use of manpower and materials and re- 
sources is the test," he declared. 

In the New York milk-marketing area, surveys are now being made to deter- 
mine quotas for 1943 milk production. In August milk production increased 
in the milkshed by 2 percent over August of 1941, even though there was a loss 
of over 4 percent in number of producers. August production came from 57,040 
dairy farms, as compared with 59,467 last year, according to the Market Admin- 
istrator's Bulletin. 

The same problem prevails here as with agriculture all over the country. The 
labor shortage is acute. Machinery and machine parts are scarce. Attempts 
are being made to solve the latter problems on the basis of strict priorities. But 
here again, the lack of an overall centralized program is felt. 

Mr. Morris. Did you write an article in February 1945 in Political 
Affairs entitled, "Three Wartime Farm Conventions," by Robert 
Digby? 

Mr. Coe. Under the fifth amendment, I decline to answer. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, may that go into the record ? 

The Chairman. It may go into the record and become a part of the 
record. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 243" and 
follows :) 



INTERLOCKING SUBVERSION IN GOVERNMENT 715 

Exhibit No. 243 

[From Political Affairs, February 1945] 

Three Wartime Farm Conventions 

(By Robert Digby) 

On the heels of the election came the conventions of the three national farm 
organizations — the Farmers Union, the National Grange and the Farm Bureau. 
All of these farm organizations are "nonpolitical," much like the A. F. of L., and 
at none of the conventions were the elections discussed from the platform. Yet 
the outcome of the elections, the victory of the people over the forces of reaction, 
directly influenced the convention proceedings of these three farm organizations. 

None of these farm organizations was, of course, politically neutral during 
the last election. The top leadership of the Farm Bureau and the Grange sup- 
ported the anti-Roosevelt campaign, while the national office of the Farmers 
Union championed Roosevelt's reelection. But it would be a mistake to assume 
that any of these organizations is a unified body wherein the views of the 
national officers mirror those of the various State officials as well as those of 
the membership. In all of these organizations there are wide divergencies of 
opinion, and it is common knowledge that some of the Bureau and Grange leaders 
supported Roosevelt's reelection, while a small segment of the Farmers Union 
leadership lined up with the Dewey forces. 

Earl Browder has remarked of the elections : "It is my opinion that no event 
in America since the time of Lincoln has had such a great effect upon the peoples 
of the whole world. This was an international, not merely a national event."' 
The recent farm conventions cannot be understood except in the light of the 
elections and the long campaign that was waged to turn the farmers against 
the Roosevelt administration. For years the reactionaries have regarded the 
farm scene as a special preserve set aside for their exploitation. Most defeatist, 
fascist, and other disruptive groups have, at some time or another, loudly pro- 
claimed their right to speak for the farmers. Publishers like Frank E. Gannett 
and Col. McCormick, industrialists like the Pews, a traitor to the labor move- 
ment like John L. Lewis, and outright fascists like Father Coughlin or Gerald 
L. K. Smith have all partaken in this pastime of representing themselves as the 
true voice of agriculture. In Congress, the coalition of reactionary Republi- 
cans and anti-Roosevelt Democrats has long made a practice of hiding its true 
identity and posing as a "farm bloc" whenever the issues make this subterfuge 
possible. Even Hamilton Fish found it convenient to cover up some of his 
treachery by pretending to be motivated solely by concern for the farmers. 

But the reactionaries overplayed their hand with the farmers just as they did 
with the rest of the Nation. They took the farmers for granted and tried to use 
the whole wartime food program as a political football for their partisan pur- 
poses. In its first phase, the wartime strategy of the reactionaries openly called 
upon the farmers to wreck the Nation's food expansion program by publicly 
opposing cooperation with the Government's plan for increasing production. 
Dewey's farm lieutenants, H. E. Babcock and Dr. W. I. Myers, led this campaign 
which ended in dismal failure. The farmers refused to heed this reckless advice. 
Instead they proceeded to produce as much as they could, and each year they 
managed to break all previous food production records. 

The second phase of the reactionary strategy sought to accomplish indirectly 
what they could not do directly. They attempted to prevent the passage of 
necessary legislation and to interfere with the carrying out of Federal farm 
programs, while blaming the administration for the chaos created. Although 
they now talked in favor of abundance, they continued to do everything possible 
to induce scarcity. Dewey's efforts to incite a feed panic in the Northeast and 
to frighten the farmers into killing off their cows, was an example of this brand 
of politics. But Dewey and his cohorts in Congress overestimated their own 
cleverness and underestimated the intelligence of the farmers. Their wrecking 
activities certainly did not inspire confidence on the part of the farmers. Even 
though little was done to answer or expose the machinations of these disrupters, 
the farmers refused to rally to this program which required them to sacrifice 
their economic interest as well as their patriotism and which had nothing to 
offer them except a hate-Roosevelt platform. 

The result on November 7 showed that the farm strategy of the reactionaries 
had failed. They did not get the big increase in the farm vote on which their 



716 INTERLOCKING SUBVERSION IN GOVERNMENT 

rural leaders had counted to offset the pro-Roosevelt strength in the cities. The 
"farm revolt" which the GOP high command had so often prophesied did not 
materialize. Not even by using the wildest anti-Communist, antilabor and 
anti-Semitic propaganda were they able to stampede the farmers into joining 
their cause. To be sure, the lies spread by the Hoover-Dewey forces were rarely 
refuted in the rural areas, and many of the scars still remain ; but even so, 
it must be recognized that the rural campaign failed to achieve its main objective. 
James Haggerty, Dewey's publicity chief, was reported in the newspapers as 
saying that, as soon as the up-State New York returns began to come in and 
disclosed the absence of any trend toward Dewey, the Republican high command 
knew the election was lost. 

It was only by claiming to champion the President's war and postwar policies 
that the Dewey forces were able to retain the bulk of their traditional Republican 
farm vote in the North. Previously the reactionaries had assumed that the 
farmers could best be appealed to by capitalizing on petty, personal gripes— gas 
rationing, tire allocations, OPA restrictions, "redtape" and "bureaucracy." 
But it became visible, even in the primaries, that the farmers were thinking 
in larger terms as they cast their ballots against Senators like "Cotton" Ed Smith, 
Rufus C. Holman, and Champ Clark, as well as Representatives of the same 
stamp. 

The grip of isolationist ideology upon farmers has in recent years been greatly 
weakened. Wherever the pro-Roosevelt forces conducted a nonpartisan cam- 
paign, taking the issues to the formers, the response exceeded all expectations. 
Such instances were all too few in tbe rural areas, but where they occurred, 
positive inroads were made on traditional Republican stamping grounds. 

It is against this background that we must look at this year's farm conventions 
if we are to understand the changes that have taken place. 

But first, a thumbnail sketch of these three farm organizations may be in order. 
The Farm Bureau, which lists its membership at over S00,000, is the most pow- 
erful of the 3 organizations. It speaks primarily for the big farmers; the 
cotton planters of the South, cash-corn and corn-hog interests in the Midwest, 
and the most capitalistically developed farmers on the west coast as well as in 
the East. The Grange, which lists its membership around the million mark, in- 
cluding nonfarmers in this figure, however, represents what are popularly 
referred to as family-sized farmers. It is a fraternal organization, whose mem- 
bership is to be found mainly in the belt stretching westward from New England 
and the Northeast to the Midwest as well as on the west coast. Politically, the 
Grange has been much less active than the Bureau and has tended to follow the 
latter's leadership on most questions of national policy. The Farmers Union, 
with 150,000 farm families in its organization, also speaks for the family-sized 
farms. Its strength has been primarily concentrated in the Wheat Belt, with 
additional support from the dairy, poultry, and corn-hog producers. It has 
been the most progressive of the three organizations and has most consistently 
backed up the administration's policies. 

FARM ORGANIZATIONS ON WOELD COOPERATION 

At their preceding conventions, these three farm organizations concerned them- 
selves almost exclusively with domestic farm problems and paid scant attention 
to the question of international cooperation. This year, however, all of the 
farm organizations gave considerable attention to the problem of international 
cooperation. This was especially true of the Farm Bureau and the Farmers 
Union. They recognized that foreign policy is also farm policy. 

Ed O'Neal, president of the Farm Bureau and long a critic of the Roosevelt 
administration, put aside his former partisanship and devoted the major part of 
his report at the bureau convention to a discussion of international affairs. 
O'Neal called upon his fellow bureau delegates to make a "new appraisal of 
international relations" and warned them that otherwise "we will not only fail 
to discharge our international obligations, but we will also do irreparable harm to 
our domestic economy." O'Neal declared : 

"Plain commonsense indicates that the only course that offers any hope what- 
ever for permanent peace is for peace-loving people everywhere to band together 
in a pact that proclaims to the world that they are prepared to maintain peace, 
by force if necessary." 

The Farm Bureau president endorsed all of the machinery so far proposed by 
the delegates of the United Nations at Dumbarton Oaks and at Bretton Woods, 
as well as the projected International Food and Agriculture Organization. 



INTERLOCKING SUBVERSION IN GOVERNMENT 717 

O'Neal told the press beforehand that he expected fireworks to break loose from 
the floor when he finished his report, but none developed. Discussion on his 
report showed that the delegates welcomed the new orientation, and the conven- 
tion voted its approval. 

NATIONAL GRANGE 

The national office of the Grange is generally regarded as the most isolationist 
minded of all farm organizations — more isolationist than most of its own State 
offices. But the war has wrought many changes, and the report given to the 
Grange convention in Winston-Salem by Albert S. Goss, the present master, is 
quite different from the views expressed by Louis J. Taber, former master and 
sponsor of the America First Committee in pre-Pearl Harbor days. 

Goss devoted nearly a third of his report to international considerations. At 
the very outset he declared, "The time has come to plan aggressively for peace," 
and acknowledged that international cooperation is essential if we are to have 
a lasting peace 

But Goss then went on to criticize the Bretton Woods monetary proposals, the 
International Food and Agriculture Organization, and even the Dumbarton 
Oaks draft for a World Security Council. Despite his professed acceptance of 
general purposes, Goss' position, ratified by the Grange convention, would require 
a complete redrafting of the monetary and agricultural plans submitted by the 
United Nations' delegates. On Dumbarton Oaks the Grange master took a more 
friendly position ; yet even here he voiced various doubts, chiefly the fear so 
often raised by isolationists that the United Nations plan for world security 
might impair our national sovereignty. The Grange convention thereupon went 
on record in favor of "an effectively implemented organization of sovereign 
states, including a World Court, but with the right to declare war retained 
solely by Congress." 

THE FARMERS UNION 

"Full participation by the United States in a world organization based on 
political and economic justice, governed by law and with power to enforce its 
decisions," was urged by the Farmers Union. It gave wholehearted and un- 
qualified approval to the Dumbarton Oaks and Bretton Woods conferences, as 
well as to the proposed international food organization (F. A. O. ). 

James G. Patton, president of the Banners Union, told the convention that 
"the shaping of a people's peace" requires the active support and pai'ticipation 
of the farmers themselves. He called for farmer representation at the peace 
table and pointed out that the farmers have a tremendous stake in the "world's 
deliverance." There are "two roads" open to the farmers, Patton said, one 
"leads back to nothing but oblivion" while the other leads forward to "peace 
and security." 

POSTWAR POLICIES 

After World War I agriculture suffered a prolonged crisis, which began 8 years 
before the great depression engulfed the rest of the economy. Even in the 
period of recovery, agriculture lagged behind, with no markets in sight for the 
large surpluses it had piled up. Throughout the present war the farmers have 
been haunted by fears of another postwar crash and new surpluses piled up. 
Hence, it is not surprising that they have listened with skepticism to talk of 
postwar abundance and that they have been slow to understand the new situa- 
tion, unique in the history of capitalism. 

But the American farmers have been listening with interest to proposals for 
postwar international cooperation and friendly trade between nations. The 
cotton, wheat, tobacco, and other growers who must have foreign markets for 
their products have been particularly concerned with postwar international 
trade policies. They remember what happened after the last war with the loss 
of foreign markets, and they have no desire to repeat such folly. They have 
therefore been quicker to understand the economic importance of postwar inter- 
national cooperation than to appreciate the implications of such a policy for our 
domestic economy as a whole. Many of these farmers are just beginning to see 
that full production for our economy, as well as for other freedom-loving nations, 
must necessarily be considered an inseparable part of the United Nations policy. 

The Farmers Union was the first farm organization to recognize full production 
as a practical objective and to begin orienting its thinking in the direction of 
this goal. Subsequently, on September 3, 1043, the directors of the Farm Bureau 
drafted a special report, endorsing "the philosophy of abundance" and out- 



718 INTERLOCKING SUBVERSION IN GOVERNMENT 

lining some of the steps that must be taken if agriculture is to be included. But 
this Bureau proclamation remained on paper, and the official organ of the Bureau, 
The Nation's Agriculture, continued to publish articles of the type that appeared 
in its May 1944 issue, claiming "there is full agreement" on the inevitability of 
colossal postwar unemployment. In utter disregard of the steps being taken by 
our Government in concert with the United Nations for postwar economic recon- 
struction, the Bureau article stated, "The most optimistic figures of responsible 
planning bureaus and committees place the total at S million or more * * * who 
will be seeking work actively, but will be unable to find it." No attempt was 
made at that time to reconcile such catastrophic views with the Bureau's avowed 
"philosophy of abundance." 

The election forced the scarcity prophets to change their tune. Even the 
Hoover-Dewey forces had to give lipservice to postwar full production as a 
realistic and realizable objective, while themselves pretending to be its cham- 
pion. The result was that back-to-scarcity theorists, like Dr. W. I. Myers, dean 
of the New York State College of Agriculture, who had long been "proving" "the 
inevitability of a postwar crash, were seriously embarrassed. Thus, the whole 
direction of the election campaign did much to convince the farmers that a pro- 
gram of postwar abundance was more than a pious hope and to show them that 
broad sections of the Nation's economy were determined to achieve this objective. 

At their conventions this year, both the Farm Bureau and the Farmers Union 
devoted serious attention to the economy of abundance and declared it to be the 
main objective of all postwar policymaking. Both stressed the need for ex- 
panding domestic purchasing power and for a large volume of friendly trade be- 
tween nations, if we are to maintain our high level of wartime production. Both 
agreed that the backward countries must be encouraged to industrialize them- 
selves. In short, the Farm Bureau and Farmers Union recognized the broad 
principles essential to the abundance objective. Even though they still face 
the task of adjusting their thinking on concrete, immediate problems, both do- 
mestic and foreign, to this objective, their conventions must be credited with 
having taken steps in the right direction. 

While the National Grange also endorsed "an economy of plenty," it has not 
yet begun to recognize the basic principles on which such an economy must be 
built or to undertake the task of bringing its own program into harmony with 
the objective. No sooner does the Grange platform mention the "economy of 
plenty" than it hastens to express fear lest such a program deprive the "Ameri- 
can farmer" of "the American market" and, instead of concentrating on the 
construction of a positive program to implement the abundance objective, its 
resolutions seem to envisage a return to high tariff walls and two-price plans. 
The drafters of the Grange platform were not looking forward to abundance 
but were obviously looking backward to the days of widespread depression 
and surplus. And Goss, in that section of his report purporting to deal with 
methods of achieving abundance, does little more than state real or fancied 
difficulties in the way of obtaining it, declaring, "it is altogether probable that 
we will not be able to maintain full production or full employment." 

IMMEDIATE DOMESTIC PROGRAMS 

No useful purpose would be served by attempting the impossible task of sum- 
marizing the hundreds of resolutions passed by these three organizations on im- 
mediate domestic programs. A few remarks on changes made this year and a 
comparison of their respective positions on the question of price stabilization 
will illustrate their positions. 

Farm Bureau : Most significant of the changes made by the Bureau is the 
elimination of partisan, antiadministration chaff from its resolutions. Their 
tone is more positive, and instead of sour notes on "bureaucracy" and "govern- 
mental bungling," there is now a general awareness that cooperation between the 
farmers and the Government must be maintained. At one point, for example, 
O'Neal told the Bureau convention that "Due to many factors, it is probably 
true that Government must have a hand in carrying out policies to maintain 
full employment." 

On the price stabilization program, the Bureau now declares that price con- 
trol must be continued into the postwar period. Many people still remember 
the Bureau's president as author of the famous comment, "We need a little in- 
flation," and certainly the Bureau has dropped this position of open, headon 
hostility to the stabilization program. However, it cannot be said that the 
Bureau has done much to integrate its thinking on domestic programs with its 



INTERLOCKING SUBVERSION IN GOVERNMENT 719 

expressed desire for postwar abundance. On this very question of stabilization, 
it persists in its opposition to subsidies, endorses a tax program equivalent to 
that of the National Association of Manufacturers, and calls for "the retention 
of the Little Steel formula." 

Farmers Union : The convention of the Farmers Union addressed itself to the 
problem of putting some solid farm props under the abundance platform. It 
drafted a farm program providing for voluntary production agreements between 
the farmer and the Government which would do much to lift the mass purchasing 
power of the farmers. It worked out detailed, positive resolutions to strengthen 
the various Federal farm agencies and to extend their benefits. 

It clearly recognized the importance of developing the St. Lawrence seaway 
and the seven TVA's, of passing the Wagner-Murray-Dingell bill, of enacting 
a broad program for returning veterans, and of rapidly broadening the Nation's 
social-security program. In regard to price stabilization, it voiced no direct 
or indirect quarrel with the Government's efforts' to control prices, including 
the use of subsidies, and it even urged that steps be taken "to prevent further 
land price inflation." 

National Grange: The Grange has continued its official program, with only 
minor changes and insertions. Most of its resolutions are so general, however, 
that they do not necessarily close the door to new interpretations required by 
new and changing conditions. Moreover, it is important to recognize that the 
Grange is a loose-knit fraternal organization, whose locals have a high degree 
of autonomy and whose membership is, for the most part, unaware of the 
action taken by its leaders at congressional hearings. Despite the relatively 
unchanged nature of its resolutions, with their heavy emphasis on State rights, 
bureaucracy, and governmental centralization, there are certainly new currents 
flowing in the Grange ranks, as reports from some of its State conventions 
indicate. It should be pointed out, too, that the Grange like the other farm 
organizations, passed positive resolutions on the development of waterways, 
social security, health programs, veterans 1 ' aid, and other measures which afford 
a basis for joint action. 

With respect to the price-stabilization program, the Grange disagrees with 
the Administration's whole attempt to control prices by applying ceilings and 
opposes the use of subsidies. Thus, its position on price stabilization is more 
inflationary than that of the other farm organizations. 

COOPERATION WITH LABOR AND OTHER GROUPS 

It is particularly significant that each of the three farm organizations passed 
resolutions this year pledging cooperation with labor, industry, and other groups 
in working out postwar programs. These resolutions were not the usual 
perfunctory expressions of good will, such as were sometimes passed in previous 
years. 

President Ed O'Neal of the Farm Bureau told his convention : "As a result 
of the colossal expansion of our industrial setup during the war years, our 
productive capacity is now great enough to produce abundance for all." He 
took issue with those who " have thrown bricks at the success that organized 
groups have had in the formulation of national policies" and said : "In a 
democracy, organized pressure, if you want to call it that, is the only possible 
way for the various groups to express themselves effectively, and for that 
reason it should be encouraged." 

Instead of fearing the rise of the CIO or its PAC, the Bureau leader urged 
that "the tremendous power of the organized groups" be united for "a coordinated 
attack on national problems." "It can be done," he declared. Prominently 
featured in the Bureau's resolutions is the call : 

Therefore, with all the earnestness of which we are capable, we appeal to 
the leaders in other groups of agriculture and the recognized leader in labor 
and in industry, to join in a series of conferences in 1945 to formulate a program 
necessary for the establishment and maintenance of policies designed to assure 
lar.ue-scale production. * * * 

The Farmers Union, whose president, James G. Patton, served as vice president 
of the Citizens' PAC, also issued a call for closer cooperation with "organized 
labor, business, and industry such technical, professional, religious, political, 
civic, and welfare groups as concur in the objective of abundance for all." 

The National Grange likewise declared that •'planning for the postwar period" 
must be carried out "in cooperation with labor, industry, and other groups." 

All pf this demonstrates that the time has come for tearing down the flimsy 
walls that separate farmers and workers. Labor has always been aware of the 



720 INTERLOCKING SUBVERSION IN GOVERNMENT 

antilabor sentiment whipped up in rural areas, but it has seldom appeared suffi- 
ciently aware of the extent to which prolabor sentiments prevailed in the 
countryside. Despite the Hillman-Browder bogey that was conjured up for the 
farmers and insufficiently exposed during the election, the conventions of the 
farm organizations demonstrate that now the farmers are particularly anxious 
to have closer working relationships with labor. These conventions further indi- 
cate that there are many important issues crying out for joint discussion and 
action on the part of farm, labor, business, civic, and other groups. Among these 
are Dumbarton Oaks and Bretton Woods, the St. Lawrence seaway, seven TVA's, 
veterans' assistance, social security, and reconversion. Conferences on a local, 
State, and national basis would do much to strengthen national unity, to bridge 
the chasm between city and country, and to bring discussions of abundance down 
from the clouds. After all, the real test of adherence to the abundance objective 
must be found in what is done on the immediate, concrete questions. It is, more- 
over, important to avoid the mistake of prejudging organizations and banishing 
them permanently to a purgatory of scarcity without first exhausting every 
avenue of cooperation. 

For half a century the farmers of America have found themselves becoming 
more and more isolated politically from progressive currents in the rest of the 
Nation. With the industrialization and urbanization of the United States, the 
farmers saw their political influence wane following the collapse of the Populist 
movement, and the policy of business unionism adopted by the rising A. F. of L. 
barred the way to realistic farmer-labor political cooperation. It is not altogether 
surprising that most requests for farmer-labor cooperation have in recent years 
come from the farmers. Even now it cannot be said that labor has yet worked 
out the forms for making this cooperation effective, although considerable head- 
way is being made. 

ISOLATIONISM OF THE FARMERS 

While the war has greatly intensified the desire of farm people to break 
through their isolation, both physical and political, no solution has been generally 
available except to those who have gone into the Armed Forces or into war plants. 
The coalition of people's forces in the 1944 elections and the contributions made by 
labor have, for the first time, made it possible for some of the forward-looking 
sectors of the farm population to see a solution ahead. Unfortunately, however, 
many northern farmers, during the election campaign, were precluded from ac- 
tive participation in the pro-Roosevelt national coalition because of the weak- 
nesses of the Democratic Party and all other organized groups comprising the 
coalition. As a result the pro-Roosevelt machinery for reaching the farmers was 
developed only in limited areas. Where this machinery was developed on a non- 
partisan basis, or even partially developed, the farmers rallied to the national 
unity camp. 

This year's farm conventions offer additional evidence that large sectors of the 
farmers can be won to the national unity camp. The main proof of this is the 
farmers' expression of a far more positive attitude toward the Government, 
which is also indicated by their call for cooperation with labor and other groups 
in working out postwar programs for abundance. 

How can the farmers be brought into the national coalition? All of the pro- 
Roosevelt forces bear a responsibility for seeing to it that every available chan- 
nel is used for reaching the farmers, and the approach must necessarily be non- 
partisan along the lines of the coalition campaign for the reelection of Roosevelt. 
During the campaign itself, some of the State Democratic committees in the 
North began to show an increased interest in the farm voters, and the National 
Democratic Committee encouraged these State committees to strengthen their 
rural apparatuses and to conduct a nonpartisan campaign in the countryside. 
Where such measures were taken, through independent nonpartisan committees 
or farmers-for-Roosevelt committees, the results were positive and showed the 
need for continuing such forms of activity. 

The administration has done much for the farmers, whose income is now at an 
all-time high and whose debts are the lowest in the past quarter century, but it 
has not done enough to convince the farmers of its role in securing these gains 
and little to enlist the active political support of the farmers. The county and 
community AAA committees, through which the farmers administer the Federal 
farm program, constitute the largest farm organization in the United States. 
But these communities have been prevented from making their full contribution 
to the war food production program and to the political life of the farm commu- 
nities because of the overlapping, hamstring controls exercised by State extension 



INTERLOCKING SUBVERSION IN GOVERNMENT 721 

services, restraints imposed by the Hatch Act, and, in the South, the domination 
practiced by the planters. Every step taken to liberate the Federal farm pro- 
grams will not only strengthen farm unity but will also speed the process of 
bringing farmers into the national unity camp. While the administration and 
the leadership of the Democratic Party are in the most strategic position to 
bring about such changes, the support of the farmers themselves, labor, anti- 
Hoover Republicans, and all other forces in the national unity camp will be needed 
to effect the legislative and administrative changes. 

Today the farm problem is not just a problem for the farmers. The problem 
is to bring broader sections of the farmers into the camp of national unity, and 
this is a problem for all persons and groups who recognize the urgency of 
strengthening our national unity. The 1944 elections showed us how dangerous 
are the city versus rural and the upstate versus downstate contradicitions. In 
looking ahead to the 1946 elections, we must begin to iron out these contradictions. 

Immediately we face the question of what action the Senate will take on the 
plans for international cooperation worked out by the United Nations at Dum- 
barton Oaks, Bretton Woods, and Hot Springs. Approximately, nearly two-thirds 
of the Members of the Senate come from farm States, and many others have a 
high percentage of farm and rural voters in their States. In order to win the fight 
for prompt and favorable action by the Senate, it is essential that all forces in 
the camp of national unity, especially the labor movement, assist the farmers 
in making their influence felt on the side of international cooperation and the 
program for postwar full production. 

Mr. Morris. Daily Worker of Saturday, November 28, 1942, page 5, 
a 2-column article entitled "Farmers' Convention Opens Upstate To- 
day," by Robert Digby, special to the Daily Worker. Did you write 
that article? 

Mr. Coe. Under the fifth amendment, I claim the privilege. 

Mr. Morris. Once again, October 18, 1942, America's Victory Har- 
vest, by Robert Digby. Did you write that article ? 

Mr. Coe. Under the fifth amendment of the Constitution of the 
United States, I claim the privilege. 

Mr. Morris. Was Farmer Research, Inc. — the offices of Farmer Re- 
search, Inc. — the meeting place and the headquarters of Government 
workers who were infiltrating the Government on behalf of the 
Communist Party? 

Mr. Coe. Under the fifth amendment of the Constitution of the 
United States, I decline to answer. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, there is more information required in 
connection with this particular inquiry sought of this witness, but, in 
view of the responses that he has been giving, I would like permission 
to desist questioning at this time. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions by any member of 
the committee ? 

Senator McCarran. What was your suggestion, Mr. Morris? 

Mr. Morris. Senator, I feel that there are other questions we would 
like to have answered, information we would like to have in our files 
and in our record, but, in view of the responses given by this witness 
up to now in connection with this question of infiltration of the Gov- 
ernment, I think it is futile to pursue the inquiry any longer. 

Senator McCarran. What is your present occupation or business ? 

Mr. Coe. I think that was answ 7 ered early in the testimony, that I 
am a writer and do research in the field of agriculture. 

Senator McCarran. Do you write under your own name? 

Mr. Coe. I decline to answer on the basis of the fifth amendment. 

Senator McCarran. Do you write under any other name than your 
own ? 

Mr. Coe. I decline to answer on the basis of the fifth amendment. 



BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY 

1 1111 

722 INTERLOC] 



^ENT 



3 9999 05445 3756 

Senator McCarran. The fact of the matter is you do write under 
different names, do you not? 

Mr. Coe. I decline, Senator, to answer on the basis of the fifth 
amendment. 

Senator Johnston". Are you on a Government payroll now? 

Mr. Coe. Am I on the Government payroll now ? 

Senator Johnston. Yes. 

Mr. Coe. May I consult counsel? 

The Chairman. You may. 

Mr. Coe (after conferring with counsel). The answer is "No." 

Senator Johnston. When were you last employed by the Govern- 
ment ? 

Mr. Coe. Well, Senator, I think that's a matter of record, but it's 
too ancient for me to recall precisely. I believe it was some 20 years 
ago or something of that sort ; and, I repeat, the subpena that I was 
served is blank, and I was not told to bring any records of that sort. 
I didn't know that it concerned the internal security of the Nation, and 
it was employment of a very few months on NRA codes, which at the 
time anyone could get by sending in what was then a 1-cent stamped 
post card. 

Senator McCarran. Are you receiving any compensation or emolu- 
ment now from any agency or group, or division of the United 
Nations ? 

Mr. Coe. The answer is "No." 

Senator McCarran. The answer is "No."? 

Mr. Coe. Yes; no international spy complications, I trust. 

Senator McCarran. What was that ? 

Mr. Coe. No international spy complications, I trust. Is that 
the question ? Could I be 

The Chairman. No implication at all; just a question to ascertain 
facts. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Mandel, in your research, have you found Mr. Coe 
listed officially in connection with any of those organizations that we 
have been asking him about today ? 

Mr. Mandel. We have consulted Polk's Washington Directory for 
the following years and find the following information : 

1934, Farmer Research, Inc., 704 17th Street NW., room 515, Mills 
Building; Charles Garland, secretary, Farm Research,| Inc., residence, 
1456 Euclid NW. 

1935, Farm Research, Inc., 1343 Eighth Street NW., People's Life 
Insurance Building, Harold M. Ware, agricultural engineer, Farm 
Research, Inc., residence, 1456 Euclid Street NW. 

Mr. Morris. There is quite a list of them. May they go in the 
record ? 

The Chairman. They may all go in the record and become a part 
of the record without further recitation. 

(The information referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 224" and 
follows :) 

Exhibit No. 244 

(Source: Polk's Washington Directory) 

1934: Farm Research, Inc., 704 17th Street NW., room 515, Mills Building; 
Charles Garland, secretary, Farm Research, Inc., residence 1456 Euclid NW. 

1935 : Farm Research, Inc., 1343 H Street NW., People's Life Insurance Build- 
ing ; Harold M. Ware, agricultural engineer, Farm Research, Inc., residence 1456 
Euclid Street NW. 



INTERLOCKING SUBVERSION IN GOVERNMENT 723 

1936: Farm Research, Inc., 1343 H Street NW., People's Life Insurance 
Building; Charles Garland, secretary-treasurer, Farm Research, residence, Silver 
Spring, Md. ; Charles J. Coe, economist, Farm Research, Inc., residence, 40 
Independence Avenue SW. 

1937: Charles Garland, secretary-treasurer, Farm Research, residence, 1456 
Euclid NW. ; Charles J. Coe, accountant, Farm Research, Inc. 

1938 : Charles Garland, secretary-treasurer, Farm Research, residence, 1456 
Euclid NW. ; Charles J. Coe, editor, Facts for Farmers, residence, Silver Spring, 
Md. 

1!)39 : Robert Handschin, statistician, Farm Research, Inc., 201 Second Street, 
SE. ; Charles Garland, secretary-treasurer, Farm Research, residence, 1456 Euclid 
NW. ; Charles J. Coe, economist, Farm Research, Inc., residence, Chevy Chase, 
Md. 

1940: Charles Garland, secretary-treasurer, Farm Research, residence, Silver 
Spring, Md. ; Charles J. Coe, editor, Facts for Farmer's. 

1941 : Charles J. Coe, secretary, Farm Research Co-op, residence, 327 Willard 
Avenue, Chevy Chase, Md. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions? If not, the wit- 
ness will be excused. 

(Whereupon, at 11 : 58 a. m., the committee recessed, subject to call.) 

X 



jilifil 

3 9999 05445 396Z