(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Investigation of Communist penetration of communications facilities. Hearings"

/ ". 7' 



/ 7/C y 



HARVARD COLLEGE 
LIBRARY 




GIFT OF THE 

GOVERNMENT 
OF THE UNITED STATES 



INVESTIGATION OF COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF 
COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES— PART 1 



HEARINGS 



BEFOBE THE 



COMMITTEE ON UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES 
HOUSE OE REPRESENTATIVES 



EIGHTY-FIFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 



JULY 17, 18, 19, AUGUST 2, AND 9, 1957 



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



INCLUDING INDEX 




UNITED STATES 
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
«4781 WASHINGTON : 1957 

HAKVAfii) COLLESE L.SiiAjiK 

DEPOSITED BY THE 

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT 

.OCT 2 1957 



COMMITTEE ON UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES 

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

CLYDE DOYLE, California DONALD L. JACKSON, California 

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

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

Richard Arens, Director 
II 



CONTENTS 



Pag© 

Synopsis vii 

July 17, 1957: Testimony of — 

Ellery W. Stone _ 1379 

J. L. Wilcox ___ 1400 

Afternoon session: 

Clarence Thomas Willis 1405 

Michael Mignon 1410 

Joseph Finsmith _ 1423 

July 18, 1957: Testimony of— 

Frank Grumman 1427 

Antello Theodore lannucci 1448 

July 19, 1957: Testimony of— 

Mark Anthony Solga _ __ 1455 

Samuel Rothbaum 1461 

August 2, 1957: Testimony of — 

Louis J. Stallone 1470 

Willis Johnson Chew 14S6 

Bernard Silber 1496 

August 9, 1957: Testimony of — 

Concetta Greenberg 1505 

Sarah Freestone 1520 

Index i 

III 



Public Law 601, 79th Congress 

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

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

PART 2— RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

Rule X 

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

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

ROT.E XI 

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

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

(A) Un-American activities. 

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

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

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

******* 

Rule XII 

LEGISLATIVE OVERSIGHT BY STANDING COMMITTEES 

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

V 



RULES ADOPTED BY THE 85TH CONGRESS 

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

Rule X 

STANDING COMMITTEES 

1. There shall be elected by the House, at the commencement of each Congress, 
******* 

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

Rule XI 

POWEBS AND DUTIES OF COMMITTEES 
******* 

17. Committee on Un-American Activities. 

(a) Un-American activities. 

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

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

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

******* 

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

VI 



SYNOPSIS 



Two series of hearings by the Committee on Un-American Activi- 
ties, on July 17, 18, and 19, 1957, and August 2 and 9, 1957, estab- 
lished clearly that Communist penetration of sensitive communica- 
tions facilities constitutes a direct danger to American security. 

In the course of the hearings, the Committee on Un-American 
Activities interrogated a number of officials and members of the 
American Communications Association, a union expelled from the 
CIO on June 15, 1950, because of its domination by Communists. 
This union, most of whose officers are identified Communists, still con- 
tinues to be recognized by the National Labor Relations Board as the 
duly constituted bargaining agent and representative of communica- 
tions workers servicing the key lines of a number of vital United 
States Government branches, including the Department of Defense. 
The testimony of witnesses in the committee's hearings made it clear 
that the position of this union and those of its members who are Com- 
munists represents a threat to the security of the United States. 

Adm. Ellery W. Stone, president of American Cable & Radio Corp., 
described this danger in these words : 

* * * if an operator were subversively inclined he could 
make copies of such messages in the normal course of his 
work if unobserved and deliver them to outsiders who could 
well be expert in decoding and thus bring about a breaking 
of codes. 

^ !i: ^ ^ ^ ij: 4: 

There exists, too, actual danger of sabotage on a wide basis, 
where trained saboteurs are planted tliroughout any commu- 
nications company facilities at the outbreak of any hostili- 
ties. It would be a simple matter for such employees to 
cripple communications by damaging delicate and complex 
equipment, pouring acid on lead-covered cables, for example, 
which are used in modern methods of message transmission. 

Admiral Stone declared further that this threat would be present even 
if only a handful of Communists were employed in vital communica- 
tions centers. Regarding ship-to-shore radio installations. Admiral 
Stone commented in effect that information pertaining to defense 
transportation facilities of the United States and our allies, insofar 
as the location of ships is concerned, could be transmitted to subversive 
elements in a national emergency, thereby creating a danger to the 
security of the United States. 

Admiral Stone presented several legislative recommendations to the 
committee, which will be thoroughly studied before a final report is 
made or legislation is presented to the Congress at the conclusion of 
the hearings pertaining to Communist penetration of communications 
facilities. 



VIII SYNOPSIS 

J. L. Wilcox, a vice president of the Western Union Telegraph Co., 
testified that approximately 4,200 of the employees of Western Union 
were represented by the American Communications Association. 
Officers of the union who have been identified as members of the Com- 
munist Party are: 

Joseph Selly, president 

Joseph Kehoe, secretary and treasurer 

Dominick Panza, international vice president 

Charles Silberman, editor of ACA News 
Michael Mignon, a representative of the Communications Workers 
of America, AFL-CIO, testified that he had formerly been a member 
of the Communist Party of the United States. This witness' testi- 
mony was particularly interesting because of his experiences in both 
the Communist movement and the communications field. Mr. Mig-non 
pointed out the importance that the Communist Party places upon 
control of the communications industry in times of emergency : 

To the best of my recollection, sir, it was always pointed 
out to me that the importance of obtaining control of the 
communications industry in times of stress or in revolution- 
ary times was a primary factor, and therefore the ejfforts of 
the Communist Party in subsidizing the union and offering 
whatever assistance they could in building the union in the 
communications industry was primarily the main objective. 

Mark Anthony Solga, employed as a radio operator by the Radio 
Corporation of America, testified before the committee that he had 
also been a member of the Communist Party. TVhen asked whether 
he believed that the employment of Communists in the communica- 
tions industry constituted a serious menace to the security of the 
United States, Mr. Solga stated : 

Potentially, I honestly believe that it does. In the event 
of any further conflict between the East and West, as that 
tension increases during the so-called cold war, if it should 
ultimately develop to a stage where it becomes rather hot, 
then I do honestly believe they are in a potentially dangerous 
position to inflict harm on our national security. 

Samuel Rothbaum, who is employed as an assistant repeater chief 
by the Western Union Telegraph Co., testified that he had been a 
member of the Communist Party and that, in his opinion, based upon 
22 years of experience in the communications industry, a saboteur 
could inflict "an awful lot of damage" in time of crisis. 

Mrs. Concetta Padovani Greenberg, who has been employed by the 
Western Union Telegraph Co. since 1927, also appeared as a friendly 
witness during the course of the hearings. She testified that she had 
been a member of the Communist Party for a period of years. When 
questioned by committee counsel regarding the possibility of access 
to confidential and coded messages by members of the Communist 
Party, Mrs. Greenberg testified that persons known to her as having 
been members of the Communist Party do have access to confidential 
messages transmitted over facilities of certain segments of the com- 
munications industry. She stated that she had seen confidential mes- 
sages relating to the tests made upon the atomic and hydrogen bombs. 



SYNOPSIS IX 

Five witnesses appeared before the committee and refused to coop- 
erate durino^ the course of this inquiry, Thej' are: 

Frank Grumman, radio operator, employed by RCA Communi- 
cations; 

Louis J. Stallone, operating maintenance man and teclmician, 
employed by ECA Communications ; 

Willis J. Chew, operating radio teclmican, employed by RCA 
Communications ; 

Bernard Silber, service writer, employed by Western Union 
Telegraph Co. ; and 

Sarah Freestone, employed by Western Union Telegraph Co. 
Frank Grumman and Bernard Silber have been cited for contempt of 
Congress. 



INVESTIGATION OF COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF 
COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES— PART 1 



WEDNESDAY, JULY 17, 1957 

United States House of Representatives, 

SuBCOMinTTEE OF THE 

Committee on Un-American Activities, 

Washington^ D. G. 

PUBLIC hearing 

A subcommittee of the Committee on Un-American Activities met, 
pursuant to call at 10 : 10 a. m. in the caucus room. Old House Office 
Building, Washington. D. C, Hon. Clyde Doyle (chairman of the 
subcommittee) presiding. 

Committee members present: Clyde Doyle, of California (presid- 
ing), James B. Frazier, Jr., of Tennessee, and Gordon H. Scherer, 
of Ohio. 

Stall' members present : Eichard Arens, director, and W. Jackson 
Jones and Louis J. Russell, investigators. 

Mr. Doyle. The subcommittee will please come to order. 

I have an opening statement, as the subcommittee chairman which I 
wish to read for the record. 

The committee has long been interested in the situation which exists 
in the communications industry in the United States, namely, the posi- 
tion and influence held by members of the Communist Party and or- 
ganizations dedicated to furthering the Communist objective. On 
July 10, 1957, at a regTilar meeting of the committee, with all members 
except 2 present and voting, a motion was made by Mr. Scherer 
and seconded by Mr. Frazier which authorized the holding of these 
hearings in Washington on this general subject. The resolution 
adopted by the committee is as follows : 

A motion was made by Mr. Scherer, seconded by Mr. Frazier, and unanimously 
carried, approving and authorizing the holding of hearings in Washington, be- 
ginning July 17, 1957, or at such later date as the chairman may determine, for 
the purpose of considering whether or not members of the Communist Party or 
persons subject to its discipline are employed in various media of communica- 
tions used in the transmission of vital communications, and the advisability, in 
the national defense and for internal security, of the adoption of remedial legis- 
lation authorizing the Defense Department and other Government agencies to 
adopt and enforce appropriate regulations designed to protect and preserve in- 
violate secret and classified Government information, and investing in appro- 
priate Government agencies, power to preclude access to vital communication 
facilities in time of war or other national emergency, persons who probably 
will engage in, or probably will conspire with others to engage in, acts of 
espionage or sabotage. 

Before proceeding further, I would like to include in the record a 
copy of the order for appointment of this subcommittee, signed by the 

1377 



1378 COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 

chairman on the 12th day of July 1957. In it, there is appointed a 
subcommittee consisting of Messrs. Frazier and Scherer with myself 
as chairman, to conduct these hearings in Washington, D. C, begin- 
ning on July 17, 1957. Those of the subcommittee of three who are 
now present and constitute a quorum of the subcommittee are Mr. 
Frazier, of Tennessee, and myself, Doyle, of California, Mr. Scherer 
being necessarily temporarily absent. 

Congress by Public Law 601 of the 79th Congress, placed upon this 
committee the duty of investigating the extent, character, and object 
of un-American propaganda activities in the United States, the diffu- 
sion within the United States of subversive and un-American propa- 
ganda that is instigated from foreign countries or of a domestic origin 
and attacks the principle of the form of government as guaranteed by 
our Constitution, and all other questions in relation thereto that v^ould 
aid Congress in any necessary remedial legislation. Congress has also 
placed upon this committee the duty of exercising continuous watch- 
fulness of the execution by the administrative agencies concerned of 
any laws, the subject matter of which is within the jurisdiction of this 
committee. 

In these hearings begimiing now, the first of a series of this general 
subject, the committee hopes to ascertain the extent of the penetration 
3.nd control exercised by members of the Communist Party over an 
industry which is vital to our defense; namely, communications. In 
the event that testimony given during these hearings reflects a situ- 
ation correctable by legislation, the committee will recommend the 
appropriate measures at the proper time. It is the purpose of the 
subcommittee in the conduct of these hearings, to discharge the duties 
placed upon us by the Congress by calhng witnesses who, we have 
reason to believe, possess information which will be of value to us and 
to the Congress in the consideration of such legislation. It is a stand- 
ing rule of this committee that any person named in the course of 
committee hearings will be given an early opportunity to appear be- 
fore this committee if he so desires, for the purpose of denying or 
explaining any testimony given adversely affecting him. In the 
event there are such persons, they should immediately commmiicate 
with any member of the staff and make their request Iniown. 

In every hearing, the committee has encouraged witnesses to have 
legal counsel with them if they so desire, and has always welcomed 
the presence of counsel. In fact, the rules of the committee expressly 
provide that — 

at every hearing, public or executive, every witness shall be accorded the privi- 
lege of having counsel of his own choosing. 

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

I would remind those present that we are here at the direction of 
Congress to discharge an important legislative function. You in 
the hearing room are here by permission of this committee, and I 
know and am sure you will conduct yourselves as guests of this com- 
mittee at all times. Any disturbance of any land or audible com- 
ment during the course of the testimony, whether favorable or un- 
favorable to any witness, will not be tolerated. 

Mr. Frazier, have you anything further to add ? 



COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 1379 

Mr. Frazier. I have nothing further, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Doyle. The order will be made for the inclusion in the record 
the order for appointment of subcommittee by the full Committee 
Chairman Walter. 

(The information follows:) 

Order for Appointment of Subcommittee 

To the Clerk of the Committee on Un-American Activities of the House of 
Representatives : 
Pursuant to the provisions of law and the rules of this committee, I hereby 
appoint a subcommittee of the Committee on Un-American Activities, House of 
Representatives, consisting of Hon. Clyde Doyle, chairman, and Hon. James 
B. Frazier, Jr., and Hon. Gordon Scherer, associate members, to conduct hear- 
ings in Washington, D. C, beginning on July 17, 1957, on all matters within the 
jurisdiction of the committee, and to take testimony on said day or any suc- 
ceeding days, and at such times and places as it may deem necessary, until its 
work is completed. 

The clerk of the committee is directed to immediately notify the appointees 
of their appointment and to file this order as an official committee record, in 
the order book kept for that purpose. 

Given under my hand this 12th day of July 1957. 

(Signed) Francis E. Walter, 
Committee on Vn-American Activities, 

House of Representatives. 

Mr. DoTLE. Then, Mr. Arens, if you are ready, please proceed. 

Mr. Arens. The first witness to be heard, if you please, Mr. Chair- 
man, will be Adm. Ellery W. Stone, president of American Cable & 
Radio Corp., who is accompanied by Mr. Wilson McMakin. 

If you gentlemen will kindly come forward and remain standing 
while the chairman administers the oath. 

Mr. DoTLE. Mr. Stone, will you please be sworn. 

Do you solemnly swear that you will tell the truth, the whole truth 
and nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Stone. I do. 

Mr. Doyle. Thank you. You may have the chair. 

Are you to be a witness also ? 

Mr. McMakin. No, sir. 

Mr. Arens. He is accompanying Admiral Stone. 

TESTIMONY 0? ELLEEY W. STONE, ACCOMPANIED BY WILSON 

McMAKIN 

Mr. Arens. If you please, sir, kindly identify yourself on this 
record by name, residence, and occupation. 

Mr. Stone. My name is Ellery W. Stone. I reside in Nutley, N. J. 
I am president of American Cable & Radio Corp. and of each of its 
three American operating subsidiaries. 

Mr. Arens. Would you kindly list those subsidiaries on this record, 
please. 

Mr. Stone. They are the All America Cables & Radio, Inc., Mackay 
Radio & Telegraph Co., and the Commercial Cable Co. 

Mr. Arens. Now, sir, would you kindly give us a thuiibnail 
sketch of your own personal background with particular emphasis on 
that part of your background from which you have acquired informa- 
tion on the general subject of communications. 

Mr. Stone. Well, I have been, except for my service in World 
War II, in communications virtually all of my worlring life. 



1380 COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 

My affiliations with tlie cable and radio industry in an official 
capacity began in 1914 as the United States radio inspector of the 
Department of Commerce at San Francisco, which is now a part of 
the Federal Communications Commission. In 1924, I became presi- 
dent of Federal Telegraph Co. I came to the International Tele- 
phone & Telegraph Sj^stem in 1931. Since then I have held the 
following positions: I have been operating vice president of Mackay 
Radio & Telegraph Co. before World War II; I was executive vice 
president and later president of Postal Telegraph Cable Co. until 
its merger with the Western Union Telegraph Co. in 1943. And 
presently, as I have stated before, I am president of American Cable 
& Radio Corp. and of its operating subsidiaries. 

Mr. Arens. Now would you kindly give us a brief explanation of 
the operations of the companies Avitli which you are affiliated? 

Mr. Stone. Our three operating subsidiaries in the United States 
operate a network of submarine telegraph cables and radio telegraph 
circuits, to and from most of the principal countries of the world. 
Some of those countries are behind the Iron Curtain. Our communi- 
cation with those countries is not by cable but generally by radio. 
Over these cable and radio circuits flow international telegraph 
traffic of all kinds. Our services are used by the public and by 
agencies of the United States Government, such as the State Depart- 
ment and the Armed Forces. Our circuits are also used by American 
concerns engaged in defense work. 

Mr. Arens. Admiral, on the basis of your background and 
experience I should like, still preliminarily, to invite your attention 
to the question as to why the communications industry in your judg- 
ment is of importance to the national security. 

Mr. Stone. Well, as I have just said, the international cable and 
radio facilities of our company are used for defense purposes by 
various agencies of the United States Government. Many messages 
are sent by these agencies which are monitored by employees to insure 
rapid and accurate transmission if the messages are sent over a leased 
circuit, and by "a leased circuit," I mean a cable or radio circuit 
exclusively used by a single customer, and I am speaking now of one 
of the defense services that would have the exclusive use of that 
circuit for anywhere from 8 to 24 hours a day. 

In addition to direct Government business, we also handle many 
messages to and from private companies having important defense 
contracts. In order to handle them properly, to route them, for ex- 
ample, we must read various messages concerning shipments and or- 
ders of raw materials and other vital defense materials. 

Furthermore, in our company, Mackay Radio, we operate what are 
known as the shore-to-ship radio stations. Employees at these sta- 
tions naturally handle all messages. To insure proper routing of such 
marine messages, the employees of necessity must and do have knowl- 
edge of the location of merchant ships at sea in all oceans. 

With modern shortwave radio communications it is possible, for 
example, from our station on Long Island to work merchant ships to 
the east of us as far east as the Indian Gulf, as far south as the tip of 
South America ; on the west coast our marine stations work ships in 
all parts of the Pacific. 



COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 1381 

From this, I think you can see that individual employees have access 
to confidential messages and coded messages, which if revealed to 
enemies or potential enemies of this country could be dangerous to the 
national security. 

Obviously, the employees cannot read the coded messages nor can 
they decode such messages. However, if an operator were subversively 
inclined he could make copies of such messages in the normal course 
of his work if unobserved and deliver them to outsiders who could well 
be expert in decoding and thus bring about a breaking of codes. 

It is also easy to see the dangers to the national security for a sub- 
versive employee to know the location of this country's and our allies' 
ships at a critical time in a national emergency. 

There exists, too, actual danger of sabotage on a wide basis, where 
trained saboteurs are planted throughout any communications com- 
pany facilities at the outbreak of any hostilities. It would be a simple 
matter for such employees to cripple communications by damagmg 
delicate and complex equipment, pouring acid on lead-covered cables, 
for example, which are used in modern methods of message trans- 
mission. 

In a state of emergency, in order for the Government to function at 
all — and I think it is pretty generally appreciated that the amount of 
time we will have at the outbreak of any atomic attack is a matter of 
hours — the Government in such a state of emergency must have avail- 
able to it all international cable and radio facilities available, not only 
the radio circuits of the Armed Forces, but the commercial cable and 
radio circuits of the various American operating carriers in this field. 

In the present state of the world my judgment is that prompt trans- 
mission of vital communications without danger of interception or 
sabotage is essential. It is equally essential that subversive elements 
be denied the access to and employment on international communica- 
tion facilities for sending to our enemies abroad intelligence acquired 
by espionage. 

Mr. Arens. Now, Admiral, can you tell the committee the names 
of the principal labor organizations which are presently representing 
employees in the communications industry? 

Mr. Stone. Yes, 

In an election which we had in my company, the last election for 
employee representation, the three major unions were listed on the 
ballot, and they were the Communications Workers of America, affili- 
ated with the merged AFL-CIO, the Commercial Telegraphers' 
Union, also similarly depending from the AFL-CIO, and the Ameri- 
can Communications Association, an independent union. Respectively, 
these are termed the CWA, the CTU, and the ACA. 

Presently we have a contract with CWA, which, if I may say so, 
in our judgment is a responsible American labor union, headed by Mr. 
Joseph Beirne as its president. 

In saying that I do not want to imply that the other union, the 
CTU, affiliated with the same merged AFL-CIO, is not equally a 
responsible union. But my experience has been more with the union, 
naturally, with which we have a contract. 

Mr. Arens. Can you relate to the committee, first of all, what your 
experiences have been with the American Communications Associa- 
tion? 



1382 COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 

Mr. Stone. They have extended over a matter of some years both 
before the war and since ; but dealing specifically with the relations of 
my com])any, the American Cable and Radio, I can say that for a 
period of more than 10 years they represented the employees in Mackay 
Radio and the Commercial Cable Co. up to the 1st of January in 1948. 

Mr, Arens. May I interpose this question there, if you please. Ad- 
miral, if I am not disrupting your theme ? 

'\^niat contracts, to your knowledge, does the American Communica- 
tions Association presently have? 

Mr. Stone. From reading published papers, including the ACA's 
own newspaper, which they are good enough to send us, I believe they 
have contracts with RCA Communications, Inc., a subsidiary of the 
Radio Corporation of America, and with the Western Union Metro- 
politan Division of the Western Union Domestic Land Lines. They 
have a separate contract I believe with the Western Union cable divi- 
sion of the Western Union Telegraph Co. And I believe they have a 
labor contract with the French Cable Co. 

Mr. Arens. To your knowledge have the principal officers of the 
American Communications Association been identified before con- 
gressional committees as members or one-time members of the Com- 
munist Party? 

Mr. Stone. Well, from reading testimony I believe the answer to 
that question is in the affirmative. 

Mr. Arens. And was the American Communications Association 
expelled from the CIO because in 1950 the CIO found that the Ameri- 
can Communications Association VN'as Communist controlled? 

]\Ir. Stone. Well, it was expelled from the CIO in 1950 for the 
stated reason, I believe, that ACA consistentl}^ followed the Commu- 
nist Party line. Incidentally, in that connection, I believe that Mr. 
Beirne, the president of the CWA, was a member of the committee of 
the CIO which dealt with the question of the American Connnmiica- 
tions Association. 

I think Mr. Reuther, in a letter sent to the Senate committee, men- 
tioned it in somewhat different language. Well, this is the statement 
of the CIO executive board relating to three bills then pending before 
the Senate in 1954 and I believe this was signed — no, I am sorry. I 
should not have said Mr. Reuther. It is the statement of the CIO 
executive board. 

jMr. Doyle. May I ask, xVdmiral, what you are referring to ? 

Mr. Stone. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Doyle. "\^niat document ? 

Mr. Stone. Yes, sir. I am referring to hearings before the Sub- 
committee To Investigate the Administration of the Internal Security 
Act and Other Internal Securit}^ Laws of the Committee on the Judi- 
ciary of the L'nited States Senate. 

Mr. Doyle. And you are referring to what pages therein ? 

Mr. Stone. I am referring to page 451, sir. 

Mr. Doyle. Thank you. 

Mr. Stone. This statement says the CIO has not been content merely 
to voice anti-Communist phrases. In 1949, the convention of the 
CIO, voting by an overwhelming majority, adopted procedures which 
led to the expulsion of 11 Communist-dominated unions from the 
CIO. 



COMMUNIST PENETRATION" OF COMMUNICATIONS FACrLmES 1383 

In our reports expelling tbese unions we express the conviction that the vast 
majority of the members of those unions were clearly not sympathetic to com- 
munism, but that a small clique have gained control of those 11 trade unions. 

That is the end of the quotation. 

Mr. Arens. Admiral, at this point, still in a preliminary manner, I 
should like to ask you ^\hether, notwithstanding the fact that if top 
leadership of the American Communications Association has been 
identified as Communists and notwitlistanding the fact that the CIO 
expelled the American Communications Association because it found 
the American Communications Association was Communist-controlled, 
is it not a fact that, nevertheless, the American Communications Asso- 
ciation is presently certified by the National Labor Kelations Board 
as the bargaining agency for communications workers in these sev- 
eral communications plants which you have described? 

Mr. Stone. Well, to answer the question I would rather rephrase 
it to the particular language which — if you don't mind, Mr. Arens 

Mr. Arens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Stone. Which the CIO used at the time. I am not certain that 
it said Communist controlled. 

Mr. Arens. It said it consistently followed the Communist Party 
line. 

Mr. Stone. That is correct. 

I would like to make another quotation on the order of the expul- 
sion, which the CIO stated that the policies and activities of ACA 
from 1989 to the date of the report — 

resulted in subservience to the interests of the Communist Party, and through 
that party to the Soviet Union 

This is the CIO statement, and the other one I've said Communist- 
dominated. 

And if you will accept that change in your question rather than 
Communist controlled. 

Mr. Arens. Yes, we will do that if you please, sir, then with that 
qualification in the finding by the CIO, is it not true that notwith- 
standing the fact that tlie CIO expelled the American Communications 
Association because it followed the Communist Party line, and not- 
witlistanding the fact that the principal ollicers of the American 
Communications Association have been identified as Communists, is 
it not a fact that the American Communications Association is now 
certified by the jSTational Labor Relations Board as the bargaining 
agent to represent a number of communications workers in the several 
plants in the communications industry ? 

Mr. Stone. The answer is "Yes." 

Mr. Doyle. May I inquire as to what year the American Com- 
munications Association was expelled by the CIO ? 

Mr. Arens. 1950. 

Mr. Stone. I believe it was 1950, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Now, would you continue, if you please, sir, to recount 
to the committee the firsthand experiences that you have had with 
the American Communications Association? 

Mr. Stone. On tlie 1st of January 1948, the ACA called a strike 
against my companies — I was not then president of it — because we 
refused to accede to unreasonable demands, among which was the 
illegal closed shop. On January 4, 1948, we filed a petition with the 

94781— 57— pt. 1 2 



1384 COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 

National Labor Relations Board for an election because we believed 
the ACA no longer represented the majority of our employees. This 
petition was denied by the National Labor Relations Board on the 
grounds that the ACA was not qualified to have its name placed on 
a representation ballot because of the failure of its officers to sign 
the non-Communist affidavits provided under section 9 (h) of the 
Taft-Hartley law. Upon receipt of this notice of rejection, my 
companies thereafter refused to bargain with the ACA. The strike 
lasted for 3 months, during which many employees returned to the 
job in spite of beatings and violence, which testimony in local police 
courts of New York City indicated had been provoked and sponsored 
by officials of the ACA. By the 1st of April 1948, however, all 
employees returned to work without union representation in Mackay 
Radio and Commercial Cables. 

At that time an independent union was representing the All 
America employees. 

At the termination of the strike, we discharged all employees against 
whom our records indicated derogatory information in respect to 
Communist association or affiliation, and continued our refusal to 
bargain with the ACA. Whereupon, the ACA filed some 96 unfair 
labor practice charges against the company, alleging, among other 
things, refusal to bargain and illegal discharge of employees. After 
lengthy hearings, the National Labor Relations Board ruled that the 
strike called by the ACA was illegal under the Taft-Hartley law and 
dismissed all the unfair labor practice charges then pending. 

This did not end our difficulties with the ACA, however, as there 
were a number of employees still active on behalf of restoration of 
this discredited union, some of whom we later discharged based on 
derogatory information resulting from investigations into their back- 
ground and affiliations. Such discharges ultimately were upheld by 
the National Labor Relations Board following charges of unfair labor 
practices filed by these employees and supported by the ACA. 

In addition, the ACA intervened in a petition for an election to 
determine the collective bargaining agent for the employees filed by 
the CWA in April 1952. 

I should add that by this time the officers of the ACA had filed 
affidavits as required by section 9 (h) of the Taft-Hartley Act. 

The CTU, then affiliated with the AFL, because this was prior to 
the merger of the AFL-CIO, also intervened, and the National Labor 
Relations Board ordered an election with the names of these three 
unions appearing on the ballot. A formal hearing to determine which 
of our employees would be included in the bargaining unit took place 
in 1952. 

Mr. Arens. May I interpose this question here so the record is 
clear ? 

Were the three labor organizations that the National Labor Rela- 
tions Board ordered to be placed on the ballot the American Commu- 
nications Association, ACA, the CTU, and AFL ? 

Mr. Stone. The CTU was affiliated with the AFL, and the CWA 
was affiliated with the CIO. 

Mr. Arens. Now may I ask this question ? 

If a communications company dominates and controls a labor or- 
ganization to such an extent that it is a company union, will the Na- 



COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 1385 

tional Labor Relations Board certify that company union for bar- 
gaining purposes ? 

Mr. Stone. My understanding is, if the Board has evidence that a 
union is so dominated, it would not certify it. 

Mr. Arens. And it would not certify a company union, because it 
would conclude that it was not a union that represented the best in- 
terests of the employees ? Isn't that correct ? 

Mr. Stone. Well, I assume that is the philosophy behind such a 
rule. 

Mr. Arens. But notwithstanding the fact that the ACA has been 
expelled because it followed the Communist Party line, and notwith- 
standing the fact that the ACA top leadership has been identified as 
Communist, the National Labor Relations Board, nevertheless, still 
certifies it as a bargaining agent for the employees ; isn't that correct ? 

Mr. Stone. It certainly is. 

Mr. Arens. Now, would you continue with your presentation ? 

Mr. Doyle. May I inquire, Mr, Arens ? 

Is that certification presently in effect ? 

Mr. Arens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Stone. It is for the four communications agencies which I have 
mentioned, and I would like to repeat them, sir; the Metropolitan 
Division of the Domestic Land Lines of the Western Union Telegraph 
Co., separate certification for the Western Union Cables, another 
division of Western Union Telegraph Co., for RCA Communications, 
Inc., a subsidiary of RCA, and I believe, but I am not certain, for the 
French Cable Co. I know that ACA has a labor contract, or I believe 
it has, with the French Cable Co. I don't know whether it happens to 
be certified or not. 

Mr. Doyle. May I inquire then ? It is not quite clear to me. The 
admiral names these four groups which are certified as bargaining 
agents. Your question went to the subject matter of the American 
Communications Association. 

Mr. Stone. That is the one I am talking about, sir. 

Mr. Arens. I am afraid the record may not be correct, sir. 

If I am not correct, Admiral, kindly correct me. The certification of 
the Labor Board is for American Communications Association, which 
bargains with these 4 plants and represents the employees in these 4 
plants. 

Mr. Doyle. I see. 

Mr. Arens. Is that correct. Admiral ? 

Mr. Stone. That is correct. They no longer are the representatives 
for the employees in my company. 

Mr. Doyle. I see. 

Mr. Arens. Admiral, at this point perhaps it might be helpful to 
the committee, as they follow your presentation on this background, 
if you could tell this committee, are there employees represented by 
the American Communications Association who presently have access 
to the tie lines and lease lines originating in the Pentagon ? 

Mr. Stone. Well, on the assumption, and I think it is a reasonable 
one, that the operating practices in the other two American cable and 
radio companies are similar to those in my company; the answer 
would be "Yes." 



1386 COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 

Mr. Arens. Are you familiar, Admiral, with the shop-steward 
system which is employed in the communications industry by the labor 
or^ranizations representing the workers ? 

Mr. Stone. Generally ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. And the shop steward is, in effect, the representative of 
the labor organization within the communications plant where the 
workers are engaged ; isn't that correct ? 

Mr. Stone. Yc-^. He is also the representative of the employees 
in the ])articular group that he establishes the relationship for. 

Mr. Arens. Generally speaking, the shop steward is responsible 
to the labor organizations, is he not, in his functions as shop steward? 

Mr. Stone. Yes. 

Mr. Arens. Does the shop steward generally have access to various 
parts of the communications facility plant ? 

Mr. Stone. Well, in most places as an employee of the company, 
he is free to move about within the operating rooms and other areas 
of the company. 

Mr. Arens. Does he, in general, have an allegiance or tie with thts 
leadership of the labor organization ? 

Mr. Stone. I would assume so, but I think labor representatives of 
labor organizations could probably give you a better answer than I 
could on that. 

Mr. Arens. Would you continue with you.r presentation, if you 
please, sir ? 

Mr. Stone, This was in June 1952. Dui-ing the June hearings, 
and at all times since, the company has vigorously maintained that 
the ACA was not, in good faith, complying with the intent of section 
9 (h) of the National Labor Relations Act. The position taken by 
the company was based not only upon the expulsion of ACA by CIO 
but also upon hearings held by the McCarran Senate subcommittee 
in May and June 1951 and January 1952. This McCarran subcom- 
mittee was set up to investigate the administration of the Internal 
Security Act and other internal security laws. On the above dates 
it investigated subversive infiltration in the telegraph industry. 

Labor witnesses appearing before the McCarran subcommittee testi- 
fied that certain of the officers of ACA were either Communists or 
affiliated with organizaitons listed as subversive by the Attorney Gen- 
eral. These witnesses identified certain international officers of ACA 
as Communists or former Communists. Several witnesses testified 
with respect to the potential organizations of the United States Gov- 
ernment through the possibility of sabotage and the interception of 
messages. 

These officers of ACA refused to answer the question, "Were you 
a Communist as of the time you signed the non-Communist affidavit 
under the Taft-Hnrtley Act ?" 

Mr. Arens. Is it true that these officers are presently in control of 
the labor organization, ACA, which represents employees in these 
four plants of communications industry ? 

Mr. Stone. Well, some of them ; I don't know whether all of them 
are. 

Mr. Arens. The principal officers still are, are they not ? 

Mr. St(3Ne. The president is. 

Mr. Doyle. Would it not be well, Mr. Arens, to be more 
explicit in that question and answer? The admiral, I think, by his 



COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 1387 

language in answer to you, indicates that lie does not know which 
are. If he does not know, he certainly should not undertake to testify 
of his own knowledge. 

Mr. Arens. Joseph Selly is still president of AC A, is he not ? 

Mr. Stone. According to the ACA News, the issue of June 1957, 
Mr. Selly is still president, and he was president at the time that I was 
referring to. 

Mr. Doyle. Was he identified as a Communist ? 

Mr. Arens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Doyle. Whatj^ear? 

Mr. Arens. He will be in our hearings here. 

Mr. Doyle. All right. 

Mr. Stone. That was in 1952, sir. And I see another officer. 

Mr. Arens. Joseph Kehoe ? 

Mr. Stone. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Is he presently secretary-treasurer ? 

Mr. Stone. According to this publication, yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Was he identified as a Communist ? 

Mr. Stone. I believe he was, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Would you proceed with your presentation ? 

Mr. Doyle. Are those the principal officers you referred to ? 

Mr. Arens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Doyle. And to no other officers of the union did you refer 
when you used the term "principal officers" ? 

Mr. Arens. No. There were other officers who were identified. 

Mr. Doyle. I know. But what other officers did you include in your 
term "principal officers- ' ? 

Mr. Arens. The international vice president, Dominick Panza; is 
he still in that status, do you know, Admiral ? 

Mr. Stone. Well, in this paper he is listed as a vice president of the 
ACA ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. And he was identified as a Communist, was he not? 

Mr. Stone. I believe he was, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Louis Siebenberg ; is he listed there as on the interna- 
tional executive board? 

Mr. Stone. He is not listed in this magazine. 

Mr. Doyle. Now, then, may I ask a question for my clarification 
and for the record ? 

Have you covered the specific officers that you referred to 3 or 4 
times as "principal officers'' of this same union ? 

Mr. Arens. No, sir. There is still another one, Charles Silberman. 
Was he identified as a Communist ? 

Mr. Stone. I don't know, sir. 

Mr. Arens. He will be in our record. 

Mr. Doyle. Those four are the principal officers ? 

Mr. Arens. Yes, sir. I will say to the committee that this testimony 
of the admiral is only preliminary background, and that there will 
be complete, full identification in the course of the hearings. 

Mr. D0YI.E. The only reason I interjected that question was because 
you used the term "principal officers" and I wanted to know what 
officers you included in that term. 



1388 COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 

Mr. Arens. Yes, sir. 

Now, would you kindly proceed, Admiral ? 

Mr. bxcNE. At the hearings of this Senate subcommittee many ques- 
tions were asked of these officials concerning whether they were Com- 
munists, their Communists affiliations, attendance at Communists 
meetings and membership in organizations listed by the Attorney 
General as subversive. According to this testimony as released by 
the Senate subcommittee, each of them refused to answer these ques- 
tions on the ground that no person may be compelled to be a witness 
against himself. So far as I know — and I have already testified to 
this in response to your question, Mr. Doyle — these are the same offi- 
cials who are still in control of ACA. 

Mr. Arens. Do you know how many people, preliminarily here 
again, these men represent in the communications industry ? 

Mr. Stone. I can't answer specifically. Maybe Mr. McMakin here 
can tell me more or less. 

Mr. Arens. Approximately how many ? 

(Messrs. Stone and McMakin conferred.) 

Mr. Stone. Well, according to Mr. McMakin, and I have no reason 
to question it, it is several thousand, perhaps in excess of 5,000. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. McMakin is your associate in the company ? 

Mr. Stone. He is the vice president of the operating companies for 
industrial relations. 

Mr. Doyle. What percentage of the total employed personnel in 
the communications industry would you say that was in connection 
with your last answer, what percentage ? 

Mr. Stone. I should say it was about half of the employees, per- 
haps a little less, engaged in the handling of traffic. 

Mr. Arens. It is all of the employees engaged in these four plants;, 
is it not ? 

Mr. Stone. Tliis is in New York City, sir. I am only speaking of 
New York City. 

Mr. Arens. But, Admiral, it is all of the employees in these 4 plants, 
all of the operating employees in these 4 plants ? 

Mr. Stone. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Doyle. May I ask one other question then ? 

If you limit that answer to just New York City, have you any 
definite information which will tell you approximately how many 
communications workers there are in the field in which you are testify- 
ing in the United States as of today ? 

Mr. Stone. I could not give you an accurate answer on that. I 
would say the great majority, however, are in New York City, Mr. 
Doyle. The reason is that the cables of Western Union, Commer- 
cial Cable, All America Cables, and the French Cable are all oper- 
ated from operating rooms in New York City. The important radio 
circuits of my company and the RCA also fan out and are controlled 
by operating rooms in New York City. 

Mr. Doyle. Would your estimate be that it would be not less than 
75 percent, 65 percent, 80 percent, 90 percent ? 

Mr. Stone. Well, I can say that a very substantial portion of the 
personnel are concentrated in New York City and far in excess of 
50 percent. 

Mr. Doyle. Then, if the union in this field was dominated by Com- 
munist Party philosophy, the great majority of the messages sent 



COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 1389 

over these lines in time of war as well as peace would be sent by em- 
ployees who were members of the union, one union at least, that was 
or is dominated by the Communist Party. 

Mr. Stone. They certainly would be represented by a union — I don't 
know how many members — by a union such as you described. I don't 
know how many members in the other companies simply pay dues to 
the union and are represented by the union but may not be actual 
members, and the officials of other companies whom I have seen here 
this m orning can probably give you a better answer on that. 

Mr. DoTLE. In asking my question, may I make it clear that I did 
not intend to imply that the great majority of the members of these 
unions were Communists, merely because their principal officers were. 

Mr. Stone. I understand you. That, of course, is exactly my posi- 
tion, 

Mr. Doyle. That is not the fact in American organized labor. 

Mr. Stone. It certainly is not. I would say that more than 95 per- 
cent of the employees represented by the ACA are not inclined toward 
communism. 

Mr. Arens. Assmning just for the sake of this question and for the 
sake of your preliminary presentation here that 5 percent of these 
employees who have access to vital communications facilities in the 
North Atlantic cable and tie lines and leased lines out of the Pentagon 
are directly or indirectly under Communist Party discipline, on the 
basis of your background and experience is that a serious threat, does 
that pose a potential serious threat to the security of this Nation ? 

Mr. Stone. The answer is not only that it would pose such a threat 
but the percentage could even be smaller and be a threat. 

Mr. Arens. Admiral, in the event of war, active shooting war, be- 
tween the United States and a major foreign power, how long would 
it take saboteurs with that access to the communications facilities to 
which you have alluded to put them out of commission ? 

Mr. Stone. It would not take very long. 

Mr. Arens. Would it be a matter of hours, minutes, or days ? 

Mr. Stone. Oh, it could be done in minutes in some cases, hours in 
others. 

Mr. Arens. Could you tell us just in thumbnail sketch form how 
persons who would be so inclined could sabotage the principal com- 
munications facilities of this country in the event of open hostilities? 

Mr. Stone. Well, I don't know that I would want to give you a 
primer here on how to wreck this comitry's communications. 

Mr. Arens. I certainly wouldn't want you to do anything in any 
sense to jeopardize the security of this country. 

Mr. Stone. Well, I know. But it doesn't take much imagination 
to realize how a vial of acid can open up an important cable, how a 
few hand grenades can wreck antennas at remotely located areas diffi- 
cult to guard. One time bomb could blow up a radio station just as 
easily as motion-picture theaters were bombed in New York City by 
a guy probably not quite as devoted to his cause as Commmiists are. 

Mr. Arens. Now, could you tell us how, even now assuming we have 
5 percent — and this is an assumption on the basis of your general 
statement — who would be under direct or indirect discipline of the 



1390 COMMimiST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 

Communist Party with access to these facilities — how they could pro- 
cure and transmit to the Communist Party or to a potential enemy 
vital defense information ? 

Mr. Stone. First of all, I don't want to speak from the standpoint 
that I believe the figure is 5 percent. I should imagine it is probably 
much smaller. But an operator working on a radio circuit, if he were 
so inclined, could easily insert a message of his own composition, or 
one given him by a Communist agent, on the circuit and the message 
would be gone before it would be detected and recorded on the record- 
ing means which are used. 

Mr. Arens. May I ask you this, Admiral : Do the operators of these 
lines that come from the Pentagon monitor the lines as a matter of 
checking to see whether or not the current is in good shape and whether 
or not the message is coming over in good shape ? 

Mr. Stone. They do. But the question I was referring to, the 
message could be inserted on any circuit ; it doesn't have to be on the 
leased-line circuit coming from the Pentagon, Mr. Arens. 

And ship operators at shore — I mean to say an operator at shore 
stations communicating to ships can easily send out messages before 
being detected. 

Mr. Arens. So this record may be abundantly clear, right now 
while you are testifying, are messages coming out of the Penta- 
gon serviced by people who are in the American Communications 
Association ? 

Mr. Stone. I would believe so. But I would rather have the officials 
of companies where the ACA is the bargaining agent to testify to that 
because they don't represent the employees in my companies. 

Mr. Arens. If the companies in which the American Communica- 
tions Association presently represents employees decided right now 
that they would no longer bargain with ACA, that they would throw 
them and their shop stewards out, would that under present practice 
be an unfair labor practice? 

Mr. Stone. They would certainly be charged with that by the ACA. 

Mr. Arens. Would you kindly proceed with your presentation ? 

Mr. Doyle. May I ask one question ? 

Admiral, you stated that you used the percentage as 5 percent, and 
then you said it might well be less than that. 

Mr. Stone. I said, sir, that I was certain that in excess of 95 percent 
of the employees represented by the ACA were not communistically 
inclined. 

Mr. Doyle. Yes. 

Mr. Stone. Well, in excess of 95 means a figure of less than 5 
percent. 

Mr. Doyle. I refer to your other statement where you used the term 
"5 percent." How small a percentage of the personnel in this operat- 
ing field could effectively sabotage our intercontinental messages in 
time of war ? 

Mr. Stone. One percent. 

Mr. Arens. How many would it take to intercept messages or to 
have access right now, this minute, to messages? How many em- 
ployees ? 

Mr. Stone. A handful, a handful. 

Mr. Arens. Would you kindly proceed with your presentation. 



COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 1391 

Mr. Stone. Counsel for the company at the June 1952 hearing of 
the National Labor Eelations Board protested the participation of 
ACA and offered to submit evidence from the report of the McCarran 
subcommittee, that is a Senate subconmiittee, in which certain officers 
of ACA were identified as either Communists or former Communists 
or associated with organizations listed as subversive by the Attorney 
General of the United States. All such offers by the' company were 
refused and denied by the hearing officer, and his rulings in that re- 
spect were thereafter affirmed by the National Labor Relations Board 
in a decision rendered on December 31, 1952. 

The issue of compliance with the non-Communist affidavit required 
under section 9 (h) was relegated to a mere footnote in this decision. 
In three short sentences the Board held that ACA was in compliance 
with section 9 (h). 

In November of that year, together with other representatives of 
the company, I conferred with Mr. Charles Murray, who was then in 
charge of the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice. This 
meeting was arranged by the Department as a result of a letter from 
the company protesting' the failure of the Department of Justice to 
institute criminal proceedings against certain officials of ACA in con- 
nection with their non-Communist affidavits. To our disappoint- 
ment the Department stated that it was difficult for them to get a 
conviction, under the present wording of 9 (h), unless it could be 
proved that the individual union officer was a Communist on the very 
day that he signed the non-Communist affidavit. They explained 
that if the official resigned from the Communist Party the day before 
signing the affidavit, a conviction could not be obtained. The only 
result of this visit was that Mr. Murray indicated that a further in- 
vestigation would be conducted concerning any Conmimiist affiliations 
of ACA officers. 

On the same day — this was November 21, 1952 — representatives of 
my company attended a conference with Paul L. Styles, a member of 
the National Labor Eelations Board, for the purpose of demonstrat- 
ing to the Board why it should institute its own proceeding to test the 
validity of the non-Communist affidavits filed by certain officers of 
ACA. In answer to our request, Mr. Styles stated that the Board had 
no power to conduct such an investigation. He stated that, once an 
affidavit had been filed, the Board must honor that affidavit even in 
the face of the gravest doubt as to its validity. 

On November 25, 1952, a Federal grand jury of the southern dis- 
trict of New York issued a presentment wherein the Board — this is 
the Labor Board — was requested to revoke all ACA certifications. The 
grand jury first stressed the importance of the national security by 
stating that — 

The practical importance of section 9 (h) is that it is designed to protect the 
Nation from domination of unions, particularly those with members in jobs vital 
to the national defense, by Communists who are dedicated to sabotage in case 
of national emergency, and to the forceful overthrow of our Government. 

The grand jury continued : 

We have received evidence to the effect that a number of responsible officials 
of some unaffiliated unions have long histories of Communist membership and 
activity, in some instances, on the top-level of the Party. In spite of this, they 
have filed affidavits with the N. L. R. B. swearing that they are not (1) members 
of or affiliated with the Communist Party, and (2) believers in or members of any 



1392 COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 

organization believing in or teaching the overthrow of our Government by 
violence or other illegal methods. 

I would like to add here that no representative or employee of my 
company so far as I know, and I am certain that I am correct, appeared 
before the grand jury. 

The grand jury then stated that the filing of the non-Communist 
affidavits by officers of ACA was a "subterfuge" and that the affidavits 
were "not worth the paper they are written on." The grand jury also 
brought to the attention of the Labor Board the fact that ACA has 
members in key positions in the communications field and that the 
Government is therefore faced with — 

a menace to the national security by the continuing recognition of these unions 
in spite of the obvious noncompliance with section 9 (h) by their I'esponsible 
oflScers. 

As a result of this grand jury presentment the Labor Board on De- 
cember 19, 1952, issued a notice and order to the officers of ACA direct- 
ing such officers to reaffirm all prior non-Communist affidavits executed 
by them and also to answer specific questions as to whether or not, 
since the date of the first affidavits they filed, they had been Commu- 
nists or members of any organizations that believed in or taught the 
overthrow of the United States Government by force or by any illegal 
or unconstitutional methods. The Board also advised such officers 
that refusal to answer by December 30, 1952, would result in a finding 
that there was doubt as to the truth or validit}'' of their affidavits and 
would result in a declaration by the Board that ACA was not in compli- 
ance. 

On December 31, ACA instituted an action against the Labor Board, 
reported as ACA v. Hersog, et al.^ in the United States District Court 
for the District of Columbia to enjoin the Board from requiring ACA 
officers to reaffirm their affidavits and to answer the questions men- 
tioned above. On that same day, to our amazement, and I must say, 
to our bewilderment, the Labor Board rendered a decision in our case 
holding that ACA was in compliance and directed that an election 
be held. 

On January 19, 1953, the company petitioned the Board to reconsider 
that portion of its decision of December 31 whicli held ACA to be in 
compliance, requesting that the Board strike ACA from the ballot in 
the election ordered by the Board. 

This would have left, had we succeeded, the election to be held solely 
between CTU affiliated with the AFL and the CWA affiliated with 
the CIO. 

On February 2, the Board denied the company's petition. Six days 
earlier, on January 27, the United States District Court for the Dis- 
trict of Columbia had rendered its decision in the case of ACA v. 
Herzog, et al., holding that the Labor Board had no authority to inves- 
tigate the truth or validity of non-Communist affidavits filed by ACA. 

On February 6, the company filed a motion with the Labor Board 
for reconsideration of its decision of January 19 and requested that 
the Board postpone the election until such time as the United States 
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia rendered a decision 
in the Labor Board's appeal of the ACA v. Herzog case. This appeal 
was actually filed on or about February 11. Despite the position taken 
by the Board in its own appeal, the Board denied our motion for recon- 
sideration on February 13. 



COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 1393 

Having exhausted all administrative procedure before the Board, 
the company on February 20 instituted an action in the United States 
District Court for the Southern District of New York to enjoin the 
Board from proceeding with any arrangements for an election which 
included ACA on the ballot. On March 30 a decision was rendered in 
this case refusing our request for a preliminary injunction and grant- 
ing a motion by the Labor Board to dismiss the complaint. Judge 
Edelstein in this decision recognized that the operations of our com- 
pany, both directly and indirectly, affect the national defense and did 
not dispute the allegation in our complaint that, should an election 
take place with the participation of ACA, certain confidential infor- 
mation would have to be revealed to officials of that union to the danger 
of the national security. 

The Labor Board argued, and Judge Edelstein upheld its contention, 
that under the present law the Labor Board determination on the 
question of compliance was final and could not be reviewed by the 
courts until after an election. I was informed by counsel that the 
Board and Judge Edelstein were in effect telling us that the only way to 
preclude dealing with ACA was to risk election and certification of 
that union and then to refuse to bargain with them, at the risk of being 
held to be in violation of the law. 

It seemed to us that the National Labor Relations Board and the 
Federal courts had placed us in an impossible position. One of the 
unions on the ballot had been charged with following the Communist 
Party line by the CIO, witnesses before the IMcCarran committee and 
by a Federal grand jury. The validity of the affidavits of its officers 
was seriously doubted even by the Board. On the one hand, the 
Board included this union on the ballot; on the other hand, it in- 
formally suggested to us that our only legal relief was to risk possibl3 
violation of the law by refusing to deal with thei.i should they be 
certificated. 

The position taken by the company at the 1952 representation hear- 
ing has already been outlined. I might add that an indication of what 
may have been the real aim of ACA was exhibited at that hearing when 
it served a subpena on the company, demanding that it produce records 
concerning locations of facilities and names and classifications of 
employees not only within the United States but also in foreign coun- 
tries, as well as the Virgin Islands and the militarily sensitive Canal 
Zone. After extensive argument the hearing officer properly ruled 
that ACA was not entitled to information requested with regard to 
foreign countries outside of the Board's jurisdiction, although he did 
insist that we supply information concerning the company's facilities 
in the Canal Zone and Virgin Islands. After the company stated that 
it would give information concerning these localities only under court 
order, the hearing officer finally reversed his position, but not without 
first stating for the record that he thought the company should supply 
this information and that the company was uncooperative. I need not 
elaborate on the danger to the national security inherent in divulging 
information concerning our installations and facilities in this strategic 
area. 

Ultimately, however, the National Labor Relations Board did give 
us a measure of cooperation. Before the election was final the Board 
also ruled that under national security, the circumstances in these pro- 



1394 COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 

ceedings justified the company in refusing to reveal the number of 
emplo_yees in various locations and classifications of Avork in the 
United States and Hawaii. The outcome of the election was the 
defeat of the ACA and the selection of CWA as the collective bar- 
gaining representative of our employees. Whereupon, we proceeded 
to negotiate a labor contract with the CWA, effective October 1, 1954, 
4 months after the final election determination. It might interest you 
in this connection to know that the CWA cooperated then and subse- 
quently with us to include in our labor contracts a provision for 
dealing with any future Communist infiltration into the company. 

In spite of the elimination of ACA from a position of influence in 
the A. C. & R. companies, they still are the legally recognized repre- 
sentatives of the employees in a very large segment of the com- 
munications industry. 

I already listed the communications divisions and companies which 
they represent. 

And in my judgment as long as they remain in this position of con- 
trol they represent a menace and a hazard to our national security. 

That is based on the evidence that has been brought out at the 
various hearings before the committees investigating this question. 

Mr. Arens. Admiral Stone, you have some suggestions in your 
prepared statement for certain proposed amendments. I respectfully 
suggest that the body of the proposed language that you would like 
to have the committee, and the Congress, consider, be at this point 
incorporated in the body of the record. 

Mr. Doyle. That will be the order, and it certainly is appropriate, 
Mr. Arens, and we are interested in possible remedial legislation. 

Mr. Stone. It is our recommendation that section 9 (h) (Taft- 
Hartley law) be amended to read as follows : 

9 (h) (1) No investigation shall be made by the Board of any question 
affectins; commerce concerning the representation of employees, raised by a labor 
organization under subsection (c) of this section, and no complaint shall be 
issued pursuant to a charge made by a labor organization under subsection (b) 
of section 10, unless there is on file with the Board and with the Regional Office 
of the Board where the affiant resides an information affidavit executed con- 
temporaneously or within the preceding 12-month period by each officer of such 
labor organization and each person who is in a position substantially to direct, 
dominate, or control such labor organization and the officers and persons in a 
position substantially to direct, dominate, or control any national or interna- 
tional labor organization of which it is an affiliate or constituent unit. The 
information affidavit shall contain the following questions and information : 

[Please write out answer below] 

Tes No 

(a) Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Commu- 
nist Party in the United States or any other country or of 
any Communist Party subdivisions, subsidiaries, or affiliates? 

(6) Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of a Fascist, Nazi, 

or totalitarian organization? 

(c) Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of any organiza- 

tion, association, movement, group, or combination of persons 
which — 

1. Advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of 

government by force or violence 

2. Seeks to alter the form of government of the United States 

by unconstitutional means? 

(d) Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of, or associated 

with, any of the organizations designated by the Attorney Gen- 
eral of the United States as totalitarian. Fascist, Communist, 
or subversive? 



COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 1395 

If your answer to any of the above questions is "Yes," state below the names 
of all such organizations, associations, movements, groups, or combinations of 
persons and dates of membership. Give complete details of your activities 
therein and make any explanation you desire regarding your membership or 
activities therein. 

The provisions of section 35 A of the Criminal Code shall be applicable in 
respect to such information affidavits. 

9 (h) (2) : "It shall be the obligation of all labor organizations to furnish to 
the members of such labor organizations copies of all such information afBdavits 
at the time the information affidavits are placed on file with the Board." 

9 (h) (3) : "If it is found, after an investigation conducted by the Board, that 
an officer of a labor organization or a person who is in a position substantially 
to direct, dominate, or control such labor organization has provided an affirma- 
tive answer to one of the questions in the information affidavit indicating mem- 
bership any time after .June 25, 1950, or has submitted any false statement to 
the Board, the Board shall order such labor organization to remove such person, 
within 30 days from the date of such order, from such office or position. If the 
labor organization submits proof, satisfactory to the Board, that it has complied 
with the Board's order within the required period, it shall be considered to be in 
compliance with this section. If the Board finds that the labor organization 
has not complied with its order, the Board shall find that the affidavit is invalid 
and that such labor organization is not in compliance with this section." 

Under our plan, all officers, officials, and leaders of labor organizations each 
year must fill out, under oath, an information affidavit. There are four basic 
questions which are asked in this affidavit, as follows : 

(1) Are you now or have you ever been a Communist? 

(2) Are you now or have you ever been a Nazi, Fascist, or member of a 
totalitarian organization? 

(3) Do you now or have you ever belonged to an organization advocating 
the overthrow of this Government by force and violence? 

(4) Do you now or have you ever belonged to any of the organizations 
on the Attorney General's list of subversive organizations? 

No union shall be considered in compliance with the labor law unless its 
official representatives, and leaders have appropriately filled out and filed the in- 
formation affidavit with the National Labor Relations Board. Our suggested 
amendment recommends that it will be the obligation of labor organizations to 
furnish to their individual members copies of all the information affidavits which 
are placed on file with the Board. It is our belief that union members are 
entitled to know if their leaders and officials are presently and/or have been 
in the past associated or affiliated with any Communist or subversive organiza- 
tion or movement. Each union should, therefore, be required to disseminate to 
all its members copies of the information affidavits so that these members may 
be able to evaluate properly the motives and backgrounds of their leaders. 

In my judgment, the administration of this law would develop along the 
follov/ing lines : 

1. It should be expected that in most cases the questions will be answered 
in the negative. Our suggested amendment requii-es that the Board reach a find- 
ing after it has conducted an investigation into the validity of each information 
affidavit which has been submitted and filed. The Board's decision in the case 
where all answers are negative would be to consider the affiant as being in com- 
pliance with section 9 (h), as modified, unless, after an investigation, the Board 
finds any of the answers to be false. 

2. If a union officer or leader gives answers which are untruthful, then he is 
subject to prosecution under section 35 A of the Criminal Code. In the event 
that a false answer is given, then his union shall have 30 days in which to dis- 
associate the representative from his position with the union. If the union does 
not do so within 30 days, then the Labor Board shall hold that this labor organ- 
ization is not entitled to rights guaranteed by the labor law. 

3. If an officer or leader of a union ansv^ers that since June 25, 19.50, he has 
held membership in or has current association and affiliation with the Communist 
Party or Fascist, Nazi, or totalitarian organizations, then his union shall have 
30 days in which to disassociate him from his position. We have fixed an earlier 
date than that of the information affidavit in our suggested amendment because 
we believe that the central weakness in section 9 (h) as it is now interpreted 
is that it merely requires an official to state that he is not a Communist as of 
the very moment when he signs the affidavit. We believe that by giving the Labor 
Board authority to base its investigation on an earlier fixed date, there will be 



1396 COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 

prevented a recurrence of the situation which presently permits labor leaders 
to allege resignation from the Communist Party immediately prior to the signing 
of the affidavit in order to be in compliance with section 9 (h). At the same 
time, this provision would not result in the Government penalizing the labor 
leader who was a Communist, subversive, or totalitarian prior to June 25, 1950. 

4. If a labor leader or official admits to membership in the Communist Party 
or other listed organizations prior to June 25, 1950, it would be the responsibility 
of the individual union members within his own union to decide whether or not 
they desired to be represented by such a person. It is their decision to make, 
and who else can belter judge, whether an individual, formerly a member of the 
Communist Party, has completely divorced himself from the tenets of communism 
and genuinely accepted democratic beliefs, than the members of such an in- 
dividual's union. 

This is the fundamental structure of the amendment which we are offering for 
your consideration. I have tried briefly to outline for you the objectives of our 
suggested amendment. 

Before closing I want to stress the point that the overwhelming majority, 
probably more than 95 percent, of the employees in the communications industry, 
even those represented by ACA, are not Communists. But, it is the handful of 
leftwing labor leaders and those employees who follow the same line, who con- 
stitute the danger to our national security. It only takes a few of such sub- 
versives, strategically planted at the right spots, to do the damage to our national 
security. 

In conclusion, I believe that Americans do not really want to be represented 
by Communist or Fascist leaders and this includes those many thousands of union 
people now represented by the so-called leftwing unions because of the present 
weaknesses of section 9 (h). It is my conviction that the solution to the problem 
of Communist domination of unions will depend largely on the extent to which 
the Congress of the United States adopts legislation which will provide the tools 
with which American labor can free itself from Communist domination. The 
proposed legislation which we are offering today will, in our opinion, assist union 
members themselves if they wish to get rid of presently underground Communist 
leaders. 

I would like to explain, sir, if I might, the reasoning be- 
hind this approach for modification of section 9 (h) of the Taft- 
Hartley law, and that is, first, to allow the employees in a company 
represented by any union, themselves to take remedial action if they 
feel such action is desirable, based on more information with respect 
to their officers', past and present, leanings toward communism, than 
presently they are able to do. 

Under the law now, notwithstanding that officials of the unions 
have been expelled from the CIO because the CIO felt they were 
dominated by cliques that were inclined to communism, under the law 
now, the affidavit merely recites whether the officer is or is not a Com- 
munist at the time he files it. 

The purpose of the amendment we suggest is to enable the union 
members, because the affidavit we suggested will be amended to show 
whether they ever were members, to determine for themselves whether 
their officers are the type that they wish to have head their union. 
I think that labor itself should be given the tools to be rid of sub- 
versive elements. 

Now, the CIO took action, if I might use the expression, from the 
top, and expelled these eleven unions from affiliation with the CIO. 

What I am suggesting is to enable the workers in the industry it- 
self to be assisted by the Government to determine whether or not they 
wish people so charged by labor witnesses, to be their representatives. 
That is the purpose of the amendment. 

Mr. Arens. Admiral, do you have any other observations or com- 
ments that you would like to make at this time before the committee ? 



COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 1397 

Mr, Stone. Only one, sir, and that was in this period when we were 
trying to avoid having to be represented by this 

Mr. Doyle. I tliink Judge Frazier, you and I, and the committee, 
have recognized that the admiral and his associates, have rendered 
a very constructive suggestion for remedial legislation along the lines 
he stated here, because the primary function of this committee and 
this hearing is to discover, if we may, basic remedial legislative sug- 
gestions that either come from our committee, or any other congres- 
sional committee, because we very frequently recommend remedial 
legislation to other congressional committees, and much basic legisla- 
tion has been included by otlier committees in Congress, as a result of 
the recommendations of the House Committee on Un-American 
Activities. 

And here is the case. Counsel, where we are receiving valuable 
testimony in the field of possible legislation which would, I think,, 
clearly come out of the connnittee which deals with the Taft-Hartley 
law, but this enters into the question of subversive activities. 

So, it is very appropriate, I wish to say, Admiral, that you giv& 
us the benefit of this study. I took your statement home last night 
and studied it and read it twice with a great deal of appreciation 
of the constructive suggestions you and your associates have made. 

Mr, Stone. Thank you, sir. 

I would like to add just one more comment. 

Following my appearing before the Committee on Labor and Pub- 
lic Welfare of the United States Senate in 1953, a memorandum was 
filed in which testimony was given as to our history with the ACA. 

A memorandum was filed by the Labor Board dealing with our con- 
troversy with the Board, in which two paragraphs appeared, that^ 
if I may, I would like to read into the record. 

Mr. Doyle. On what page? 

Mr. Stone. On page 1040, sir. 

This is from a memorandum of the Labor Board : 

On February 20, 1953, Deputy Secretary of Defense Roger M. Kyes, by letter 
to the Board, alluded to the accusation against ACA by tbe Federal grand jury, 
and stated that if the accusation were a fact, and that union should prevail in 
the election, a critical security problem would be presented. He requested a 
postponement of the election to permit the Department of Defense to consider 
further its position in the matter. 

In reply, the Board informed the Deputy Secretary of its past actions, re- 
specting the case, and of its conclusion that under Judge Letts' decision — 

he was the judge in the District of Columbia court — 

and, because of the interest of the two other unsuspected unions — 

they were CTU, A. F. of L., and CWA, CIO— 

it did not believe that further postponement could be granted upon any show- 
ing made by any interested person up to that time. 

Under date of April 2 the Deputy Secretary of Defense, in a second letter to 
the Board, and alluding to its earlier letter, stated that in the period that had 
intervened he had reviewed the security interest of the armed services, and was 
convinced that everything should be done to prevent a union suspected of Com- 
munist domination from becoming the bargaining agent of the company. 

That is all I have to submit. 

Mr, Arens. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Doyle. Mr. Arens, do you have any further questions ? 

Mr. Arens. No, sir. 



1398 coMMuisriST penetration of communications facilities 

Mr. Doyle. Judge Frazier? 

Mr. Fr^vzier. I have no questions. 

Mr. Doyle. I have just 1 or 2, if I may. 

I think, Admiral, you stated in substance that individual employees 
have access to messages and coded messages and could make copies of 
coded messages resulting in their being decoded if given to an expert 
in decoding messages ? 

Mr. Stone. Yes, sir. 

One of the principles of code breaking, and this is no secret, is that 
the more material you have in a given code the more the opportunity, 
the more the probability, of your being able to break it. 

Mr, Doyle. I know. But does that mean that right now in time 
of the cold war, to say nothing of an actual war, the system of sending 
out these coded messages is such that a person disloyal to the United. 
States could fairly easily get access to those and send copies of them 
to decoding experts, enemies of our form of government ? 

Mr. Stone. Certainly. But not only in civilian companies ; if you 
have subversives in the military services themselves, that is also a risk. 

Mr. Arens. Admiral, that was precisely what precipitated the in- 
tervention by the Deputy Secretary of Defense in the National Labor 
Relations Board proceeding; was it not? 

Mr. Stone. Certainly. That and the danger of sabotage. 

Mr. Doyle. One other question now : 

You said that in your judgment shop stewards were fairly free to 
move about ? 

Mr. Stone. Well, in the discharge of their duties, or the investiga- 
tion of individual grievances, they do move about. 

Mr. Doyle. That means, then, that the shop steward, as far as the 
employing company is concerned, is granted more freedom in and 
about the plant? 

Mr. Stone. That is right. 

Mr. Doyle. Than an ordinary employee? 

Mr. Stone. That is correct. I don't mean that they can wander 
indefinite distances, but they have more freedom of action in manu- 
facturing plants, and even in communication companies, than the 
ordinary employee. 

]\Ir. Doyle. What is the fact with reference to whether or not the 
shop steward, therefore, if subversive — whether it is Communist 
or any other form of totalitarian subversion — would ordinarily 
be in a more critical positioQ, or easier position, to subvert our na- 
tional defense than a person not a shop steward? 

]Mr. Stone. He would have more opportunities than the ordinary 
employee. But I wish to emphasize that the shop steward — and I 
assume you realize this — is also an employee. 

Mr. Doyle. I realize that, sir. 

Mr. Arens. He is an employee who has a status within the labor 
organization and in the case of ACA he is an employee who has an 
allegiance to the leadership of ACA; isn't that correct? 

Mr. Stone. I would rather have a union official describe the particu- 
lar relationship of the shop steward to the union. I am not qualified 
to do it. 

Mr. DoTLE. I respect your statement. 



COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 1399 

Then, it seems to me that it is self-evident that a labor union, 
the contracting agent with any of our cable communications systems, 
should be mighty careful whom they elect as a shop steward ? 

Mr. Stone. That is correct. Ajid not only cable, but cable and 
radio, if I may. 

Mr. Doyle. In other words — and I am not unfamiliar with some 
of the American trade union practices, I might state, over a term of 
years — it would seem to me that any trade union bargaining agent in 
this field wanting to be extra careful to protect the nitegrity of our 
national defense and our form of constitutional government, would 
certainly hesitate to elect as a shop steward any person in the union 
about whom there is any probable question of subversive activities; 
isn't that true ? 

Mr. Stone. Any responsible union would do what you say. 

Mr. Doyle. Now, one further question — and I see the members of 
the press here with us this morning. 

What is the fact as to whether or not messages sent out over your 
lines of communication are messages upon which the American press 
relies, directly or indirectly ? 

Mr. Stone. Oh, yes. We carry a great many press messages, but 
they are always uncoded, sir. 

Mr. Doyle. Always uncoded ? 

Mr. Stone. Yes. 

Mr. Doyle. But your testimony was that a subversive person could 
even send out an imcoded message. 

Mr. Stone. That is possible — not many times, but where we would 
particularly deal with that problem would be at the outbreak of an 
emergency. 

Mr. Doyle. But at the outbreak of an emergency, then, even the 
American press could rely unwittingly upon a subversive message ? 

Mr. Stone. That is correct. 

Mr. Doyle. Without the American public knowing that it was a de- 
ceitful person, a disloyal person that subversively put that over the 
American newspaper wires. 

Mr. Stone. At the time of an outbreak of emergency where the 
chance for checkup is very limited, a great deal of damage could be 
done to all kinds of messages, including the press. 

Mr. Arens. May I inquire — if you please, Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. Doyle. Yes. 

Mr. Arens. I believe you have not alluded in your presentation 
today to information which we have obtained from you informally, 
respecting problems which you have experienced in the proposition 
of divulging facilities of your company in critical areas, such as in 
the Canal Zone and in the Virgin Islands. 

Would you care to comment on that ? 

Mr. Stone. I did, sir. 

Mr. Arens. I see. I did not follow you on that. 

Mr. Stone. I did. 

Mr. Doyle. But, apropos of Mr. Arens' question just now, as you 
gave your testimony, Admiral, I noticed — and I marked it — on pages 
8 and 9, where you refer to the Court decision, and finally you won 
out in your refusal to divulge the facilities in foreign countries. 

You did not mention that you won out on the point of divulging 
those in the Canal Zone and the Virgin Islands. 

94781— 57— pt. 1 3 



1400 COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 

Mr. Frazier. Do you still have to do that ? 

Mr, Doyij:. Do you still have to do that ? 

Mr. Stone. We were accused of being uncooperative, but we did 
win out on that, sir. We did not give that information. 

Mr. Doyle. I see that you include the Canal Zone and the Virgin 
Islands ; you won out on that also ? 

Mr. Stone. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Doyle. Thank you very much. 

Are there any other questions ? 

Mr. Arens. No, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Doyle. Any questions, Judge Frazier ? 

Mr. Frazier. No. 

Mr. Doyle. Thank you very much, Admiral, and your associates. 
You were very helpful. 

Mr. Arens. If you please, Mr. Chairman, the next witness will be 
Mr. Leslie Wilcox. 

Would you kindly come forward. Kindly remain standing while 
the chairman administers the oath to you. 

Mr. Doyle. Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole 
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Wilcox. I do. . 

Mr. Doyle. Thank you very much. Please take the witness chair. 

TESTIMONY OP J. L. WILCOX 

Mr. Arens. Kindly identify yourself by name, residence, and 
occupation. 

Mr. Wilcox. My name is J. L. Wilcox. I am vice president of 
emplovee relations for the Western Union Telegraph Co. I reside in 
Glen Eock, N. J. 

Mr. Arens. Would you kindly give us just a word of your own 
personal background, particularly with reference to your experience 
in the communications industry ? 

Mr. Wilcox. I spent my entire life associated with the communica- 
tions industry. I was formerly a radio telegraph operator, before 
joining Western Union, about 30 years ago. Up to the present time 
I have been in charge of the employee relations department of the 
Western Union, for about 10 years. 

Mr. Arens. Can you tell us just briefly and in general the facili- 
ties which are presently operated by your company? 

Mr. Wilcox. We operate by landline telegraph systems throughout 
the United States, commonly known as our domestic system, and in 
addition we operate an international communications department 
which operates to Havana, the British Isles, France, and into Canada. 

Mr. Arens. Do your facilities extend to the Pentagon ? 

Mr, Wilcox. Yes, they do. 

Mr. Arens. Can you tell us just very briefly, sir, the nature of the 
facilities that extend to the Pentagon ? 

Mr. Wilcox. In a general way we have leases which are private 
circuits for governmental agencies from the Pentagon traveling 
through our facilities, both domestic and international. 

Mr. Arens, Do you service the North Atlantic cable? 

Mr. Wilcox. Yes, we do. 



COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 1401 

Mr. Arens, And tell us just briefly the messages, from the stand- 
point of Government operations, which go across the North Atlantic 
cable or cables — I believe there are several cables. 

Mr. Wilcox. Yes, there are several cables — we do have circuits 
which are leased to the State Department and other governmental 
agencies. As to what traffic flows on those circuits I have no knowl- 
edge but 

Sir. Arens. You are not in the operating division? 

Mr. Wilcox. No. 

Mr. Arens. And we have, as you know, of course, a gentleman 
from your organization in the operating work, who is an operator,, 
and we will interrogate him on that in a little while. 

Now, Mr. Wilcox, does American Communications Association bar- 
gain for any of the employees of the Western Union and if so tell 
us for whom they bargain ? 

Mr. Wilcox. The American Communications Association does bar- 
gain for about one-seventh of the employees in the domestic system.. 
That one-seventh are located in the Metropolitan Division of Western 
Union which essentially is New York City. In addition, they bargain 
for our cable employees in the United States, and some in Canada, by 
the way, but limiting myself for the moment to the employees in the- 
international system, they number about 300. 

Mr. Arens. For how many employees, in toto, of the Western; 
Union, does the American Communications Association bargain? 

Mr. Wilcox. Oh, I would say about 4,000—1,200. 

(Mr. Scherer entered the hearing room.) 

Mr. Arens. Does the American Communications Association rep- 
resent employees of any communications companies other than West- 
ern Union? 

Mr. Wilcox. Yes; they do. They represent employees for the 
Radio Corporation of America, communications division. They rep- 
resent employees for the French Cable. They represent employees 
of the Teleregister, which is a stock-quotation firm, and they also 
represent employees in one Brooklyn radio station, the call letters of 
which have slipped my mind for the moment. 

Mr. Doyle. May . the record show that Subcommittee Member 
Scherer has taken his seat as a member of the subcommittee. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Wilcox, kindly tell the committee, in just resume, 
form, the history of the American Communications Association : How" 
did it come into existence? 

Mr. WiLCOx. The American Communications Association was for- 
merly known as the American Radio Telegraphers Association, and! 
it later changed its name to the American Communications Associa- 
tion, and was affiliated with the CIO. This was in the late thirties. 
They were certified as the bargaining agent for the Metropolitan 
Division employees in the Western Union Telegraph Co. in the early 
1940's. 

In 1950 the American Communications Association was expelled 
from its parent organization, the CIO, for purported communistic 
affiliation. 

Mr. Arens. To your knowledge, have certain of the officers of the- 
American Communications Association been identified before con- 
gressional committees, as members, or one-time members, of the Com- 
munist Party? 



1402 COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 

Mr. Wilcox. Yes ; they have. 

Mr. Arens. And have those officers, when they were confronted 
with this testimony, exercised their privilege under the fifth 
amendment ? 

Mr. Wilcox. Yes ; they have. 

Mr. Arens. Now, Mr. Wilcox, may I just ask you this simple 
question : 

In view of the fact that the American Communications Association 
was expelled from the CIO because the CIO found that it consistently 
followed the Communist Party line, and in view of the fact that the 
officers whom we have alluded to have been identified as Communists, 
why does Western Union bargain with the American Communications 
Association for these many facilities ? 

Mr, Wilcox. The answer to that, Mr. Arens, is very simple — simply 
because we feel we are obliged to obey the law. 

Mr. Aeens. If you did not bargain with the American Commu- 
nications Association on the various facilities on which they have 
been certified, you as a company would be in a position of engaging 
in an unfair labor practice; is that correct, tinder the existing law 
as it. is interpreted ? 

Mr. Wilcox. We certainly would. 

Mr. DoTLE. Is that the Taft-Hartley law ? 

Mr. Wilcox. Well, it is the Taft-Hartley, and by operation of the 
National Labor Relations Board, which 

Mr, Doyle. I asked that question to identify for the record to what 
law the witness was referring. 

Mr. Arens, That is the National Labor Relations Act, is it not? 

Mr. Wilcox. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. As amended by the Taft-Hartley Act. 

Mr. Wilcox. That is correct. 

Mr. Arens. Now, Mr. Wilcox, on the basis of your background and 
experience in the communications field, could you tell us just a word 
about the shop steward system ? 

Mr. Wilcox. The shop steward system, boiled down to a very simple 
explanation, is that the shop steward is the frontline representative of 
the union in the shop. He corresponds to what in company circles 
might be roughly described as the frontline supervision for the 
company. 

Mr. Arens, And does ACA have shop stewards in the facilities of 
Western Union ? 

Mr, Wilcox, Yes ; they do, 

Mr. Arens. Do shop stewards in ACA have access to facilities in 
Western Union which handle the information or messages going out 
of the Pentagon ? 

Mr. Wilcox, Yes; it is possible that certain shop stewards would 
have access to those circuits. 

Mr. Arens, And do shop stew\ards of the ACA operating within the 
facilities of Western Union have access to the messages going over the 
North Atlantic cables? 

Mr. Wilcox, It is quite possible, 

Mr, Arens, Can you tell us on the basis of your background 
and experience how a person who is disposed to do so could intercept, 
copy, or procure messages going over the tie-lines and leased lines 
of tiiis Government, or over the North Atlantic cable — how one could 



COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 1403 

intercept any message of that character, if he were disposed to do so? 

Mr. Wilcox. Well, I presume, Mr. Arens, you would like to have 
a more detailed statement from Mr. Willis, who is with me, and an 
expert along that line. 

Mr. Arens. I would prefer to have Mr. Willis, because he is an 
expert in this particular field. 

Is there any other observation or comment or information you would 
like to give to the committee at this time ? 

Mr. Wilcox. I would like to say for the record, and I know this 
committee has no desire to create any impression otherwise, that I feel 
that the great majority of Western Union employees are loyal Ameri- 
can citizens. 

In addition to that I would like to point out 

Mr, ScHERER. I do not think that the committee feels any differently 
from that. I am sure of that. 

Mr. Wilcox. I would also like to point out that six-sevenths of our 
employees are represented by whom I like to characterize as a good, 
solid, American labor organization, the CTU, affiliated with the AFL- 
CIO. 

We, on the other hand, have had the American Communication 
Association certified to us as our bargaining agent, not once, not twice, 
but several times, by the National Labor Relations Board, as being 
the collective bargaining agent for our people, not only in the cable 
system, but in the domestic system. We have always tried to comply 
with the regulations, the rules set down by the National Labor Rela- 
tions Board, and that is the status of the Western Union at the present 
time. 

Mr. Arens. ACA always bargains in RCA-Radio Corporation of 
America ? 

Mr. Wilcox. Yes; they do. 

Mr. Arens. We have no further questions of this witness, except to 
express our appreciation of his presence here today. 

Mr. Doyle. Mr. Frazier? 

JNIr. Frazier. I have no questions. 

Mr. Doyle. Mr. Scherer. 

Mr. Scherer. But it would be possible for 1 or 2 employees, if they 
were so inclined, to intercept the messages as indicated by the ques- 
tions asked you by Mr. Arens, would it not ? 

Mr. Wilcox. Yes ; it would be possible for employees that are in the 
shop, if they were so inclined, to pick up messages. 

Mr. Arens. And there is a potential also for sabotage ? 

Mr. Wilcox. Well, I feel that the danger from sabotage is far 
greater than from espionage, and Mr. Willis, I think, will cover that 
more fully. But, important traffic, I think, is adequately protected. 
That is a matter of opinion, but I think the expert can probably 
elucidate to a greater length on that than I can. 

Mr. Scherer. You say you feel that the danger from sabotage is far 
greater than from espionage. 

Again I point out that it would only take 1 or 2 or 3 employees out 
of this vast number of employees, employees in key positions, to 
commit that sabotage, would it not ? 

Mr. Wilcox. It only takes one bad apple in the barrel. 



1404 COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 

Mr, ScnERER. I think we all understand that. I wanted to get it on 
the record. 

Mr. Wilcox. I heard the previous witness give an estimate that it 
couldn't be more than 5 percent. He said it could be much less than 
that and still cause damage. 

I quite agree with him on that score. In connection with keeping 
such people out of our organization, I would like to state for the com- 
mittee that recently before another committee, on the Hill here, we had 
three emploj^ees, working employees, who refused to answer questions 
in connection with communism. These three people were immediately 
suspended by the company, and given about a month to come before 
this committee and state all they knew about communism, whether 
they had ever been Communists, and if they did not admit that they 
were Communists, they would be reinstated. However, if they did 
not come before the committee and testify fully, we told them they 
would be discharged. 

The deadline on that particular directive was June 15. None of 
the three complied. They now stand as discharged on the books of 
Western Union. 

The ACA, of course, has defended their cases through the grievance 
machinery, the last step being arbitration, and those cases will be 
arbitrated about the middle of next month. "Wliat the outcome of 
that will be, I do not know, but I point that out to the committee 
to indicate that the company is doing all it can to prevent subversive 
people from being in our organization. 

Mr. Do\'Lt. We want to compliment you very sincerely for taking 
that position. 

In view of the fact that arbitration is not completed yet, I believe I 
should not ask you 1 or 2 questions that I had intended to ask in- 
volving those 3 employees, excepting, on what level of employment 
were anv of these 3 ? 

Mr. Wn.cox. They were in the operator classification, which would 
be where they would have access to the handling of the general flow 
of traffic. 

Mr. D0YI.E. Well, the general flow of traffic, then — would they be 
able because of the level of their employment in the general flow of 
traffic, in time of emergency, to sabotage the line temporarily? 

Mr. Wilcox. It is possible, but from an operator's standpoint, 
they have less chance of sabotage than what we would call a testing 
and regulating man, a man that regulates the circuits. 

Mr. Arens. How about a service writer ? 

Mr. Wilcox. A service writer has access to the general files. 

Mr. Doyle. Then on this cable from the Pentagon and the State 
Department — not the cable, the leased wire that you mentioned — 
that goes over your North Atlantic communications line; doesn't it? 

Mr. Wilcox. Yes ; it does. 

Mr. DoTLE. And that goes to our allies in Europe? 

Mr. Wilcox. That is correct. 

Mr. DoTLE. Several of them ? 

Mr. Wilcox. Yes. 

Mr. Doyle. Well, do you feel that a subversive person in your 
organization, an employee, could, if he was determined to, sabotage 
any message in time of an emergency, to any of our allies ? 



COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITTES 1405 

Mr. Wilcox. I thiiik the matter of sabotage would be more in the 
form of disrupting than actually garbling the message, because those 
important circuits, as I believe the next witness will testify, are 
guarded by what we consider a very tight code, a very tight system 
of code which, incidentally, was developed by Western Union. 

Mr. DoTLE. Butthey could disrupt communications? 

Mr. Wilcox. They certainly could. It would be very easy to do 
it. 

Mr. Doyle. Then there would be a very easy opportunity, is your 
answer, to sabotage or to destroy the communications temporarily — -- 

Mr. Wilcox. It certainly would. 

Mr. Doyle. If a subversive person in your employ made his mind 
up to do it ? 

Mr. Wilcox. I think you are entirely right in that assumption. 

Mr. Doyle. Let me ask you this question, which I asked the dis- 
tinguished admiral there : What about the dependence of the Ameri- 
can press on Western Union for its news at any time, if there was a 
person destroying the communications line, sabotaging it? How 
would that affect the releases to the American press, temporarily? 

Mr. Wilcox. Well, it would have the same effect as the other gen- 
eral flow of traffic that we fortunately do handle — a goodly portion 
for the press — both for our own domestic system and foreign cor- 
respondents and, if the circuits were interrupted, they would not be 
available for the press, as well as the general flow of public traffic. 

Mr. Doyle. I think that is all. 

We certainly wish to thank you for coming and informing us. Of 
necessity, the subcommittee will stand in recess until 1 : 30. We are 
all due on the floor of the House of Representatives. We will recess 
until 1 : 30 and the witnesses subpenaed or who are friendly will 
please be back here at 1 : 30 with us. 

Thank you very much. 

(Whereupon, at 11 : 59 a. m., July 17, 19o7, the subcommittee was 
recessed, to reconvene at 1 : 30 p. m., the same day.) 

AFTERNOON SESSION— WEDNESDAY, JULY 17, 1957 

Mr. Doyle. The subcommittee will please come to order. 

Let the record show the presence of all three members of the sub- 
committee, Mr. Frazier, of Tennessee, Mr. Scherer, of Ohio, and Mr. 
Doyle, of California. 

Are you ready, Mr. Arens ? 

Mr. Arens. Yes, Mr. Chairman. If you please, sir, Mr. Clarence 
Thomas Willis, kindly stand while the chairman administers the oath 
to you. 

Mr. Doyle. Mr. Willis, do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the 
whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Willis. I do. 

Mr. Doyle. Take the chair, please. 

TESTIMONY OF CLARENCE THOMAS V/ILLIS 

Mr. Arens. Kindly identify yourself by name, residence, and oc- 
cupation. 



1406 COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 

Mr. Willis. My name is Clarence Willis. I am a resident of East 
Orange, N. J. I am with the Western Union Telegraph Co., Inter- 
national Division. 

Mr. Akejsts. Would it be convenient for you to keep your voice up ? 
The accoustics in here are not too good. 

Would you kindly give us please, Mr. Willis, a brief thumbnail 
sketch of your own personal background and experience in the com- 
munications field? 

Mr. Willis. I have spent 42 years with the Western Union Inter- 
national Division as an operator, technician, supervisor, and at present 
as assistant general operations manager. 

Mr. Arens. Wliat are your general responsibilities in your present 
post? 

Mr. Willis. Maintenance and operation of international circuits. 

Mr. Arens. By "international circuits" you mean the international 
Atlantic cables ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Willis. That is correct, sir. 

Mr, Arens. Give us, if you please, Mr. Willis, just a word about 
the Atlantic cables. How do they operate and how many are there ? 

Mr. Willis. Western Union has nine transatlantic cables. We 
operate them on a multichannel system. That is, each cable has more 
than one outlet. They vary, 4, 5, 6, or 8 channels per cable. 

Mr. Arens. How many channels in the aggregate ? 

Mr. Willis. We have 51 across the North Atlantic. 

Mr. Arens. Wliat governmental agencies have contracts with West- 
ern Union covering these international circuits? 

Mr. Willis. We have the State Department, the Army, the Navy,. 
the Air Force, the National Security Agency. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Willis, on the basis of your background and expe- 
rience, are you in a position to express to the committee the possibility 
or potential of sabotage by persons who would be what we would call 
insiders, employed in the operation of these facilities, if such persons 
were so disj^osed toward sabotage? 

Mr. Willis. For such persons, it is quite possible to commit 
sabotage. 

Mr. Arens. What would be the nature of the sabotage? I don't 
want you on a public record to give as much detail here as you have 
privately. 

Wliat would be the nature of the sabotage ? 

Mr. Willis. Well, there is outside and inside sabotage. Consider 
the inside sabotage : •* 

A bottle of acid in behind a frame, for instance, where wires come 
in, would do damage, or there is a possibility of dropping equipment 
on the floor, or slamming it into other equipment. Tliere are several 
ways that sabotage could be committed by one so disposed. 

Mr. Arens. Could you tell us what are the possibilities and poten- 
tialities for interception of messages by a person who might be dis- 
loyal to the United States, or who would be engaged, at the present 
time, for example, in working on these cable facilities ? 

Mr. Willis. That is quite probable and it is possible ; that is, it is 
possible for operators on the floor, if they were so disposed, to take 
copies of messages, hard copies — what we mean by "hard copies" are 
those actually handed into the counter or received over tie lines on 
typewritten copy. 



COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS rACILmES 1407 

Mr. Arexs. Now, Mr. Willis, on the basis of your background and 
experience will you express yourself on this situation — and I will pose 
it as a hypothetical case, so we can have the benefit of your advice to 
the committee ■ 

Assuming for the sake of argument that there was increased activity 
over the tie lines and leased lines from the Pentagon to any particular 
point in the world, in other words, if the volume of messages tomorrow 
morning to, say — I am just picking this at random — Cairo, Egypt, 
were tripled, could that fact be ascertained by a disloyal employee 
manning the tie lines or leased lines ? 

Mr, Willis. It would be possible; yes; because a noted increase 
going to one point, to anybody who was looking for such information, 
would make him aware of something going on. 

Mr. Arens. What are the duties of a service writer ? 

Mr. Willis. In telegraph communications it is often necessaiy to 
send what we call an unpaid message to clarify something that the 
receiving station received in a message, and the receiving station might 
want to ask confirmation of a certain word in a message, for instance, 
and they would launch what we would call a service message. 

Mr. Arens. Wliat type of message would a service writer have 
access to ? 

Mr. Willis. Well now 

Mr. Arens. I didn't phrase my question very clearly, I am afraid. 
Wliat would be the nature of a message to which a service writer could 
have access, irrespective of loyalty or disloyalty, sir ? 

Mr. Willis. In the normal duties he has access to any messages 
referred to in our service correspondence. 

Mr. Arens. Could a service writer secure copies of messages ? 

Mr. Willis. He could ; yes. 

Mr. Arens. How would he do that in the normal course of opera- 
tions ? 

Mr. Willis. You see, under normal conditions, if the service mes- 
sage came in, it would be handed to a searcher who would go to the 
files and pick out the particular message in question. That would be 
handed to the service writer, and the service writer would then find 
out exactly what the receiving station required, and would make his 
reply accordingly. 

Mr. Arens. There are such persons as service writers employed on 
these cable lines, are there not ? 

Mr. Willis. There are, sir. 

Mr. Arens. "Wliat would be the potential for a service writer, if he 
were so disposed to commit sabotage ? 

Mr. Willis. A service writer is not normally on the operating room 
floors. He is in a special department. Therefore, it would be hard for 
a service writer to come down to an operating room floor and commit 
sabotage. 

Mr. Arens. INIr. Chairman, I respectfully suggest that we conclude 
the staff interrogation of this witness. 

Mr. DoTLE. Mr. Frazier ? 

Mr. Frazier. I have no questions. 

Mr. DoYLE. Mr. Scherer? 

Mr. Scherer. Would the service writer be able to commit espionage 
by garbling the message to suit certain persons ? 



1408 COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 

Mr. Willis. No, sir; the service writer does not touch a message 
until after transmission, and it is received at a station. It is only on 
a query that comes back, and when you say "garble it" 

Mr. ScHERER. Change it ? 

Mr. Willis. AVell, it is possible, but very improbable, because we 
have such a check on the number of words in a message that he couldn't 
add or take away or otherwise he would ruin the first copy and they 
would ask us for another complete copy. 

Mr. DoTLE. Any further questions ? 

Mr. ScHERER. No. 

Mr. Doyle. May I inquire ? 

How about any code messages ? I didn't hear you mention anything 
about sending telegrams or cables in code. Do you do that? The 
Western Union ? 

Mr. Willis. We do, sir. 

Mr. Doyle. Do you send code messages at the instance of the State 
Department ? 

Mr. Willis. We do, sir. 

Mr. Doyle. To foreign countries ? 

Mr. Willis. We do, sir. 

Mr. Doyle. At the instance of the Army ? 

Mr. Willis. The other branches of the service use their own leased 
circuits. We have leased circuits to the other branches of the service 
and they use their own circuits for their encrypted messages. 

Mr. Doyle. Then does that mean that no employees of the Western 
Union operate or help operate the leased wires by the Army and Navy 
and Air Force ? 

Mr. Willis. As far as the leased circuits are concerned, the only 
men that would handle those circuits would be our technicians, and 
they would be in there just to regulate the circuit to make sure the 
circuit was working O. K. 

Mr. Doyle. If any such technician happened to desire to perpetrate 
sabotage or espionage, he could do it, couldn't he ? 

Mr. Willis. He definitely could, sir. 

Mr. Doyle. Fairly easily ? 

Mr. Willis. Fairly easily, yes, sir. 

Mr. Doyle. In other words, that is a sensitive position ? 

Mr. Willis. Very sensitive. 

Mr. Doyle. How about the National Security Agency ; do they use 
your cable? 

Mr. Willis. They use leases, through our cables. 

Mr. Doyle. Would your answer just previous apply to them also? 

Mr. Willis. That would apply to all the Government agencies' 
leases, sir. 

May I point out, sir, that as far as code is concerned, there are 2 or 
3 different types of code. There is one especially which is crypto- 
graph, and that is altogether different than code in that there is no 
standard pattern followed in the coding of the message. We have 
two different types of code. 

Mr. Doyle. Is the effect of that testimony that there is not the 
opportunity to transmit a decoding of that? 

Mr. Willis. In my opinion, sir, as far as cryptograph is concerned, 
unless you were a specialist at it, and knew something of the key used, 
which is frequently changed, there is nothing you can read. 



COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILTnES 1409 

Mr. DoTLE. What percentage of the code messages would you say 
are in that cryptograph ? 

Mr. Willis. On the leases, I would say that 90 percent were. 

Mr. Doyle. Those that come from the Government agencies? 

Mr. Willis. Coming from the Government agencies. 

Mr. Arens. Do employees of your company who are members of 
the American Communications Association have access to these coded 
messages ? 

Mr. Willis. Are you now talking about those on the leases, sir, 
or 

Mr. Arens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Willis. Our technicians are the only ones ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. And you said a moment ago that it would be difficult 
to translate certain cryptograph messages, but if a person had access to 
those he could, of course, could he not, take those messages to someone 
who could translate them, or who was an expert in that field? 

Mr. Willis. He could take them, yes, but, as far as decoding, I am 
not in a position to say. 

Mr. DoYi.E. Your associate this morning, I think, testified that 
Western Union had about 4,200 employees who were, he believed, 
members of the ACA. How many of that number, if any, are what 
you classify as technicians and would have access to these code 
messages ? 

Mr. Willis. Of the 4,200 you speak of, sir, we have approximately 
300 at the cable office in New York, cable employees, and, of that 300, 
we have a total technical staff of 28 men. 

Mr. Doyle. Then does that indicate that the fair possibility of inter- 
fering with this particular type of code, cryptograph, is limited to 
approximately 28 employees ? 

Mr. Willis. It would be less than that, sir, because, of that 28, 
only maybe 8 of them would be assigned to take care of the leases. 
That is a special assignment. 

Mr. Doyle. And, in the experience of your company, have any of 
the employees such as you have enumerated, the 28 or less, been yet 
identified as Communists ? 

Mr. Willis. To my knowledge, no, sir. 

Mr. Doyle. But they are all members of ACA ? 

Mr. Willis. They are members of ACA ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Doyle. And I think our record shows that ACA was expelled 
from the CIO-AFL group in 1950 because that union at that time 
was claimed to be dominated by the Communist group. 

Mr. Willis. That is what I understand, sir ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Doyle. And these 28, more or less, had officers, so far as their 
union was concerned, who were several fairly well identified members, 
active members, of the Communist Party at the time they were in 
your employ ? 

Mr. Willis. From the evidence I have heard today, I have to say 
"Yes" to that question. 

Mr. Doyle. I think that is all, Mr, Arens. 

Mr. Arens. No other questions. 

Mr. Doyle. Judge Frazier? 

Mr. Frazier. I have no questions. 

Mr. Doyle. Mr. Scherer? 

Mr. Scherer. No questions. 



1410 COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 

Mr. DoTLE. I want to thank you very much for your time and help 
in coming to help us understand the problem. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Michael Mignon, would you kindly come forward ? 

Remain standing while the chairman administers the oath. 

Mr. Doyle. Do you solemnly swear that you will tell the truth, 
the whole truth, and notliing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. MiGNON. I do. 

Mr. DoTiiE. Thank you. 

TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL MIGNON, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 

LANDON DOWDEY 

Mr. Arens. Will you kindly identify yourself by name, residence, 
and occupation? 

Mr. MiGNON. My name is Michael Mignon. I live at 915 Avenue S, 
Brooklyn, N. Y. 

Mr. Doyle. May we have the spelling of that name ? 

Mr. MiGNON. M-i-g-n-o-n. 

Mr. Doyle. Thank you. 

Mr. MiGNON. My occupation is a union representative, working for 
the Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Mignon, you are appearing today before the com- 
mittee with counsel ? 

Mr. Mignon. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Counsel, will you kindly identify yourself on this 
record ? 

Mr. DowDEY. My name is Landon Dowdey. I am a lawyer with 
offices in the Second National Bank Building here in Washington, 
D.C. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Mignon, kindly tell us, if you please, sir, briefly 
about your own personal background, with particular reference to 
your employment in the communications industry. 

Mr. i\liGN0N. Briefly, I started working in the communications in- 
dustry when I was approximately 15 years old, as a messenger ioi 
Western Union. 

Thence I worked as a clerk, and a junior Morse operator for Postal 
Telegraph, until approximately 1923, when I joined the United States 
Nav3^, and I was a radio operator in the United States Navy until 
1929, when I was honorably discharged as a first-class radioman. 

In 1929 I went to work for ECA Radio Communications, Inc. ; when 
we orgiinized a union on or about 1937, known as the American Radio 
Telegraphers Association, and I obtained a leave of absence from 
that company for a period of 6 months, and I worked on a full-time 
basis for American Radio Telegraphers Association, which later be- 
came knoAvn as the xYmerican Communications Association. 

I was elected a vice president of that union in 1938, vice president 
in charge of radio and cable department. 

I returned to work in the industry in 1940 with Mackay Radio & 
Telegraph Co., as a radio operator. I worked with that company 
until 1952, having held the jobs of radio operator, technician, and 
traffic supervisor or traffic chief. In 1952 I went to work for the 
Communications Workers of America, and I have been employed by 
that union since. 

Mr. Arens. In what capacity, please, sir? 



COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 1411 

Mr. MiGNON. My first capacity was that of organizer, and I was 
assigned to the organizational drive that we had going in tlie A. C. & R. 
in competition with the CTU and the ACA, as it was explained in 
detail by Admiral Stone this morning, after the union, that is the 
CWA, won the elections and was certified as the bargaining agent for 
the employees of A. C. & R., and was reclassified by the union as a 
representative, and my main duties have been the negotiation and the 
administration of the labor agreements in the nonvoice communica- 
tions field of our union. That is both with the A. C. & R. and the 
Globe Wireless, Ltd., which is another company in the international 
communications field. 

Mr. Akens. Mr. Mignon, have you ever been a member of the 
Communist Party ? 

Mr. MiGNON. Yes, sir; I was. 

Mr. Arens. Would you kindly give us the date, first of all, of your 
membership in the Communist Party, when you joined, where you 
joined, and the circumstances of your joining? 

Mr. MiGNON. Well, going purely on the basis of recollection, it is 
my belief that I joined the party on or about the latter part of 1936. 

I joined the party in New York City. I left the party on or about 
1940. 

Mr. Arens. Could you give us a brief thumbnail sketch of your 
career in the Communist Party, highlighting any significant facts? 

Mr. MiGNON. I joined the Communist Party while I was actively 
engaged as a trade unionist with the American Communications As- 
sociation, on the premise — at least so I was told and so I was taught — 
that only a Communist could be a real trade unionist. 

I was introduced to the party by some then officers of the American 
Radio Telegraphers Association, namely, a vice president by the name 
of Roy Pyle, and, as a member of the Commmiist Party, and as an 
officer of the union, I participated in meetings with representatives 
of the Communist Party, the labor department of the Communist 
Party, namely, Roy Hudson, in determining policies for the union in 
regards to negotiations and in regards to the activities that the 
union should be engaged in, both on the trade-union front and the 
political front also. 

Mr. Arens. During the course of your membership in the Com- 
munist Party, did you have occasion to learn of any particular im- 
portance which the Communist Party attached to the enterprise of 
infiltrating the communications industiy in the United States? 

Mr. MiGNON. To the best of my recollection, sir, it was always 
pointed out to me that the importance of obtaining control of the 
communications industry in times of stress or in revolutionary times 
was a primary factor, and therefore the efforts of the Communist 
Party in subsidizing the union and offering whatever assistance they 
could in building the union in the commmiications industry was 
primarily the main objective. 

Mr. Arens. Would you care to elaborate 

Mr. Dotle. Pardon me, Mr. Arens. 

I do not think I quite understood your statement just before this 
last one. 

Do I understand that you, as a Communist, met with a Mr. Hutchi- 
son 

Mr. Arens. Roy Hudson. 



1412 COMMTJNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 

Mr. Doyle. Roy Hudson — to determine policy for the union? 

Mr. JSIiGNON. Yes, sir, Roy Hudson was 

Mr. Doyle. Wliat did the Communist Party have to do with de- 
termining policy for the union? That was not the union doing 
it, was it ? 

Mr. MiGNON. Well, you see when a union is controlled by the 
Communist Party or under Communist Party discipline, the direc- 
tives for that particular union in dealing wdth management or in 
attempting to establish policies within that union through the media 
of membership meetings, are determined by the leadership of the 
Communist Party : it is transferred to the officers of the union, who 
are duty bound to attempt to establish that policy as if it were the 
policy of the union. 

Mr. Doyle. In connection with that control of policy and determina- 
tion of policy by the Communist Party members of the union, the 
fact that it is thus secretly determined, and passed on down to the 
officers of the union is not known to the union membership, is it? 

Mr. MiGNON. No, sir. 

Mr. Doyle. In other words, it is a secret conspiracy to control the 
American trade union in that area of communications? 

Mr. MiGNON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Scherer. The eventual objective being that if we should ever 
be at war with the Soviet Union, to be able to more effectively control 
the communications system of the country. Isn't that the end ob- 
jective? 

Mr. MiGNON. The end objective, sir, as I learned it, was when and if 
the revolution came to change this form of government, our form of 
government, that the Communists would be in a position to imme- 
diately control the communications facilities of the Nation. 

Mr. Scherer. To the advantage of the revolution ? 

Mr. MiGNON. For the advantage of the revolution or the success 
thereof. 

Mr. Scherer. Or if, in the event as I have said, in the case Russia 
should participate in that revolution, or we should be at war with the 
Soviet Union, then to control the communications to the advantage of 
the Soviet Union ? 

Mr. MiGNON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Doyle. And you were given that, as I understand it, as a basic 
premise and reason why you should become a Communist if you wanted 
to be a good trade unionist? You were given that in 1936 when you 
joined the party? 

Mr. MiGNON. No, sir. Wliat I have just stated came after I had 

Mr. Doyle. How long after ? 

Mr. MiGNON. Oh, I suppose that after I had joined the Communist 
Party, the process of education was a gradual one, and to state pre- 
cisely when these objectives were taught to me is difficult at this time 
to say, sir. 

Mr. Doyle. Well, approximately how long after you joined? You 
left the party in lO-lO or thereabouts. Wliat I am trying to get at 
is 

Mr. MiGNON. When did I begin to learn of these main objectives? 

Mr. Doyle. Yes. 



COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 1413 

Mr. MiGNON. I believe that the objectives began to become very- 
clear to me almost immediately after I had joined the Communist 
Party, but by that time I had already joined it. 

Mr. Doyle, Did I hear you a minute ago say that you were thus 
advised by the Communist Party leaders, and that the union which you 
joined in connection with a coming revolution — was that term used, 
as near as you can recall ? 

Mr. MiGNON. As far as I can recall, sir, the Communist Party was 
always pointed out to me as being a revolutionary party. 

Mr. ScHERER. That conduct, Mr. Chairman, at that time could not 
have been the subject of prosecution under the recent Supreme Court 
decision because it would not have related to an immediate action upon 
the part of these Communists to do something toward the overthrow 
of the Government by force or violence. 

Mr. Doyle. But here was actual action, Mr. Scherer. 

Mr. Scherer. Not suiScient to comply with the Supreme Court 
decision, though. 

Mr. Doyle. No, but here was actual action on the part of secret 
Communist leaders of this union to build up other corevolutionaries. 

Mr. Scherer. But the Supreme Court says that is not enough. It 
shows how silly the decision is. 

Mr. Doyle. So let us get the facts here, whatever we can get. Maybe 
we can tell the Court about it. 

Mr. Arens. I am a little bit lost at the moment, as to what the theme 
of your presentation was there, Mr. Mignon, when we posed this series 
of very important questions. 

You were telling, I believe, the highlights of your career in the 
Communist Party. 

Mr. Mignon. I believe I have completed that. 

Mr. Arens. You have completed that. Wliat precipitated your 
dissociation from the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Mignon. Essentially, sir, I believe that I came to the conclusion 
that the Communist Party was a fraud, it was completely insincere, 
it was unintelligent, and it was fanatic. 

Mr. Arens. It was what? 

Mr. Mignon. Fanatic. 

Mr. Arens. During your experience in the Communist Party did 
you have occasion to serve in closed Commuist Party meetings with 
other persons ? 

Mr. Mignon. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Who were Communists ? 

Mr. Mignon. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Scherer. Excuse me a minute. Let us examine the facts in 
light of the recent Supreme Court decisions. 

During these discussions you were talking about what you would 
do at a future time should the occasion arise, should the revolution 
ever take place ? I mean, you were discussing what the 

Mr. Mignon. I was discussing what the objectives were which were 
taught to me, as being the main objectives of the party. 

Mr. Scherer. That is right. There was never any definite dis- 
cussion as to how you might accomplish it when the time came ? Such 
actions would not be in violation of the Smith Act, according to the 
recent decisions, because they did not plan any definite action in the 



1414 COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILmES 

immediate future. They were just talking about what the objectives 
were in the abstract. 

Mr. DoTLK. But it was discussed with you, was it not ? And were 
you not instructed by these Communist Party leaders of the union, 
that when the revolution did come, the communications system would 
be a very immediate and important part of the activity, in other words, 
the Communist Party control of the communications system. And 
would be at the initiatory stage of whatever revolution would come. 

Now, may I ask this : 

Was it ever discussed with you in any way by these secret Commu- 
nist Party leaders in control of that union at that time, as to how the 
communications system was to be taken control of? In other words, 
how you were to get in control of it, how you were to get into command 
of it to use it for the revolution ? 

Mr. MiGNON. Well, not essentially in detail as to how you take this 
from here and put it there. The objective was that if a union organ- 
ized tlie em])loyees of the communications industry, and if the leaders 
and all straight along the line, the people, were Communists, or Com- 
munist controlled, that they could and should develop such confidence 
amongst the employees of the industry to be able to follow the orders 
of the leaders of the union at any particular time. 

Mr. Doyle. In other words 

Mr. ScHERER. May I interrupt just a minute ? 

Mr. Doyle. Yes ; go ahead. 

Mr. ScHERER. What the witness just related, according to my 
understanding of the recent decision of the Supreme Court would 
not constitute a violation of the Smith Act. 

Is that your understanding, j\Ir. Counsel ? 

Mr. Arens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Doyle. May I further inquire ? 

In other words, Mr. Witness, the program of the Communist Party 
at that time, between 1936 and 1940 — and you joined in 1936 and left 
in about 1940, was to get as many employees in the field of commu- 
nications in New York, both domestic and intercontinental, to get 
as many emplo,yees in that field as possible to be members of the 
Communist Party ? 

Mr. MiGNON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Doyle. And, therefore, when the Communist Party nationally 
sent the word, or internationally spoke the word, of the revolution, 
the communications people would be in control ? 

Mr. MiGNON. Correct. 

Mr. Doyle. The Communist Party would have control of that very 
■vital field throughout our country ? 

Mr. INIiGxoN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Doyle. Not only domestically but on the intercontinental com- 
munication level, also ? 

Mr. MiGNOx. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Doyle. Have you ever known of any change in that declared 
policy of the Communist Party ? Have they ever changed that policy? 

Mr. MiGXOx. I cannot say, sir, because since I left the Communist 
Party in 1940 I have had no dealings with it, nor any contact with it. 

Mr. Doyle. Now, one more question : 



COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 1415 

Was that policy which you have just stated generally known, as far 
as you know as a member of that Communist Party cell, to be the 
policy of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. MiGNON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Doyle. At that time. In other words, it was well known ? 

Mr. MiGNON. Yes, sir ; it was known. 

Mr. DoTLE. By all the members of that cell who were in the field of 
communications ? 

Mr. MiGNOisr. Yes, sir ; those were the objectives. 

Mr. Doyle. And how many members would you say were in that 
particular cell of which you were a member — approximately how 
many? 

Mr. MiGNON. It is difficult to state at this date precisely, or even 
approximately, the number that were members of the party. I have 
attended meetings where I have seen as many as 50 or 60 people par- 
ticipating, many of whom I had not seen before, the nam.es of the 
majority of whom I did not know then nor do I know today. 

Mr. I)oYLE. Those were closed Communist Party meetings ? 

Mr. MiGNON. They were for Communist Party members. 

Mr. Doyle. Thank you very much. 

Mr. MiGNON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Now, during the course of your career in the Commu- 
nist Party, did you know as a Communist a person by the name of 
Willard Bliss? 

Mr. MiGNON. Yes, sir ; I did. 

Mr. Arens. Kindly tell us, if you please, sir, how you knew him 
and where was he employed ? 

Mr. MiGNON. Mr. Willard Bliss was the secretary -treasurer of the 
American Radio Telegraphers Association on full-time employment 
by the union, and I knew him to be a Communist. 

Mr. Arens. Did you know as a Communist a person by the name 
of Geraldine Shandros? 

Mr. MiGNON. Yes, sir ; I did. 

Mr. Arens. Kindly identify her. 

Mr. MiGNON. Miss Shandros at that time first came to the American 
Radio Telegraphers Association as secretary to the president of the 
union. She remained in a secretarial position until she was promoted 
to the job of legislative representative of the American Communica- 
tions Association, with offices in Washington, D. C. I knew her as a 
Communist. 

Mr. Arens. I might say now, Mr. Mignon, that I propose to ask you 
about a number of people, and in reply, I want to have you give us 
an affirmative reply only in those instances in which you are morally 
certain on tiie basis of attendance at closed Communist Party meet- 
ings, that the person whom you identify, was known by you to be a 
Communist. Do you understand ? 

Mr. MiGNON. I would only answer "Yes" if I do know, and if I dO' 
not know I will not answer "Yes." 

Mr. Arens. Surely. 

Mr. Doyle. Counsel? 

Mr. Arens. Yes. 

Mr. Doyle. May I lay a further foundation there, please ? As long 
as you are going to ask this question this way, what is the basis of 

94781 — 57 — Dt. 1 * 



1416 coMMinsnsT penetration of communications facilities 

your answer about these last two people — that 3^ou knew them to be 
Communists ? How do you know they were ? 

Mr. AIiGNON", Because I attended meetings with them, closed meet- 
ings. 

Mr, DoTLE. Of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. MiGNON. Of the Communist Party ; Communist Party cells. 

Mr. Doyle. And will that answer or will it not apply and be tlie 
reason why you may answer Mr. Arens' further questions on these 
names — that you also know, from this list of names of people, that 
he is going to ask you about? 

Mr. MiGNON. That will be the basis. The basis will be that either 
I attended meetings with them or I knew positively that they were 
and I saw them pay dues to the party. 

Mr. Doyle. And these people were members of the Communist 
Party at the same time you were ; during the same time ? 

Mr. ]\IiGNON. Yes, sir ; during the same period that I was a member. 

Mr. Arens. In the interests of expediting the testimony, I will call 
as we proceed here the names of several persons, and then you tell us 
either affirmatively or negatively whether or not you knew each as a 
Communist, and give us a word of identification with reference to each 
of them. Is that understood ? 

Mr. MiGNON. 1 will try to. 

Mr. Arens. Josephine Timms ? 

Mr. MiGNON. Yes, sir ; I knew her to be a Communist. She was the 
secretary-treasurer of the American Communications Association, 
prior to Mr. Kehoe being elected to that job. 

Mr. Arens. Joseph Selly ? 

Mr. MiGNON. Yes, sir; I knew Mr. Selly to be a Communist. He 
was an organizer for the American Communications Association, and 
later he was elected as the vice president of the telegraphers division 
of that union and after that he was elected as the president of the 
union. 

Mr. Arens. Is he presently president of the ACA? 

Mr. MiGNON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Mollie Townsend ? 

Mr. INIiGNON. Yes, sir ; I knew Mollie Townsend. To the best of my 
knowledge she was a local officer, an officer of Local 40 of the American 
Communications Association, working for Postal Telegraph. 

Mr. Arens. Bill Burke? 

Mr. MiGNON. Yes, sir; I knew Bill Burke. He did not come from 
the industry. He came from outside of the industry as an organizer 
for the American Communications Association. 

Mr. Arens. Chester Jordan. 

Mr. MiGNON. Yes, sir; I knew Chester Jordan. He was in the 
marine division of the American Radio Telegraphers Association, gen- 
erally working out of the west coast. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Mignon, you have in staff consultation identified a 
number of people whom you have told the staff, on the basis of your 
background and experience in the Communist Party you could iden- 
tify as Communists; is that correct? 

^Ir. MiGNON. To the best of my recollection, yes, sir ; I did. 

Mr. Arens. Would you kindly look at the list laid before you now 
for the purpose of refreshing your recollection, and tell the committee 
the name and the spelling of the last name each person whom you 



COMMUNIST PEaSTETRATION OF COMlVrUlSnCATIONS FACILmES 1417 

can identify to a certainty to have been a Communist, and a word 
about that person. I think that is the best way to proceed, because you 
seem to have had a slight doubt in two instances here, and we do not 
want you to give an identification if you have any doubt. 

Mr. MiGNON. May I proceed ? 

Mr. Arens. You may proceed. 

Mr. MiGNON. Mr. Frank Lagos, I knew as a Communist. 

Mr. Arens. And a word about him, please? 

Mr. MiGNON. He was employed by Western Union Domestic. 

Mr. Arens. In what capacity; do you know? 

Mr. MiGNON. As a teletype operator, to the best of my knowledge. 

Howard Vincent Trautman, an employee of EGA Communications, 
president of Local 10 of the American Communications Association. 

Mr. Arens. Did you know him as a Communist ? 

Mr. MiGNON. Yes, sir. 

Ted lannucci, I knew him. 

Mr. Arens. I will say for the benefit of the committee at this time, 
that Mr. lannucci is a cooperative witness and will either today or 
tomorrow testify as a friendly cooperative witness. 

Mr. MiGNON. He was an employee of RCA Communications. I do 
not recall now his job title at that particular time. 

Hy Heller. He was an employee of Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co. 
during that period, as a radio operator. 

Mr. Arens. You knew him as a Communist, did you ? 

Mr. MiGNON. Yes, sir. 

Joseph Finsmith, I knew him as a Communist. He was an employee 
of RCA Communications in a clerical position at that time. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully suggest that the com- 
mittee would like to know that Mr. Joseph Finsmith will be a friendly 
witness and I believe will follow Mr. Mignon to the stand. 

Is there another person ? 

Mr. Mignon. Harry Parris. 

Mr. Arens. Did you know him as a Communist ? 

Mr. Mignon. Yes, sir ; I did. 

Mr. Arens. A word of identification, if you please, sir. 

Mr. Mignon. He worked for RCA Communications and worked for 
Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co. as a radio operator. 

Douglas Ward : I knew him as a Communist. He worked at that 
time with Press Wireless. 

Mr. Arens. This next name I suggest you spell, or can you identify 
the name of the next person as a Communist ? 

Mr. Mignon. Yes. 

Mr. Arens. Spell the name, then. 

Mr. Mignon. C-o-n-c-e-t-t-a P-a-d-o-v-a-n-i. She was an employee 
of Postal Telegraph. 

Mr. Arens. Did you know her as a Communist ? 

Mr. Mignon. I did. 

Mr. Arens. The next one, if you please, sir ? 

Mr. Mignon. Charles Silberman. 

Mr. Arens. Did you know him as a Communist ? 

Mr. Mignon. I did. 

Mr. Arens. In what capacity ? 

Mr. Mignon. He came as the editor of the ACA News. 



1418 COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 

Roy Pyle: He was the vice president of the American Radio 
Telegraphers Association. 

Mr. Arens. Did Mr. Pyle recruit you into the Communist Party? 

Mr. MiGNON. Yes, sir; I believe so, sir. He introduced me to the 
subject. 

Mr. Arens. And do you here now identify him as a person known, 
by you to have been a Communist ? 

Mr. MiGNON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Could you give us a word of identification ? 

Mr. MiGNON. He was the vice president of the American Radio 
Telegraphers Association. 

Mr. Doyle. What position, if any, had he in the Communist Party, 
to your knowledge, at that time — if you know ? 

Mr. MiGNON. I don't know if he had any special position in the 
Communist Party, sir. 

Mr. Arens. The next one, if you please, sir. 

Mr. MiGNON. Mervyn Rathborne. 

Mr. Arens. Did j^ou know him as a Communist! 

Mr. Mignon. I did. He was the president of the American Radio 
Telegraphers Association, later the American Communications Asso- 
ciation, prior to Mr. Selly becoming president of the union. 

Oliver M. Salisbury : I knew him. 

Mr. Arens. As a Communist ? 

Mr. MiGNON. As a Communist on the west coast. He was the 
secretary-treasurer of Local 9 of the American Communications 
Association. 

Louis Siebenberg : I knew him as a Communist. He was the presi- 
dent of Local 40, which was the telegraph local having jurisdiction 
over Postal Telegraph at that time. 

Joseph Kehoe: I knew him as a Communist. He came from out- 
side of the industry to work for the American Communications 
Association. 

Mr. Arens. Wliat does he do now ? 

Mr. Mignon. He came from outside of the industry to work for 
the American Communications Association as an organizer and he 
was later elected as the secretary-treasurer of the union. I believe 
that he is currently the secretary-treasurer of the American Com- 
munications Association. 

Mr. Arens. All right, sir. Another name, please, sir ? 

Mr. MiGNON. Lola Kehoe. That would be Mr. Kehoe's wife. I 
knew her as Lola Lagos. She was an employee of Western Union, 
and I knew her as a Communist. 

Mr. Arens. Is there another name that occurs to you ? 

Mr. MiGNON. Daniel Driesen. I knew him as a Communist. 

Mr. Arens. Wliat was his identification, please, sir ? 

Mr. MiGNON. He came to work for the American Communications 
Association and was the legislative representative in Washington 
prior to his entering the Armed Forces. He is dead, by the way. 
He was killed in the war. 

Mr, Arens. Is there another name ? 

Mr. Mignon. Frank Grumman. He was secretary-treasurer of 
Local 10 of tlie American Communications Association. He was an 
employee of RCA Communications and to the best of my knowledge 
ia still secretary of Local 10. 



COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 1419 

Willie Chew : He was an employee of RCA Communications at that 
time as a radio operator, today as a technician. 

Mr. Akens. He is employed there as a technician now ? 

Mr. MiGNON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. All right, sir. 

Mr. MiGNON. Jewel Hobbs. I knew him as a Communist and a 
radio operator who worked for both ECA Conununications and Mac- 
kay Radio & Telegraph Co. 

I may add that I am giving the job titles of these people as I knew 
them up to 1940. Their job titles may have changed. 

Fred Robitzer : I knew him as a Communist, and he was employed 
by RCA Communications, at this time as a radio operator. 

Homer Mulligan I knew as a Communist on the west coast. 

Mr. Arens. And his identification, please, sir. 

Mr. MiGNON. Working as a radio operator for Mackay Radio & 
Telegraph Co. 

Boothroyd — no first name. 

Mr. Arens. A person by the name of Boothroyd ; is that correct ? 

Mr. MiGNON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. But you do not recall the first name ? 

Mr. MiGNON. No, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Please identify that person. 

Mr. MiGNON. I knew him as a Communist. He worked for Mackay 
Radio & Telegraph Co. in Portland or Seattle, and later on New York 
City. 

Hy Frumkin : I knew him as a Communist and he worked for West- 
ern Union. 

I am skipping the last name. 

Mr. Arens. Is each and every one of the persons whose names you 
have told us about, whom you have identified, a person who to your 
certain knowledge, was known by you to have been a Communist? 

Mr. MiGNON. At this time ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Mignon, on the basis of your background and many 
years of experience in the communications industry, may I pose this 
question to you : 

Is there clanger to the security of the United States if Communists 
are employed in the communications industry ? 

Mr. MiGNON. In my opinion, the answer is definitely "Yes." 

Mr. Arens. Why? 

Mr. MiGNON. Well, believing sincerely as the American labor move- 
ment does, I believe that there is no room in the American labor move- 
ment for Communists, No. 1 ; and, No. 2, in line with the position of 
my own union, the Communications Workers of America, which I 
represent, we believe that there is no room for Communists in the 
communications industry. We recognize the industry as being a 
sensitive industry, necessary for the national defense. 

In recognizing this we have so stated in a labor agreement that we 
have negotiated with A. C. & R. Therefore, these are not idle words, 
and we believe that the communications facilities of the United States 
should be in the hands of loyal Americans, without any chances being 
taken as to these facilities being in the hands of disloyal elements. 

Mr. ScHERER. I do not want to labor the point that I have raised 
before, but just so that I have it straight in my own mind and we have 



1420 coMMtnsriST perpetration of communications facilities 

it straight in the record, I understand the substance of your testi- 
mony initially was to the effect that during the time you were a mem- 
ber of the Communist Party and a member of the American Commu- 
cations Association, the Communists both in and out of the union 
desired to control the union, so that if a revolution should take place 
at some indefinite future time, or if we should be at war at some indefi- 
nite future time with the Soviet Union, then, and in that event, it 
might be possible either to commit espionage or sabotage more effec- 
tively if the party controlled the union. I understood that that was 
the substance of it. 

Mr. MiGNON. I would place control before sabotage and espionage. 
In their chronology, I would say control, and if unable to control, 
sabotage, and as for the question of espionage, very frankly I am not 
convinced in my own mind that that is the important point. 

Mr. ScHERER. You think sabotage then is more important than 
espionage ? 

Mr. MiGNON. I believe so, sir. 

Mr. ScHERER. That is the very point I am trying to make. The 
policy at that time was to control the union; isn't that right? 

Mr. MiGNON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ScHERER. That was the policy. 

No actual steps had been taken toward planning how any sabotage 
might be committed, should these eventualities arise, namely, revolu- 
tion or war with Russia. 

Mr. MiGNON. That is right, sir. 

Mr. ScHERER. It was merely a policy. 

Mr. MiGNON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ScHERER. In fact, it had not been communicated by the Com- 
munists within the union down to the rank and file in any way, par- 
ticularly if they were not members of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. MiGNON. That is correct. 

Mr. ScHERER. So we had merely a policy or a doctrine, by men who 
believed, from your testimony, in the overthrow of this Government by 
force or violence if necessary. 

Mr. MiGNON. And now we go into another field about which I can't 
speak with any authority. 

Mr. ScHERER. Well, leave the last part of m}^ question off, then. 

Mr. MiGNON. The policy as you have stated it, without that last 
part, is correct. 

Mr. ScHERER. The observation, then, I want to make is that under 
the decision of the Supreme Court in the California cases, such con- 
duct on the part of the Communists, if it were to happen today within 
that union, would not constitute a violation of the Smith Act. 

Mr. MiGNON". I cannot make any comment on that, sir, because I 
am not an attorney. 

Mr. ScHERER. It is just an observation that I wanted to make. 

Mr. DoTLE. In other words, you think that the way the Court ruled, 
it would hold that if it happened now it would be a mental attitude 
rather than an activity? 

Mr. ScHERER. It would only be a policy on the part of this union. 

Mr. Doyle. It would be thinking instead of action. 

Mr. Scherer. It would be a policy on the part of the union to put 
them in a position to act if the time should come. And I say that 



COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILmES 1421 

Congress intended that that conduct constituted a violation of the 
Smith Act. I don't see why we have to wait until they cut the cables, 

Mr. Doyle. If secretly, and yet systematically spending its time and 
money and effort to get control of a labor union in a sensitive posi- 
tion to control domestic and international communication whenever 
they wanted to 

Mr. ScHERER. For purposes of sabotage. 

Mr. Doyle. For the purposes of the Communist Party, whatever 
they might be at the time, that they wanted to exercise — -if that isn't 
action, what is action ? 

Now, may I ask this question : Was the definite policy of the Com- 
munist Party while you were in the field of communications to control 
that union for the purpose of controlling the communications systems 
on which the union was working. Was that policy ever announced 
publicly to the union membership ? 

Mr. AliGNON. No, sir. 

Mr. Doyle. It was not? 

Mr. MiGNON. Of course not. Because if such a policy had been 
announced to the members of the union, and since the vast majority of 
the members of ACA, as it has been amply testified, are loyal Ameri- 
cans, they would rise up in arms and throw these people out. The 
fact of the matter is that these were policies explained only to the 
members of the Communist Party, not for the purpose of explaining 
it to the members of the union, who were not members of the Com- 
munist Party. 

Mr. Arens. That is the Communist fractions within ACA? 

Mr. MiGNON. That is right. 

Mr. Doyle. Then am I correct that the selection of these union 
officers by the union members to positions of leadership in the union 
was done without revealing to the membership of the union that they 
were Communist conspirators and Communist Party leaders ? 

Mr. MiGNON. Communist Party members. 

Mr. Doyle. In other words, it was not disclosed. 

Mr. MiGNON. It was not disclosed to the members of the ACA that 
any of these officers or leaders were members of the Communist 
Party. As a matter of fact, I believe that the records of Congress 
are replete with the denial on the part of the officers of the ACA to 
state whether they ever were members of the Communist Party or 
whether they are today members of the Communist Party. They 
have sought the protection of the fifth amendment or the first amend- 
ment. 

Mr. ScHERER. "What you say has been generally true with reference 
to all unions that have been Communist dominated. There were only 
a few, a handful at the top, controlling them, and the large bulk of 
the membership, as you also say, were loyal Americans who had no 
knowledge of the fact that their leaders were members of the Com- 
munist Party or had such objectives as you say the leaders of the 
Communications Union had at the time you were a member of the 
party. 

Mr. Doyle. Now, right at that point, I have before me here the 
full text of the United States of America v. 8eymo%ir Peck^ which was 
a court decision right in this district. 

Mr. Scherer. That Youngdahl decision? 

Mr. Doyle, I am looking for it. 



1422 COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILmES 

Mr. ScHERER. I will have to take the fifth amendment before com- 
menting: on that decision. 

Mr. Doyle. Well, don't say it is all bad. Because here is a good 
statement, that is included in it, and I think it is very pertinent. I 
will just read two sentences that I think are pertinent, right along 
the line of this witness' testimony, because certainly his testimony 
shows that that was a secret conspiracy of the Communist Party to 
control the union for subversive purposes. And here is what Judge 
Youngdahl said, within the last 2 weeks : 

For the Communist movement now constitutes a criminal conspiracy, and 
identifying members of the party may well be necessary under certain such 
circumstances. 

Mr. ScHERER. But Judge Youngdahl in that opinion, Mr. Doyle, I 
respectfully point out, said that this witness here today, if he didn't 
want to cooperate and do the fine job that he is for his Government, 
could sit here and refuse to tell us who were in the party with him at 
the time he was a member of the party. He could invoke the first 
amendment and refuse to tell us. That is what Judge Youngdahl said 
in that opinion. Of course, he is following the Supreme Court. 

Mr. Doyle, I am reading you the exact language of Judge Young- 
dahl on this one statement, and I think it is very pertinent and very 
apropos. 

I am reading you what he said on this one point, showing that be- 
ginning away back between 1936 and 1940, when you were in the 
party, there was that criminal conspiracy, and the judge held 2 weeks 
ago that there still is a "criminal conspiracy" in the Communist Party. 

Mr. ScHERER. We all know that. We don't need a judge to tell 
us that. 

Mr. Doyle. But the judge agreed with us in this case. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Mignon, what was the name which you used in 
the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Mignon. I believe it was Paul Leonard. 

Mr. Doyle. And that was a secret name, only known by other 
Communists ? 

Mr. MiGNON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Doyle. You didn't get mail that way at your home? 

Mr. MiGNON. No, sir. 

Mr. Doyle. You didn't vote that way ? 

Mr. MiGNON. I never did receive any mail at my home. 

Mr. Doyle. You didn't draw any pay under that name ? 

Mr. Mignon. No, sir. 

Mr. Doyle. You didn't do anything except act as a Communist 
imder that name ? 

Mr. MiGNON. I was advised that it would be wiser to join the Com- 
munist Party under a fictitious name rather than under my own 
name. 

Mr. Doyle. Thank you very much for your very helpful assistance 
to the Congress in understanding these problems as they relate to 
possible remedial legislation in this field of communications or any 
other field which is pertinent. 

Mr. Mignon. Thank you. 

Mr. Doyle. And thank you, Counsel, for coming. We are always 
glad to have counsel here. 

Mr. Arens. The next witness is Mr. Joseph Finsmith. 



COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 1423 

Mr. DoTLE. Do you solemnly swear that you will tell the truth, 
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 
Mr. FiNSMiTH. I do. 
Mr. Doyle. Will you take the witness chair ? 

TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH TINSMITH 

Mr. Arens. Kindly identify yourself by name, residence, and 
occupation. 

Mr. FiNSMiTH. My name is Joseph Finsmith, 5 Ridge Eoad, Sear- 
ingtown, Long Island, N. Y. I am manager of the personal service 
bureau, RCA Communications, Inc. 

Mr. Arens. Kindly give us, if you please, Mr. Finsmith, just a 
brief thumbnail sketch of your own personal background, with par- 
ticular emphasis upon your employment experience in the communi- 
cations industry. 

Mr. Finsmith. I left the silk house in 1928 to work for RCA Com- 
munications in the capacity of a telephone recorder. I assumed the 
managership of the personal service bureau in 1945. 

Mr. Arens. Have you continuously been employed in that capacity 
ever since ? 

Mr. Finsmith. I have. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Finsmith, have you ever been a member of the 
Communist Party ? 

Mr. Finsmith. I was. 

Mr. Arens. Kindly tell us where and when you joined the Com- 
munist Party. 

Mr. Finsmith. I joined in late 1937. I approached one, I believe, 
Howard Trautman, although I hope my memory is serving me cor- 
rectly, of my own volition ; and I left the party in 1939. 

Mr. Arens. What party name did you use when you were a member 
of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. FiNSMPTH. Joe Dall. 

Mr. Arens. Was your disassociation from the Communist Party 
wholly voluntary on your part ? 

Mr. Finsmith. It was. 

Mr. Arens. "Where were you assigned, or in what cell were you 
active, in the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Finsmith. It was in the cell of RCA Communications, and 
sometimes the cell would meet with that of Western Union or other 
groups in the industry when there weren't enough people to attend 
meetings. 

Mr. Arens. And where was that ? In what city ? 

Mr. Finsmith. It would be in New York City. 

Mr. Arens. Did you hold any office or post in the Communist Party, 
or were you just another member ? 

Mr. Finsmith. Just another member. 

Mr. Arens. Did you, during the course of your membership in the 
Communist Party, serve in closed Communist Party meetings in which 
only comrades were admitted ? 

Mr. Finsmith. There were a few of them. 

Mr. Arens. During the course of your membership in the Com- 
munist Party, did you have occasion to know to a certainty other 
persons as Communists ? 



1424 COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 

Mr. FiNSMiTH. I did. 

Mr. Arens. I shall call off to you, Mr. Finsmith, the names of cer- 
tain persons and ask you to tell us whether or not, to a moral certainty, 
jou knew them as members of the Communist Party, and if so, give 
us a word of identification with respect to each one of them. 

First, if you please, sir, Mr. Joseph Selly. 

Mr. Doyle. May I lay the same foundation for this witness' testi- 
mony that I undertook to lay for the last witness ? 

In other Avords, will your answer to these questions when you answer 
affirmatively, be based upon the fact that you have sat in closed Com- 
munist cell meetings with these individuals'^ 

Mr. Finsmith. Yes. 

Mr. Doyle. And for that reason you can positively identify them 
as Communists known to you at that time ? 

Mr. Finsmith. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Doyle. Thank you. 

Mr. Arens. Joseph Selly. 

Mr. Finsmith. He was at that time a vice president, I believe, of 
ACA. 

Mr. Arens. And did you know him as a Communist ? 

Mr. Finsmith. Yes. 

INIr. Arens. Howard Vincent Trautman. 

Mr. Finsmith. He was at that time, I believe, president of Local 10. 

Mr. Arens. Then did you know him as a Communist ? 

INIr. Finsmith. Yes. 

Mr. Arens. Geraldine Shandros? 

Mr. Finsmith. I knew her to be one. I believe she was secretary to 
Mr. Rathborne. of the national office, at the time. 

Mr. Arens. National office of what? 

Mr. FiNSMTTH. ACA. 

Mr. Arens. Lillian Lagos? 

Mr. FiNSMiTiT. I knew her to be one, employed by Western Union; 
in what capacity, I don't know. 

Mr. Arens. Charles Silberman ? 

Mr. FiNSiMiTH. He was the editor of the ACA Xews at the time, and 
a Communist. 

Mr. Arens. Louis Jenkins? 

]Mr. Finsmith. He was an employee of RCA and an operator at the 
time. 

Mr. Arens. And you knew him as a Communist ? 

Mr. Finsmith. Yes. 

Mr. Arens. Jewel Hobbs? 

Mr. Finsmith. Yes ; I Imew him as one. He was an operator at the 
time, RCA Communications. 

]\Ir. Arens. Maiy Crook ? 

Mr. Finsmith. Her name is Cooke. 

Mr. Arens. I be^r your pardon. Cooke. 

Mr. Finsmith. Globe Wireless. I don't know what capacity. 

Mr. Arens. Did you know her as a Communist? 

Mr. Finsmith. At that time. 

Mr Arens. Joseph Kehoe ? 

Mr. Finsmith. Yes. I think he was a full-time officer of the Ameri- 
can Communications Association at the time. I don't remember what 
capacity. 



COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 1425 

Mr. Arens. Louis J. Stallone? 

Mr. FiNSMiTH. I don't remember what capacity he worked at in 
EGA at the time. He was an operator or a clerk. I forget which. 

Mr. Arens. Was he a Communist ? 

Mr. FiNSMiTH. Yes. 

Mr. Arens. And where was he employed? 

Mr. FiNSMiTH. In KCA Communications. 

Mr. Arens. Mervyn Rathborne? 

Mr. FiNSMiTH. He was president of the American Communications 
Association at the time. 

Mr. Arens. Did you know him as a comrade or as a Communist? 

Mr. FiNSMiTH. Yes. 

Mr. Arens. Josephine Timms? 

Mr. FiNSMiTH. She was with Postal Telegraph at tlie time. I knew 
her to be one. 

Mr. Arens. Louis Siebenberg. 

Mr. FiNSMiTH. Yes. At that time. Postal Telegraph local. 

Mr. Doyle. He hasn't added that he knew him as a Communist. 

Mr. FiNSMiTH. Yes ; I said that. 

Mr. Doyle. I beg your pardon. 
« ****** 

Mr. Arens. But with reference to the other persons, you are testi- 
fying under oath here and now that you Imew them to be members of 
the Communist Party ; is that correct ? 

Mr. FiNSMiTH. Yes. 

Mr. Arens. Are you in a position to appraise for the committee the 
importance the Communist Party attached to infiltrating and con- 
trolling the communications industry ? 

Mr. FiNSMiTH. I wasn't in the higher echelon; so I suppose some of 
the things that Mr. Mignon said weren't couA^eyed to me. The only 
thing that was conveyed to me was to strengthen the j^arty in the com- 
munications industry as far as I could ; in other words, to recruit new 
members if I possibly could. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Finsmith, your voice was low there, and I could 
not hear it. Perhaps the committee could not hear, either. 

Mr. Scherer. He said he was at the lower echelons of the party, and 
some of the things that were conveyed to Mr. Mignon were not con- 
veyed to him. 

Mr. Finsmith. If they were conveyed, I was never at the meeting 
at which they were conveyed. The theme was to strengthen the party, 
to get as many members in the communications industry as possible. 

Mr. Doyle. JNIay I interject there? You say the thing was to 
strengthen the party. How about strengthening the union? 

Mr. Finsmith. Well, it was assumed that by strengthening the 
union you would be strengthening the party, and vice versa. 

Mr. Arens. Did you have information respecting the number of 
persons who were Communists in the communications industry during 
your service in the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Finsmith. No, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Did you recruit people into the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Finsmith. I don't recall recruiting one. 

Mr. Arens. Do you know whether or not radio operators or opera- 
ting technicians within HCA have access to the confidential or re- 
stricted messages which are sent over RCA facilities ? 



142G COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 

Mr. FiNSMiTH. I can't, frankly, answer that question. I don't know 
what jobs they are assigned to. In other words, their assignment may 
be such that they are isolated from handling messages as part of the 
job. In other words, that may not be part of their job at the time. 
What it was at that time — if I mentioned the fellow was an operator, 
he would have had access at that time. If he were a technician at 
that time, he may have had access at that time. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Finsmith, I think that the committee ought to 
know that you were reluctant to testify publicly because of fear of some 
repercussions against yourself. 

Mr. Finsmith. That is right. 

Mr. Arens. People would say bad things about you. 

Mr. FiNSMriH. That is right. 

Mr. Arens. And, on behalf of the staff, I want to compliment you 
for the courage you have displayed today and in the staff consultations 
we have had with you in giving us this information. 

Mr. Doyle. And I do it very gladly on behalf of the committee. 
We happen to be Congressmen, but nice things are said about us — 
only I do not mean nice — because we have the responsibility of work- 
ing on this committee. There are very unpleasant, unkind, untrue, 
and unfair statements that have been made, and if those have been 
made about you, just know that you have plenty of company, and we 
congratulate you on having the guts and the backbone to come and help 
your own United States Congress. 

Mr. Arens. Is there any other item of information, Mr. Finsmith, 
which you would like to present to the committee now ? 

Mr. Finsmith. Well, simply this : that listening to Mr. Mignon's 
testimony, of course, he, having been in the higher echelons, would 
know more about Communist policy at the time than I would. 

I don't think that some of the things that were said were conveyed 
to the actual lower echelons of the party. As such, we would have no 
public knowledge of these policies. 

Mr. Arens. We thank you very much, Mr. Finsmith, for appearing 
today. 

Mr. DoTLE. The committee will stand in recess until 10 o'clock 
tomorrow morning when we will hear the other witnesses subpenaed. 

("Wliereupon, at 3 p. m., Wednesday, July 17, the hearing was ad- 
journed until 10 a. m. Thursday, July 18, 1957.) 



INVESTIGATION OF C0M3IUNIST PENETRATION OF 
COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES— PART I 



THURSDAY, JULY 18, 1957 

United States House of Representatives, 

Subcommittee of the 
Committee on Un-American Acti\t;ties, 

Washington, D. G. 

PUBLIC HEARING 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10 : 08 a. m., in the 
Caucus Room, Old House Office Building, Washington, D. C, Hon. 
■Clyde Doyle (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Committee members present : Representatives Clyde Doyle, of Cali- 
fornia (presiding), James B. Frazier, Jr., of Tennessee, and Gordon 
H. Scherer, of Ohio. 

Staff members present : Richard Arens, director ; Frank S. Taven- 
ner, Jr., counsel; and W. Jackson Jones and Louis J. Russell, 
investigators. 

Mr. DoTLE. The committee will please come to order. 

May the record show that the full membership of the subcommittee 
is present: Mr. Frazier, of Tennessee; Mr. Scherer, of Ohio; and 
Tnyself, Doyle, of California, subcommittee chairman. 

Are you ready, Mr. Arens ? 

Mr. Arens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Doyle. Please proceed. 

Mr. Arens. The first witness, if you please, Mr. Chairman, will be 
Mr. Frank Grimiman. 

Mr. Grumman, would you kindly come forward, please? Remain 
standing while the chairman administers the oath to you, Mr. 
Grumman. 

Mr. DoTLE. Do you solemnly swear you will tell the truth, the whole 
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Grumman. I do. 

Mr. Doyle. Please have the witness chair. 

TESTIMONY OF FRANK GRUMMAN, ACCOMPANIED BY LEONARD B. 

BOTJDIN, COUNSEL 

Mr. Arens. Kindly identify yourself by name, residence, and 
•occupation. 

Mr. Grumman. I am Frank Grumman, 410 Park Place, Fort Lee, 
^. J., and my occupation is radio operator. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Grumman, may we be sure we have your name 
spelled correctly? Kindly accommodate us by spelling your name. 

1427 



1428 COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 

Mr. Grumman. The last name? 

Mr. Arens. Yes. 

Mr. Grumman. G-r-ii-m-m-a-n. 

Mr. Arens. You are appearing today, Mr. Grumman, in response- 
to a subpena which was served upon you by the House Committee on 
Un-American Activities ? 

(Witness conferred with counsel.) 

Mr. Grummax. Tlie answer is "Yes." I am appearing in answer 
to a subpena which was objected to, the jvirisdiction of the committee 
in the body of the statement which I would like to present at this 
time. 

Mr. Arens. Just a minute, Mr. Grumman. You are represented 
by counsel ? 
" Mr. Grumman. I am. 

Mr. Arens. Counsel, kindly identify yourself. 

Mr. BouDiN. My name is Leonard B. Boudin, of 25 Broad Street,. 
New York City. 

And I should like to address the question to the chairman of the 
subcommittee with respect to the procedure this morning. 

May I inquire whether, in the light of the Watkins case, the com- 
mittee will be permitting objections to be made by counsel or a state- 
ment by counsel as to tJfie jurisdiction of the committee or whether 
the procedure will be as in the period prior to the Watkins decision,, 
when only the witnesses were heard, because if counsel can be heard 
I have certain things that I would like to say. 

Mr. Doyle. No. This is still not a court, Mr. Boudin, and I do not 
think that the Watkins decision has changed the nature of this 
committee. 

This committee is an investigative committee; it is not a court of 
law. While we will, as far as I am concerned, undertake, naturally, 
to comply with the ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States 
in the Watkins case, we will proceed as an investigative committee. 
We do not abandon our rules, which were necessary before the Watkins 
case and are still necessary, which specify that the function of counsel 
with the witness is to advise his client and does not permit of counsel 
addressing the committee, arguing with us. I am a lawyer, as you 
know. All three members of this subcommittee are lawyers, and 
practiced many years before we first came here. We always feel 
we like to have the benefit of counsel talking with us, but we do 
not change our rules in that regard on account of the Watkins 
decision. 

Mr. Arens, Now, ]Mr. Grumman 

Mr. Boudin. Excuse me one second. 

May I simply note for the record, then, my objections as to the 
course the committee indicated they would follow, so my client's rights 
may be protected ? 

Mr. Doyle. Your client's rights, I am sure, will be protected by 
you, and still I want to make my ruling clear, Counsel. 

Our rule has not changed, in our judgment, with the Watkins 
decision, and we are not now interpreting that decision, as far as 
I am concerned, as requiring us to permit counsel to argue with the 
committee. 

Mr. Arens. Now, Mr. Grumman, would you kindly tell us where you: 
are employed ? 



COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 1429 

Mr. BouDiN. Excuse me one second, Mr. Arens. 

Mr. ScHERER. I have heard enough from Mr. Boudin, Mr. Chair- 
man. I object to any further conversation from Mr. Boudin. 

Mr. Boudin. May I address the Chair and ask one more question ? 

Mr. Doyle. I will permit you to ask one more question. 

Mr. ScHERER. I object. 

Mr. Boudin. My only question is that : Do I take it your ruling 
which is quite clear with respect to objection and argument, extends 
to asking of any questions by me of you? In other words, am I 
permitted to ask you any questions on behalf of m}'' client? 

Mr. Doyle. You are not. My ruling is that you are not. The 
rule long established by the committee, with which you have been fa- 
miliar for many years, is not changed, in our judgment, by the Wat- 
kins decision. Your jurisdiction before this investigative committee, 
it not being a court, is limited expressly by the rules of the committee, 
with which you are familiar for many years, to advising your client. 

Mr. Arens. Now, Mr. Grumman, kindly tell this committee where 
you are employed. 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Grumman. I would like to address myself to the chairman. I 
have, as I said, a statement which I would like to read. 

Mr. Arens. Now, Mr. Grumman, may I ask you about that state- 
ment? The rules of this committee provide that any statement of a 
witness must be filed in advance with the committee; tlien the com- 
mittee will determine whether or not it is incorporated in the record. 
Are you aware of those rules ( 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Doyle. May I suggest to the witness that you speak a little 
bit louder, and perhaps more directly into the loudspeaker, so we will 
be sure to hear you ? 

Mr. Grumman. I am quite willing to do that. Is the speaker posi- 
tion adequate? 

Mr. Doyle. Thank you. 

Mr. Grumman. This statement is primarily a statement of objec- 
tions to tlie jurisdiction of tlie committee and, since it is, for my mind, 
a little bit complicated, I would like to be allowed to state it concretely 
and clearly, once completely, and not try to do it piecemeal. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully suggest that, pursuant 
to the rules of the committee, Mr. Grumman be permitted to file the 
statement, and the committee will take it under advisement. 

Mr. Doyle. I think that would be sufficient. You have registered 
your objection to the jurisdiction of this committee, in view of the 
Watkins decision, we understan-d that, in the statement that you pre- 
pared but have not submitted heretofore, in accordance with the iiiles 
of the committee. We would be glad to permit you to file it with 
your testimony, with the committee. 
(Counsel conferred with the witness.) 

Mr, Grumman. Mr. Chairman, I don't want to engage in an argu- 
ment with the committee. Tlie point here is that this position, I 
think, is necessary for me to take. I will have to state it somehow 
or other in order to make it clear for the record, and it would be sim- 
pler, I think, if I were permitted to make the statement once, clearly^ 
so it is understood by everybody, and not piecemeal. 



1430 COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 

Mr. DoTX,E. Your statement will be included in your testimony. I 
have stated before, we are not a court of law. We are proceeding 
under the direction of tlie instructions of the full committee, the Un- 
American Activities Committee, and you have your recourse in a court 
of law if you think this committee has no jurisdiction. We think 
that we have. This is an investigation, and there is no need of you 
taking 15 or 20 minutes to read a prepared statement on objections. 
We will be glad to accept them and place them with your testimony in 
the file. 

Mr. Grumman. The statement, sir, is quite brief, and will not take 
a great amount of time to put in the record and, as an answer to 
some of the questions which I anticipate will be raised, I will have 
to read, certainly, portions of the statement to answer. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Grumman, kindly tell this committee where you 
are employed. 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Grumman. I am currently employed by RCA Communications, 
Inc., and temporarily in leave of absence for union work. 

Mr. Doyle. I cannot hear you. 

Mr. Aeens. Keep your voice up. I could not hear that last part. 

Mr. Grumman. I will repeat that, sir. I am employed by RCA 
Communications, Inc., and I am temporarily on leave of absence from 
that company for union work. 

Mr. Frazier. I caimot understand a word he says. 

Mr. Doyle. I wonder if the loudspeaker system is working. 

Mr. Frazier. It is nothing but a mumble. 

Mr. Doyle. The speaker is working. Thank you for trying again 
on that. 

Mr. Grumman. I am supposed to be an expert on this kind of thing, 
but, really, I am not. Is this more adequate, sir ? 

Mr. Doyle. It is better. 

Mr. Grumman. Shall I repeat ? 

Mr. Doyle. Please ; yes. 

Mr. Grumman. I am employed by RCA Communications, Inc., and 
I am currently on leave of absence for union work. 

Mr. Arens. How long have you been employed by RCA Communi- 
•cations ? 

Mr. Grumman. Something over 25 years. 

Mr. Arens. In what capacities have you been employed ? 

Mr. Grumman. Always as a radio operator. 

Mr. Arens. And where have you been employed ? 

Mr. Grumman. Always in New York City. 

Mr. Arens. And can you give us just a word about the functions 
which you have engaged in in your employment at RCA ? 

Mr. Grumman. I take it you mean what is the work of a radio op- 
erator ? That is all I have done. 

Mr. Arens. Just a word of description about your functions. 

Mr. Grumman. A radio operator is a man trained in code, in Morse 
code, American Morse code, sometimes mostly international Morse 
code, because that is used in radio, and the job is simply that of tran- 
scribing that code, either by ear or from tape, onto message forms, 
in various manner. In later years I am also employed on such auto- 
matic equipment as may be on those same circuits. 



COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 1431 

Mr. Arens. Do you or have you, at any time during the course of 
your employment at RCA, had access to any confidential or restricted 
information ? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Grumman. I don't think so. 

Mr. Arens. Have you had access to any messages which have crossed 
the facilities of RCA, messages from any agency of the United States 
Government ? 

Mr. Grumman. Well, going back over the years, I would say "Yes," 
I would handle any Government traffic that went over that partic- 
ular — whatever particular circuit I was assigned to. 

Mr. Arens. Did you have access to any confidential Government 
messages ? 

Mr. Grumman. I have no way of knowing what is confidential ; the 
message comes ; you handle it ; there is no designation that I know of 
that lets you know whether it is confidential or not. 

Mr. Arens. Before I forget about it, you had this statement, Mr. 
Grumman. Do you care to cause that to be filed, before we leave that 
subject, the statement you were alluding to here ? 

Mr. Grumman. At the close of my testimony we will act on that 
point. I mean I have only one copy, and I need the copy during the 
course of the testimony. Therefore, I will have to retain it. 

Mr. Arens. Where are you presently employed ? I understand you 
to say you are on leave of absence ? 

Mr. Grumman. I am currently on temporary leave of absence for 
union work. 

Mr. Arens. What union is that? 

Mr. Grumman. The American Communications Association. 

Mr. Arens. What is your connection at the present time with the 
American Communications Association? 

Mr. Grumman. I am an oflBcer of Local 10. 

Mr. Arens. What office do you hold ? 

Mr. Grumman. The office of secretary-treasurer. 

Mr. Arens. And how long have you held that office ? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Grumman. As near as I can recollect, I was first elected to the 
office of secretary-treasurer in the early part of 1943. 

Mr. Arens. Have you held it continuously since that time ? 

Mr. Grumman. I think — yes ; continuously, except for 1 term where 
I held the office, I believe, of president for 1 term. 

Mr. Arens. What is the jurisdiction of Local 10, ACA ? Could you 
tell us that? 

Mr. Grumman. Well, generally, as far as our union charter is con- 
cerned, the jurisdiction of Local 10 would be any radio or international 
radio or cable workers whom we could organize in the general area of 
the United States east of the Mississippi River. I believe that is the 
break. 

Mr. Arens. Could you help us on this : Where are the members of 
Local 10 employed, in what plant, or in what plants ? 

Mr. Grumman. Well, the great bulk of the members of Local 10, the 
largest single group would be employed by RCA Communications in 
New York City. 

Mr. Arens. And how many members are there of Local 10 ? 

94781— 57— pt. 1 6 



1432 coMMTnsrrsT penetration of communications facilities 

Mr. Grumman. Well, I mean you have to take an approximate 
figure. 

JNIr. Arens. Surely, I appreciate that. 

Mr. Grumman. I believe that the membership at this point is some- 
thing around 1,300 total. 

Mr. Arens. And who is the president of Local 10 ? 

Mr. Grumman. The president of the local is Mr. Louis Stallone. 

Mr. Arens. Now, Mr. Grunnnan, yesterday a gentleman by the name 
of Michael Mignon testified under oath that he had at one time be^n 
a member of the Communist Party, that while he was a member of 
the Communist Party he knew a number of people as Communists. 
That he had served in closed Communist Party meetings with those 
persons. He also told us about certain of those persons who were 
employed in the vital communications industry of this Nation. 
Among those persons whom he said he had known as a member of the 
Communist Party was yourself, Frank Grumman. 

I now ask you, are you now a member of the Communist Party ? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Grumman. I am sorry but I must decline to answer that ques- 
tion, and to explain the reasons why, the basis on which I do that I 
would have to go into some of the questions in the statement which go 
solely to that question. 

I have conferred with counsel, in the light of the decisions of the 
United States Supreme Court 

Mr. Arens. You are reading from an extensive document that is 
presently before you. 

Mr. Grumman. It is not an extensive document. 

Mr. Arens. It appears to be approximately two pages, typewritten, 
isn't that correct? 

Mr. Grumman. I can't explain my answer without going into all 
of this. 

Mr. Arens. Kindly answer this collateral question : 

Is the document before you a document prepared by yourself ? 

Mr. Gru3iman. The document which is before me was prepared in 
conference with counsel. 

Mr. Arens. And it is a document of approximately two pages, single 
spaced, typewritten ? 

Mr. Grumman. It is a document which I am sure I can read 

Mr. Arens. Kindly answer that question, Mr. Grumman. 

Mr. Grumman. Yes. 

Mr. Arens. About how long is the document, so this record will 
reflect what you are doing there? 

(Counsel conferred with the witness.) 

jMr. Grumman. Well, I think, sir, that I have to ask the chairman 
to permit me to state my reasons for refusing to answer. I think it is 
essential that I have to have a reasonable opportunity to state my 
position, why I am doing this, and a reasonable opportunity to pro- 
tect my rights in this situation. 

^<h\ Arens. Mr. Grumman, may I ask a preliminary question there? 

Is your refusal to answer this particular question based upon the 
grounds incorporated in the document which you presently have before 
you, which we have discussed previously on this record? 

(Counsel conferred with the witness.) 



COMIMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 1433 

Mr. Grumman. This document is the statement of my objections, 
my reasons for refusing to answer the question, and I again ask the 
Chair to permit me to state my position. 

Mr. Arens. Now, Mr. Chairman, I want to make an objection on 
this record from the standpoint of a possible precedent here. 

If this witness is permitted to read this extensive statement single 
spaced, apparently two pages long, in response to every pertinent 
question which we propose to ask him, the investigative processes of 
this and every other committee will be interminably impeded. 

I therefore respectfully suggest, Mr. Chairman, that in view of the 
fact the witness has this extensive document which he says was pre- 
pared in consultation with counsel, if the witness so desires, he allude 
to the document as his reasons, but be obliged to give a summary of 
those reasons in response to the outstanding question. 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

JNIr. Doyle. As soon as the witness is through consulting with his 
counsel I will make the ruling. 

Mr. Grumman. Mr. Chairman, this is a very summarized statement 
in itself. It is compact. I have no intention of trying to repeat it, 
unless I am required to do so. I believe that since I have presented 
it, its further 

Mr. Doyle. You are thoroughly familiar with that statement. 
Can't you give the summation of that statement as your objections? 

Mr. Grumman. Sir, I cannot readily do so. It is in a summary 
form, a compact statement. 

Mr. Arens. Then, Mr. Chairman, I respectfully suggest the witness 
be obliged to file the statement, so the work of this committee and 
other congressional committees using this case as a precedent, will not 
be interminably hindered. 

Mr. Doyle. I believe the standing rule of the committee is a fair 
rule, that any prepared statement that the witness proposes to read 
should be first filed with the committee. I am not willing to under- 
take to suspend that rule of the committee. 

You are familiar with it. Your counsel has been familiar with it 
for years ; therefore if you want to file that statement with the com- 
mittee you are welcome to do so, even at this late date, but I do now 
ask you to comply with the rule of the committee, which is a mani- 
festly reasonable rule. You were familiar with it before you came. 

(Counsel conferred with the witness.) 

Mr. Arens. Would you kindly proceed to answer the question, Mr. 
Grumman ? We have been in a state of consultation between you and 
your lawyer here now at least 5 or 6 minutes. 

Mr. Grumman. I honestly didn't think it was that long, sir. But, 
trying to summarize this thing, which is extremely difficult, and with- 
out waiving any rights which I may have in this situation, I would 
like to read, in an effort to summarize this thing, the first and last 
paragraphs of the statement, which I believe — while I don't think they 
are completely adequate, I believe they state some of the essences of 
the position. 

Mr. Doyle. May I make this clear to the witness : We want you to 
have an adequate opportunity to state your objections in answer to 
that question. You have indicated that by reading a small portion 
of this two-page prepared statement — you go ahead and read those 
two, if it will help you in making your statement of objections. 



1434 COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 

Mr. Arens. Do you understand the question which is outstanding? 

Mr. DoTLE. But with this understanding, that you are offering that 
statement to the committee as part of your testimony. In other words, 
we have no objection to offering that statement to the committee, 
and it has been so stated before, twice. 

Naturally, if you are going to refer to the statement, we want it 
filed. If you are going to read from it that is entirely proper and 
reasonable, if the statement is filed with us. 

Mr. Akens. Let the record be sure the witness understands the 
question. 

Now, Mr. Grumman, do you understand the question outstanding is : 
"Are you now a Communist?" You understand that is the outstand- 
ing question. 

Mr. Grumman. I understand the question perfectly. 

I would like just to understand the statement of the Chair clearly 
Also. 

My intention was to read the entire statement and then to refer to 
that, certain kinds of questions might be answered, and I thought 
that would facilitate the whole jjrocedure, I think you are making it 
more difficult for me by not permitting the entire statement to be read. 

Mr. Frazier. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire whether the witness has 
declined to answer that question ? 

Mr. Arens. No. We are just still waiting for his response, Mr. 
Frazier. 

Mr. Grumman. Well then, to answer that question, I would decline 
to answer it, and to state the reasons why, and I would read these two 
paragraphs which I thirik are not completely adequate, but which I 
do believe state the objections here. 

Mr. Doyle. Then we will have this understanding, Witness. In 
addition to reading that small portion of a long prepared statement, 
you are welcome to supplement that reading by your own additional 
statement, if you feel you want to, if you believe it is pertinent, and 
a competent statement. In other words, we don't want to cut you off 
from making your complete statement. 

Mr. Grumman. Well, sir 

(Counsel conferred with the witness.) 

Mr. Grumman. I suppose I should proceed to read, and if you think 
I am wrong, cut me off', and I will go 

Mr. Doyle. No. You read the two summarizing paragraphs that 
you have stated probably smnmarize your written statement. 

Mr. Grumman. No; I am not reading them as a summary of the 
statement. I am reading them as explaining my reasons for declining 
to answer a specific question. I don't think I can proceed any other 
way here. 

Mr. Doyle. Go ahead and read your two paragraphs. 

Mr. Grumman. Right. 

I first stated that I decline to answer the question that was asked, 
and I wish to read the following : 

I have conferred with counsel, in the light of the decisions of the United States 
Supreme Court in the Watkins' and Sweezy cases. I am advised by counsel that 
the powers of this committee are strictly limited, especially when the committee 
seeks to compel a witness to testify "about his beliefs, expressions, or associa- 
tions." Such questioning, said the Court, constitutes governmental interfer- 
ence with free speech, press, and assembly. 



COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 1435 

The Court further pointed out that a committee may not call witnesses just 
to expose or punish them, but only for a necessary legislative purpose. So, said 
the Court, the protected freedoms of free speech and assembly "should not be 
placed in danger in the absence of a clear determination by the House or the 
Senate that a particular inquiry is justified by a specific legislative need." 

And so, with all respect to this committee, acting on the advice of counsel, I 
shall decline to answer questions concerning my beliefs, expressions, or asso- 
ciations, on the ground that such questioning constitutes an interference with 
my rights under the first amendment to the Constitution and that such question- 
ing is beyond the jurisdiction of the committee. The enabling resolution itself is 
an unlawful delegation of power to the committee. Moreover, I do not believe 
that any such questioning can be pertinent to any legitimate inquiry by the 
committee under its enabling resolution. 

Mr. Arens. Now, Mr. Grumman, I want to advise you that this 
committee is considering legislation, considering the possibility of 
legislation which might implement the Communist Control Act of 
1954. 

The Communist Control Act of 1954 precludes the certification by 
the National Labor Eelations Board of an organization which is found 
by the Subversive Activities Control Board to be Communist 
infiltrated. 

This committee is likewise considering whether or not there should 
be amendments to the Internal Security Act or the Communist Con- 
trol Act or the creation of a new act for the purpose of precluding 
access to vital facilities by persons who are Communists who may 
engage in espionage or sabotage of vital communications facilities. 

I am not in this question undertaking to elicit from you anything 
of your beliefs, of your associations, or your expressions. This record 
at the present time shows that you, Frank Grumman, have been iden- 
tified as a person known to have been a member of the Communist 
Party, you have told on this record that you are or have been employed 
as a radio operator in a vital communications facility. 

I therefore now ask you again this question : Are you now a Com- 
munist ? 

Mr. Doyle. Now, counsel, as further foundation, to show the per- 
tinency of this question, I have before me the full text of the recent 
decision by the United States District Judge Youngdahl, in case of 
TJ. S. of AmeHca v. Seymour Peck, criminal case No. 1214-56, decided 
here in the United States district court within the last 15 days, in 
which the Federal court said, amongst other things : 

For the Communist movement now constitutes a criminal conspiracy, and 
identifying members of the party may well be necessary under certain circum- 
stances. 

(Counsel conferred with the witness.) 

Mr. Doyle. Now, one further statement : 

You testified that you are a member of the very same organization 
which Mr. Mignon, the witness yesterday before this committee, under 
oath testified. You testified you were one-time president of the same 
organization which he related yesterday under oath. On yesterday 
he testified that your union was dominated and controlled by the Com- 
munist Partj^, which Jud^e Youngdahl ruled within the last 15 days 
was now a criminal conspiracy. 



1436 COIMMTJNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 

And here is what lie said, as a member of the very union that you 
are a member of, and apparently have been for many years, a member 
of that same union : 

I was told and taught that only a Communist could be a good trade union- 
ist. 

The eventual objective was when and if revolution came to change our form 
of government, that the Communists would be in a position to control communi- 
cations facilities of the Nation. 

I wish to say as subcommittee chairman, I think it is entirely pertinent 
and proper that we ask you whether or not you are a member of the 
Communist Party, for the purpose of this investigation. 

Mr. Arens. Now, Mr. Cliairman, I wish to supplement even that 
statement, by one other statement, so that this record will be abun- 
dantly clear. 

Namely, Mr. Grumman, if you are now a Communist, you could 
tell this committee, in all probability, of directives from the Commu- 
nist Party to Communists respecting the vital communications facili- 
ties of this Nation. If you are now a Communist you could tell this 
committee of the techniques proposed by the Communist Party to seize 
the communications industry, to intercept messages, to sabotage com- 
munications in the event of war. 

Further, I think the record at this point might well, so it is abun- 
dantly clear, reflect the fact again that Mr. Mignon's identification of 
you as a Communist was some several years ago. Whether or not you 
are now a Communist does not appear in the record. 

Therefore, I repeat the question : 

Are you now a Communist ? 

And I respectfully suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the witness be 
ordered and directed to answer the question. 

Mr. DoTLE. You are ordered and directed to answer that question. 
I believe it is entirely pertinent. 

Mr. ScHERER. Mr. Chairman 

Mr. DoTLE. Before you do that I am again saying we expect you 
and ask you and direct you to file your statement with the committee. 
I permitted you to refer to it and read part of it. I am not going to 
permit you to violate the rules of this committee any further. 

Mr. BouDiN. Excuse me one moment. 

Mr. DoTLE. Yes, indeed. Take more than one moment. 

Mr. BouDiN. One will be enough. 

(Counsel conferred with the witness.) 

INIr. Arens. Mr. Scherer, we have been 45 minutes trying to get the 
witness to answer this 1 question. 

Mr. BouDiN. Could I be permitted to consult further for another 
moment ? 

Mr. Scherer. Now, Mr. Boudin, counsel was talking with me. 

Mr. BoTJDiN. I understand what counsel was saying about 45 min- 
utes. I would like to consult with the witness in accordance with 
the instructions by the chairman. 

Mr. Scherer. I want the record to show we have been 45 minutes 
trying to get the witness to answer this 1 question. 

Mr. BouDiN. It would have been 5 minutes if you would have 
allowed the witness to make a statement, exactly 5. 

Mr. Scherer. We are still running the committee, Mr. Boudin. 



COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 1437 

Mr. Doyle. Witness, may I make this clear, and I want you to un- 
derstand this before I require you to answer that question, whether or 
not you are a Communist now. You referred to a document, which 
you liave before you, and I stated, as I permitted you to read from a 
portion of it, tliat I expected it to be filed. 

We beheve it is entirely pertinent and proper that you do now file 
that statement so we can read it and consider it. I may want to make 
a ruling about it. 

You say you helped prepare it with the advice of legal counsel. 

Mr. Grumman. Well, I am in the position of having this one copy. 
I am perfectly willing to turn it over to be read. I would like to have 
it back because I want to refer to it. 

Mr. Doyle. Well, certainly, we want to consider it. That is the fair 
thing to you and the fair thing to us. 

Mr. Grumman. If you must consider it, there it is [handing docu- 
ment] . 

Mr. Arens. Would you kindly answer the question ? 

Mr. Scherer. Wait just a minute. 

Mr. Doyle. Wait until we read this, Mr. Arens. 

Mr. Frazier. It is a long thing. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Chairman, while the committee is considering that 
statement, I should like at this pont to read into the record rule IX of 
the committee, so there will not be construed to be here any waiver of 
the rule of the committee, even though the committee is now reading 
the statement. 

Mr BouDiN. Mr. Chairman, may I suggest we can't do two tilings 
at once ? 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Cliairman, rule IX reads as follows : 

A. Any witness desiring to make a prepared — 

Mr. BouDiN. If the chairman is reading the statement of the wit- 
ness, how can he be listening to Mr. Arens? 

Mr. Arens. Counsel knows his sole and exclusive prerogative is to 
advise his client. 

Mr. BouDiN. Go ahead and do both at one time, if you want. I am 
not going to interrupt. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Chairman, rule IX reads as follows: 

I want to read that into the record. 

IX. STATEMENT BY WITNESS 

A. Any witness desiring to make a prepared or written statement for ttie 
record of the proceedings in executive or public sessions shall file a copy of such 
statement with the counsel of the committee within a reasonable period of time 
in advance of the hearing at which the statement is to be presented. 

B. All such statements so received which are relevant and germane to the sub- 
ject of the investigation may, upon approval, at the conclusion of the testimony 
of the witness, by a majority vote of the committee or subcommittee members 
present, be inserted in the official transcript of the proceedings. 

Mr. Doyle. I will ask your indulgence another minute or two while 
we complete reading the statement. 

We have read the statement. Witness, which you quoted in part, 
and we see that it contains a considerable elaboration of the activities 
of your union, which we believe is not pertinent to your own individ- 
ual position in refusing to answer this question. 



1438 COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACIUnES 

We do not see where or how it is possible that the activities of your 
union are pertinent to your own individual situation in the presence of 
this question. 

We have considered all the other points set forth also in your state- 
ment. We will incorporate in the record only those portions of the 
statement which appear to be pertinent to your own individual posi- 
tion in the presence of this question and this investigation. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Chairman, at this point I should like this record to 
reflect a ruling by the Chair so that there will not be construed as a 
precedent a waiver of the rule of this committee which I have read, 
which requires a filing of these statements within reasonable time 
in advance of the proceedings of the committee. I say that for the 
reason that it is clear to me — and I believe it should be clear to any 
person who has had any experience in these congressional investiga- 
tions — that if witnesses from here on in are to be permitted to read 
or to consume the time of the committee in statements, the length of 
which we cannot control, proceedings of this and other congressional 
committees would be interminably hampered. 

Mr. DoTLE. I am sure the committee sustains our director or counsel 
in the reading of that rule, which is the text of the rule I have referred 
to previously. 

We have considered your statement. Witness, and I direct you to 
answer the question. I overrule your objection, and direct you to 
answer the question. 

Mr. Grumman. May I request the Chair to return the statement ? 

(Statement handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Grumman. Thank you. 

I would like to ask, in answering this question, I would like to ask, 
in view of the statement of Mr. Arens on the nature of the investiga- 
tion, I would like to ask under what resolution of the House the 
committee is taking up these matters. 

Mr. DoTLE. Under Public Law 601, with which your counsel has 
been perfectly familiar for several years. 

As long as you ask that question — at the suggestion of your counsel, 
manifestly — your counsel is perfectly familiar with the law under 
which we are acting, and I hope you do not deliberately and un- 
necessarily take the time of the committee, and of yourselves, to ask 
these questions, the answers to which you already know, because we 
are prepared to stay here as long as you are. 

Mr. BouDiN. Mr. Chairman, the answer is not known to counsel, 
of the resolution under which the committee is considering these 
matters. 

Mr. DoTLE. You know we are proceeding under Public Law 601. 

Mr. BouDiN. I did not know what you are proceeding under. The 
Supreme Court said that authority is not sufficient. The witness was 
asking you, since the Watkins* decision, whether the committee has 
a resolution 

Mr. Doyle. The Supreme Court, Mr. Boudin — and I am not going 
to argue — did not say that law is not sufficient for this investigation. 

Mr. Boudin. I am sorry, but the Supreme Court said exactly that. 

Mr. Doyle. The Supreme Court set up certain guideposts, and we 
are following those guideposts. 

Mr. Boudin. They said that the resolution is too vague. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Boudin 



COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 1439 

Mr. BouDiN. Excuse me. When I am talking to the chairman, 
if the chairman does not want to talk to me why doesn't he say so? 
I don't have to talk to the director when I am talking to the chairman. 

Mr. DoTLE. Proceed, Mr. Witness. 

Mr. Arens. Would you kindly answer the question ? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Grumman. I must continue to refuse to answer the question 
on the grounds that I have already stated, and those other grounds 
incorporated in the written statement which the committee has read. 

Mr. Arens. Let the record be clear on this point, if you please, Mr. 
Grumman : 

Are you in your response invoking that part of the fifth amendment 
which protects the witness against self-incrimination ? 

Mr. Grumman. I am invoking only those things which I have read. 

Mr. Arens. Kindly answer that question, so this record may be 
absolutely clear. Are you invoking that part of the fifth amendment 
to the Constitution of the United States which protects a witness 
against self-incrimination ? 

(Counsel conferred with the witness.) 

Mr. Grumman. In response to that question I am invoking only 
that part of the fifth amendment which relates to due process; I am 
not invoking that part which goes to the question of having to bear 
witness agains one's self. 

Mr. Arens. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. BouDiN. Though I certainly believe any witness is entitled to 
it, if he wishes to do so. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Grumman, so that this record will not reflect, or 
so that no one in his right mind could possibly conclude that the 
purpose of your appearance here is to expose you just for the sake of 
exposure, may I ask you: Do you have information at the present 
time respecting Communists who are now in the vital communica- 
tions industry ? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Grumman. I have to refuse to answer that question on the 
same grounds as I said before. 

Mr. Arens. Do you have information now, Mr. Grumman — and I 
ask this question so that no one in his right mind can conclude that the 
purpose of your appearance here is exposure for the sake of exposure — 
Do you have information with respect to Communists in the Ameri- 
can Communications Association ? 

Mr. Grumman. The answer is the same as before, and on the same 
grounds. 

Mr. Arens. Now, Mr. Grumman 

Mr. ScHERER. Wait a minute. 

I ask that you direct the witness to answer that question, Mr. 
Chairman. You have to have a direction. 

Mr. Doyle. Very well. 

You understand the question, Witness? And you answered it the 
way you intended to do ? 

1 now direct and instruct you to answer that last question. 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. ScHERER, I think the record should reflect that we do not accept 
his answer nor the reasons given for refusing to answer the question. 

Mr. Grumman. I decline to answer the question on the same 



1440 COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILJTIES 

grounds as before, but I would like to, in view of that question, 
to 

(Counsel conferred with the witness.) 

Mr. BouDiN. I think that is a complete answer. 

Mr. Arens. Now, Mr. Grumman, I say to you that the committee 
has not caused your appearance here today for the purpose of just 
exposing you, as such. We honestly feel that if you would testify 
you could tell this committee as did Mr. Mignon yesterday, about 
directives, policies, activities of the Communist Party, directed toward 
the communications industry, and that with that information this 
Committee on Un-American Activities would be enabled to formulate 
legislation to attempt to meet a situation in which a vital communi- 
cations industry is potentially endangered by Communists. 

Therefore, I now ask you, Mr. Grumman : Do you have information 
respecting any directives by the Communist Party to Communists, for 
the purpose of causing confidential, security-restricted messages to 
be intercepted in the communications facilities of this Nation? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Grumman. I think that at this point I ought to make myself 
clear. 

I have no knowledge or information whatever of anybody who does 
or wants to conduct sabotage or espionage or illegal interceptions, and 
so forth 

Mr. Arens. Now, Mr. Grumman 

Mr. BouDiN. The witness hasn't finished yet. 

Mr. Arens. I beg your pardon, Mr. Boudin. 

Mr. Grumman. Or any directives from anyone at all to do this kind 
of thing. 

Mr. Arens. Do you have information, Mr. Grumman, respecting 
any activities, directives, objectives of the Communist Party to obtain 
control of a labor organization operating in the vital field of com- 
munications ? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Grumman. Frankly, I never heard of any directions or actions 
by anybody to control our union. Our union is controlled by its mem- 
bers, and that is it. There is no other control. 

Mr. Arens. Do you know of Communists presently in the vital com- 
munications industry of this Nation ? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Grumman. It seems to me that is the original question in a little 
different form, and the answer would be the same, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully suggest that will con- 
clude the staff interrogation of this witness. 

Mr. Scherer. I think there should be a direction to answer your last 
question. There is no direction. I will ask the chairman to direct the 
witness to answer the question, after I make the statement that the 
committee does not accept his answer and the reasons given for re- 
fusing to answer the question, and now I ask the chairman to direct 
the witness to answer the question. 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Doyle. I will, as soon as the witness has completed conferring 
with his counsel. 

Do you understand the last question, Witness, Mr. Grumman ? 

Mr. BouDiN. Yes. 



COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 1441 

Mr. Grumman. The last question. 

Mr. Doyle. And your answer? I now direct you to answer that 
last question. I am not satisfied we can accept your answer as suf- 
ficient. 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Grumman. The answer is the same, on the grounds that I have 
already stated, that are included in the statement which the committee 
has refused to accept, and I would now ask that the committee accept 
the full statement for the record, which I have already offered. 

(Counsel conferred with the witness.) 

Mr. ScHERER. Mr. Chairman, I move 

Mr. Doyle. Just a minute. May I inquire as to the witness' answer 
to my direction, please ? That he answer the question. 

(The record was read by the reporter.) 

Mr. Scherer. Now, Mr. Chairman, I move that the witness' entire 
statement which he submitted to the committee be made a part of the 
record, word for word. 

Mr. BouDiN. I now hand Mr. Arens a copy of the statement 
[handing]. 

Mr. Grumman, Would you permit me to initial it, to identify it ? 

Mr. Arens. Initial it on the margin of each page. 

(Mr. Grumman complies.) 

Mr. Arens. You probably have a copy of this, don't you, Mr. 
Boudin ? 

Mr. Boudin. No ; I am sorry, but I don't. 

Mr. Doyle. I think, Mr. Scherer, that that motion should include 
in the text that we file it and include it in the record without waiving 
rule IX. 

Mr. Scherer. That is assumed in my motion. 

Mr. Boudin. I take it tliis will appear in the transcript, Mr. Doyle? 

Mr. Arens. Yes. 

Mr. Boudin. Am I correct? 

Mr. Arens. Yes. 

Mr. Doyle. I will make that order ; that it be filed with the com- 
mittee and included with the testimony. 

Mr. Scherer. And made a part of the record. 

Mr. Doyle. But w^ithout any expressed or implied intention to 
waive in whole or in part any of the rules of the committee, especially, 
with reference to rule IX of our printed rules. 

Statement Before House Committee, July 18, 1957 (Submitted by 
Frank Grumman) 

I have conferred with counsel, in the light of the decisions of the United States 
Supreme Court in the Watkins and Sweezy cases. I am advised by counsel that 
the powers of this committee are strictly limited, especially when the committee 
seeks to compel a witness to testify "about his beliefs, expressions or associa- 
tions." Such questioning, said the Court, constitutes governmental interference 
with free speech, press and assembly. The court further pointed out that a 
committee may not call witnesses just to expose or punish them but only for a 
necessary legislative purpose. So, said the Court, the protected freedoms of free 
speech and assembly "should not be placed in danger in the absence of a clear 
determination by the House or the Senate that a particular inquiry is justified by 
a specific legislative need." 

And further the Court said, "We start with several basic premises on which 
there is general agreement. The power of the Congress to conduct investigations 
is inherent in the legislative process. That power is broad. It encompasses 



1442 COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 

inquiries concerning the administration of existing laws as well as proposed or 
possibly needed statutes. It includes surveys of defects in our social economic 
or political system for the purpose of enabling the Congress to remedy them. It 
comprehends probes into departments of the Federal Government to expose 
corruption, ineflSciency or waste." 

"But, broad as is this power of inquiry, it is not unlimited. There is no general 
authority to expose the private aifairs of individuals without justitication in 
terms of the functions of the Congress. This was freely conceded by the Solicitor 
General in his argument of this case. Nor is the Congress a law enforcement or 
trial agency. These are functions of the Executive and Judicial departments of 
Government. No inquiry is an end in itself : it must be related to and in further- 
ance of a legitimate task of the Congress. Investigations conducted solely for 
the personal aggrandizement of the investigators or to 'punish' those investigated 
are indefensible." 

Further in the same decision, the Court said, "Kilbourn v. Thompson teaches 
that such an investigation into individual affairs is invalid if unrelated to any 
legislative purpose. That is beyond the powers conferred upon the Congress in 
the Constitution. United States v. Rumely makes it plain that the mere sem- 
blance of legislative purpose would not justify an inquiry in the face of the Bill 
of Rights. The critical element is the existence of, and the weight to be ascribed 
to, the interest of the Congress in demanding disclosures from an unwilling 
witness. We cannot simply assume, however, that every Congressional investi- 
gation is justified by a public need that overbalances any private rights affected. 
To do so would be to abdicate the responsibility placed by the Constitution upon 
the judiciary to insure that the Congress does not unjustifiably encroach upon an 
individual's right to privacy nor abridge his liberty of speech, press, religion, or 
assembly." 

The sub-committee asserts that it has been authorized by the committee to 
conduct this investigation. But that does not meet the test laid down by the 
Supreme Court — namely, that the House of Representatives make such an author- 
ization. So far as I know, the House has never authorized this investigation 
either before or after House Resolution 5 was declared by the Supreme Court in 
the Watkins case to be unconstitutionally vague. 

Now, as to the question of security in the communications industry : 
Some of the communications monopolies have attempted to make my organiza- 
tion and its members targets of special repressive legislation. They point to the 
nature of the industry and its importance in the national defense. 

The fact is that special legislation has existed for many years to protect the 
national interests in the communications industry. The Federal Communica- 
tions Act of 1934 makes it a criminal offense for anyone to divulge the contents 
of a telegraph or cable message, or to commit sabotage. Severe penalties are 
provided for acts in violation of this law, and yet there is no record of any 
member of my organization or any other union in this industry, so far as I know, 
having been charged with, let alone convicted, of violation of the law. 

As to the record of my organization in the fight for the national interest, we are 
ready and willing and anxious to match it with any group of employers, govern- 
ment agencies, or anyone else. In war or peace there is no group of employees 
in the United States, and no group of any kind, with a better record of devotion 
to the interests of our country. In fire, flood or disaster on land or sea, members 
of our Union have written an heroic record. This has been attested to by many 
people in high places over the years. 

During World War II our union proposed, and the Government adopted, the 
American Communications Association Safety and Anti-Espionage Plan to 
guarantee safety of communications and convoys at sea. Commander E. N. 
Webster (once a commissioner in the FCC) speaking for the Commandant of the 
Coast Guard, said of ACA with respect to this plan : "The thorough study made 
by the ACA of the complex problem of providing, in time of war, greater protec- 
tion of life and property at sea is most commendable and the suggestions of the 
union have guided the various Government agencies in providing those vitally 
needed protective measures." 

General Dwight D. Eisenhower, in response to a no-strike pledge of our 
union during the War, spoke as follows : "All ranks of the Allied forces are 
deeply grateful for your pledge of continued cooperation. We fully appreciate 
the vital part played by all groups affording communications." 

We could quote dozens of other distinguished Americans and newspapers in a 
similar vein. 



COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 1443 

In peacetime, similarly, ACA has not only fought in the interests of its 
members as part of the general national public interest, but has been an effec- 
tive and sometimes the only voice against attempts of the telegraph communica- 
tions monopoly to impose higher rates and to curtail service to thousands of 
communities. 

Similarly, we are engaged in a continuing struggle to defeat the current 
attempts to secure a merger of international communications by creation of a 
monopoly; the chief advocate of such merger being Admiral Ellery Stone of 
AC&R. Our opposition to this is based on our conviction that the national de- 
fense, the general public interest and the interest of the employees would be ad- 
versely affected by the ci'eation of such a monopoly. 

In the light of our record of steadily raising the average wages of telegraph 
workers for the past 20 years, securing paid vacations, improved pensions, higher 
sick benefits, night differentials, daily overtime and other premium pay, and 
job security, it is not surprising that the corporations in this industry initiate 
and support legislation designed to destroy our union and all other labor unions 
which serve the interests of the American working people. 

Finally, because there has been reference in these hearings to the possibility 
or potentiality of espionage or sabotage in this industry, I wish to make it clear 
that I have never heard of any worker, in any section of the industry, being en- 
gaged in or even charged with, let alone indicted or convicted on a charge of 
espionage or sabotage. 

And so, with all respect to this committee, acting on the advice of counsel, 
I shall decline to answer questions concerning my beliefs, expressions or as- 
sociations on the ground that such questioning constitutes an interference with 
my rights under the first amendment to the Constitution and that such question- 
ing is beyond the jurisdiction of the committee. The enabling resolution itself 
is an unlawful delegation of power to the committee. Moreover, I do not be- 
lieve that any such questioning can be pertinent to any legitimate inquiry by 
the committee under its enabling resolution. 

Mr. Doyle. Now, have you any questions of the witness, Judge 
Frazier ? 

Mr. Frazier. I have no questions. 

Mr. Scherer ? 

Mr. Scherer. No. 

I have a motion to make. Is the witness excused ? 

Mr. Arens. I have no further (questions. 

(Kepresentatives Doyle, Frazier, and Scherer and Messrs. Arens and 
Tavenner, conferred. ) 

Mr. Doyle. Witness and witness' counsel, I am calling your atten- 
tion to the fact that a few minutes ago I believe I quoted verbatim 
the testimony of Mr. Mignon. 

You are acquainted with him, are you? You know who he is? 

Mr, Grumman. I have certainly met Mr. Mignon. 

Mr. Doyle. Certainly met him. Well, he said he met you. 

Now on yesterday he, a former admitted Communist for several 
years, in the same union of which you are now secretary-treasurer, 
and at least you were at least one-term president, according to your 
own testimony, voluntarily named a number of the officers of that 
union before this committee, and he named you, Frank Grumman, 
secretary-treasurer of ACA Local 10. 

Mr. Frazier. As a member of the Communist Party. 

Mr. Doyle. As a member of the Communist Party when he was in 
the Communist Party, he said, with you, and in Local 10. He said 
that he sat in closed Communist cell meetings with you. 

Now I will ask you whether or not he was telling the truth or was 
he telling a falsehood ? 

Mr. Grumman. I decline to answer that question, sir, on the same 
grounds as previously set forth in the statement. 



1444 COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 

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

Mr. Doyle. I direct you to answer the question. It is certainly 
pertinent. The testimony of Mr. Mi^rnon and others has already 
shown before this committee that the union was at that time controlled 
by the principal officers, by identified Communists, in control of the 
policies of the union of which you are now a member, and secretary- 
treasurer, in the field of international cable communications, which 
is certainly an area involving the security of our Nation. 

I direct you to answer the question. 

Mr. Grumman. Sir, I decline to answer the question on the grounds 
of lack of committee jurisdiction, under the Watkins' decision, and on 
the grounds of lack of pertinency. 

Mr. Doyle. Now, one further question : 

Mr. Mignon testified yesterday that in his judgment, it was entirely 
possible for those in control of our international cal^les, to in time of 
emergency, within a very, very short period of time, take such action 
and sabotage as would incur very dangerous effects to the security of 
our Nation. "V\Tiat is your opinion in that connection? You have 
had 25 years with KCA as a cable, international cable operator, part 
of the time, according to your testimony. 

Mr. Grumman. Sir, I just don't believe that anybody employed in 
the international communications would sabotage the system, under 
any conditions. 

Mr. Doyle. I didn't ask you that question. I asked you whether or 
not it was possible for it to be done. I did not ask you whether or not 
anyone would do it. He said members of the Communist Party were 
taught that that was what they were to do. "Was he telling the truth 
or not? 

(Counsel conferred with the witness.) 

Mr. Grumman. I have already stated that I never heard of any such 
directives from anybody concerning 

Mr. Doyle. I am not asking you that question. I am asking you 
whether or not it would be possible for an operator of international 
cable transmission to sabotage the international cable facilities if 
they so desired, in the early stages of a national emergency. 

Mr. Grumman. I think it would be extremely difficult, if you are 
taking it strictly as a technical question, as to the possibility. I think 
it would be extremely difficult. It is very hard for me to conceive 
that it could be done. 

Mr. Doyle. Well, it would be possible, would it? It might be diffi- 
cult but it Avould be possible ? 

(Counsel conferred with the witness.) 

Mr. Grumman. Well, sir, just going 

Mr. Scherer. Now, Mr. Boudin, he is the expert. I don't see how 
you can advise him on that question. 

Mr. Boudin. I can advise him on the law. 

Mr. Scherer. On the law, yes. 

Mr. Boudin. And I am advising him on the law. 

Do you want my advice stated openly on the record ? 

Mr. Scherer. No. 

Mr. Doyle. No. We are not interested. 

Mr. Boudin. Then I suggest Mr. Scherer address his questions to 
the chairman and not to me, if he doesn't want me to answer them. 



COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 1445 

Mr. Doyle. You understand my question. You said it would be 
difficult. Mr. Mignon said it would be possible. Now, in your judg- 
ment, would it be possible or not ? 

Mr. Grumman. Possibly, to only a minor degree, a very small de- 
gree, and, in my opinion, impossible to get away with. 

Mr. Arens. Would it be possible for persons who were disposed to 
do so, to intercept messages ? 

Mr. Gruiniman. Well, any man who is handling a message, I sup- 
pose, might have a memory for it and hold it, though that seems in- 
credible to me. As an operator I have handled thousands and thou- 
sands of messages in the years that I worked, and I don't remember for 
10 minutes. 

Mr. Arens. During the time you handled these thousands and thou- 
sands of messages, was there any time during which you were under 
the discipline of the Communist Party? 

Mr. Grumman. That is the same question again. I decline to an- 
swer it on the grounds already given. 

Mr. Arens. I respectfully suggest, Mr. Chairman, that he be now 
directed and ordered to answer that question. 

Mr. Doyle. I direct you to answer that question. I believe it is 
entirely pertinent, in view of the testimony of other witnesses, at 
least one other witness, to date, that you were a member of the Com- 
munist Party, and that it is established that it is a conspiracy instead 
of a political party. 

Mr. Grumman. I decline to answer the question, sir, for the reasons 
I already set forth. 

Mr. ScHERER. One question. 

Now, Mr. Doyle asked whether it would be possible for one in- 
dividual to sabotage the communications system of this country, over 
which the Government directives were carried. I am going to ask 
you whether it would be possible for 4 or 5 individuals, properly 
placed, who were members of the Communist conspiracy, and who 
decided to do so, to sabotage our communications system. 

Mr. Grumman. Sir, if you mean is it possible for one person to 
sabotage the system. I think the answer is obviously "No." I don't 
believe it would be just possible. 

Mr. Scherer. I think you understood my question, but in case you 
didn't, I said Mr. Doyle's question was whether one person, if he 
were so inclined, could sabotage the communications system or any 
part of it, over which directives of this Government were carried. 

My question is whether in your opinion it is not possible for 3 or 
4 individuals, acting together and properly placed, to sabotage our 
communications system, or part of it, over which directives of this 
Government are carried? 

Mr. Grumman. Well, I think 

Mr. Scherer. I notice that you carefully answered that it would 
almost be impossible for one ? 

Mr. Grumman. Well, I think the impossibility is still there for 
a small number, such as you state. This kind of a system — I think 
the answer for that really ought to come from some engineer who 
understands layout, and so on, because you go beyond the possibility 
of the people who operate and normally work in these communica- 
tions companies, and would go to some incredible knowledge of lay- 



1446 COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 

out of wires, and so on, and even then it would be difficult to do 
anything that would be prepared in very short order. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Chairman, I have still another question I should 
like to ask. It is the same question I have heretofore asked. I 
ask it now for a different purpose, and I want to explain the pur- 
pose to the witness. 

Mr. DoTLE. Very well. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Witness, we have had an abundance of testimony 
under oath to the effect that Communists cannot be believed before 
congressional committees or otherwise ; that they are inveterate liars. 

Now, for the purpose of testing the credibility of the testimony 
that you have given to this committee today, I want to ask you now — 
and that is the purpose of this question, to test your credibility — 
Are you now a Communist ? 

Mr. Grumman. The answer is still the same as before. 

Mr. Arens. Now, Mr. Chairman, the pertinency of that question, 
I believe, has already been explained. It is pertinent to the whole 
testimony of this witness here today, to determine whether or not 
he has been truthful; because, if he is a Communist, if he is under 
Communist discipline, then this committee is justified, on the basis 
of an abundance of testimony, in disbelieving him ; on the other hand, 
if he is not a Communist, we ought to know that, because we can 
give some degree of verity and authenticity to his statement. 

I, therefore, respectfully suggest that the witness now be directed 
and ordered to answer the question as to whether or not he is now a 
Communist. 

Mr. Doyle. I direct you to answer the question. Witness. 

(Counsel conferred with the witness.) 

Mr. Grumman. I decline, for all the reasons I have stated orally 
and in writing, before. 

Mr. Doyle. Very well. 

I have one more question: 

I made a note as you testified, that you were trained in international 
Morse code transmitting that code into messages, and that you han- 
dled whatever Government circuit was assigned to you. I think that 
is the substance of one part of the testimony. 

Mr. Grumman. With one variation, sir. I don't recall ever work- 
ing in a Government circuit, as such. I think there are none, as I 
know of. You take whatever comes over a particular connection, is 
what I mean. 

Mr. Doyle. I just made a quick note, and I could very well have 
made a mistake in what I heard. 

But now, the Government circuits — you know what they are — that 
are handled through the organization which employed you — what in- 
ternational cables, what departments of Government carry those 
cables ? 

Mr. Grumman. I have practically no knowledge on that line, sir. I 
work on regular circuits. I take whatever traffic comes over. The 
only thing I could say in that connection is that the proportion of 
Government traffic on private or commercial lines is extremely small 
these days. Most of it is handled over the Government's own lines. 
We receive very little. 

Mr. Doyle. Leased lines? 



COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 1447 

Mr, Grumman. That stuff we do handle, sir, is promptly and imme- 
diately turned over to a foreign national at the other end of the wire. 
That is what we have to do — that is what our job is. 

Mr. Doyle. The testimony by one of the vice presidents of one of 
the organizations of which your are employed, yesterday, and one of 
the technicians, as I recall it, was that the international Atlantic 
cables carried messages from the State Department, the Army, the 
Navy, the Air Force, and the National Security Agency. 

Mr. Grumman. Honestly, in my recent knowledge, going to the 
period, you know, the last few years, I believe that the State Depart- 
ment itself would probably be the biggest traffic filer, that is, actual 
messages handled. As to other messages, offhand I wouldn't know. 

Mr. DoTLE. Of course, obviously, any message from the State De- 
partment to any of our allies, even in times of peace, is a very impor- 
tant message, isn't it? 

Mr. Grumman. Well, I would presume so, sir. 

Mr. DoTLE. And it should not fall into the hands of any person 
transmitting it who might, for any design or purpose, loyalty or 
disloyalty or otherwise, have anything to do in the form of what 
might be sabotage ? 

Mr. Grumman. In the 

Mr. Doyle. Are there any other questions ? 

Mr. Grumman. Could I just say something on that? I think it is 
quite important myself. 

Mr. Doyle. Yes, indeed. 

Mr. Grumman. As to the handling on the State Department traffic, 
which in my personal experience is only very occasional, the State 
Department stuff, if they consider it the least bit important, is what is 
called scrambled. The tape is really unreadable. In many cases a 
green operator will stop his circuit when one comes in there, because 
he thinks the circuit is going out of whack. 

You have to check the head of the message to find out. 

Mr. Arens. Have you reported the message, the example of which 
you have just given the chairman, to a person known by you to have 
been a member of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Grumman. I haven't reported this message to anybody. 

Mr. Arens. Does any person, to your knowledge, that is a Commu- 
nist, have access to this information that you have just related to the 
chairman ? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Grumman. Well, everybody who works on that operating floor 
knows all about this. I mean the guys who work there know this and 
they handle it. There is nothing they can do with it. 

Mr. Doyle. May I ask this question ? I wish to ask you this ques- 
tion dealing with the status of the union of which you are a member : 

I believe some years ago it was expelled, was it not, from the CIO 
on account of a claimed domination, claimed by CIO, by the Com- 
munist Party, or am I in error ? Am I correct ? 

Mr. Grumman. The union was expelled by the CIO, and I believe 
the claim is as you have stated it, and we certainly don't believe that 
was the basis. 

Mr. Doyle. Has your union ever made an application for reinstate- 
ment in CIO, having changed the conditions of the union, so far as 
the alleged Communist control is concerned, in the meantime? 

94781— 57— pt. 1 6 



1448 COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 

Mr. Grumman. Well, I am a little confused by your question, sir. 
I would say that we have never, as far as I know, we have never applied 
for reinstatement. I don't know of any such. 

Mr. DoYT.E. You were expelled in what year ? 

Mr. Grumman. Well, I would say it was 1950. I am not 100 per- 
cent sure in my own mind at this point. 

Mr. Doyle. Is there any other question ? 

Thank you, Witness and Counsel. 

Mr. ScuERER. Now, Mr. Chairman, I have a motion that I would 
like to make. 

Mr. Frazier. Hold it to later. 

Mr. DoTLE. It has been an hour and 15 minutes. 

Mr. BouuiN. You realize it would have been 5 minutes if the wit- 
ness had read the statement at the beginning, exactly 5. 

(Representatives Doyle, Frazier, and Scherer, and Messrs. Arens 
and Tavenner, conferred.) 

Mr. Scherer. Mr. Chairman, I move that this subcommittee recom- 
mend to the full committee of the House Committee on Un-American 
Activities that the last witness, Frank Grumman, be cited for con- 
tempt of Congress. 

Mr. Doyle. The motion is made and seconded. 

Before I put the motion I wish to say that this motion was made 
by Mr. Scherer at the consulation right liere subsequent to the closing 
of the testimony by the witness. Our two committee legal counsel 
are present with us and have been present throughout the hearing of 
this witness. The committee sincerely feels that this is a good case of 
contempt of a congressional committee, even under the Watkins" de- 
cision, or any other decision of the Supreme Court. 

In stating that I felt it was a good case of contempt, I meant that 
it was a bad case of contempt, but it is a good case for us to carry to 
the High Court, if necessary. 

All tliose in favor of Mr. Scherer's motion say "aye." 

Mr. Scherer. Aye. 

Mr. Frazier. Aye. 

Mr. Doyle. Aye. It is voted unanimously and we will recommend 
it to the full committee at a later date. 

Let the record show that all three members of the subcommittee 
were present at all times during the hearing of the witness and on vote 
on the recommendation of contempt. 

Proceed, Counsel, please. 

Mr. Arens. The next witness, if you please, Mr. Chairman, will be 
Mr. Antello Theodore lannucci. 

Would you kindly come forward, Mr. lannucci? Please remain 
standing, Mr. lannucci, while the chairman administers the oath to 
you. 

Mr. Doyle. Do you solemnly swear that you will tell the truth, 
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God. 

Mr. Iannucci. I do. 

Mr. Doyle. Thank you. Please take the witness chair, sir. 

TESTIMONY OF ANTELLO THEODOKE IANNUCCI 

Mr. Arens. Kindly identify yourself by name, residence, and oc- 
cupation. 



COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 1449 

Mr. Iannucci. My name is Antello Theodore lannucci. I reside at 
^5 Somerville Street, Eochelle Park, N. J. My occupation is oper- 
ating technician. 

Mr. Arens. Where? 

Mr. Iannucci. RCA Communications, Inc. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. lannucci, would it be convenient for you to keep 
your voice up just a little bit, please? We are having difficulty in 
this room. The acoustics are not the best. 

How long have you been employed as an operating technician at 
RCA? 

Mr. Iannucci. Approximately 8 years. 

Mr. Arens. Give us a word, if you please, sir, in your own way, 
about your personal background prior to the time that you assumed 
your present position ? 

Mr. Iannucci. My background during the past 8 years? 

Mr. Arens. No; I mean your personal history. Where were you 
employed prior to the time that you were with RCA ? 

Mr.lANNUcci. I have been employed with RCA for some 27 years; 
was employed at the age of 14, and it was with the exception of some 
very brief employment, practically the only place that I have been 
employed. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. lannucci, have you ever been a member of the 
Communist Party? 

Mr. Iannucci. Yes, sir ; during 1938 and 1939 I was a member. 1 
would like to be able to say at this time, if I may, that the record shows 
I was 22 years of age at the time on entering, that I entered out of an 
interest in unionism and nothing else, that I was never made aware of 
any illegal activities or that any were ever expected of me, and I would 
like the record to show that if any such expectations had been made of 
me that I certainly feel that I would not have associated myself with 
these people. 

Mr. Arens. How long were you a member of the Commimist Party ? 

Mr. Iannucci. I would say approximately 2 years, from the begin- 
ning of 1938 to the end of 1939. 

Mr. Arens. Wliat cell or group or unit of the Communist Party 
were you identified with ? 

Mr. Iannucci. Well, I don't recall any designation for it, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Were you identified, connected with an RCA cell? 

Mr. L\NNUCCi. Well, the bulk of the people who attended these 
meetings were employed by RCA Communications. 

Mr. Arens. During the course of your membership in the Commu- 
nist Party, did you attend closed Communist Party meetings? 

Mr. Iannucci. Yes, sir ; I did. 

Mr. Arens. During the course of your attendance at these closed 
Communist Party meetings, did you acquire knowledge from personal 
experience in those meetings of the names and identity of other per- 
sons, who to a certainty were known by you to be Communists ? 

Mr. Iannucci. Yes, sir; I did. 

Mr. Arens. During the course of your membership in the Com- 
munist Party did you know as a Communist, a person by the name 
of Louis Stallone? 

Mr. Iannucci. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Would you give us a word of description or identifica- 
tion of Mr. Stallone ? 



1450 COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 

Mr. Iannucci. Do you mean a physical description ? 

Mr. Arens. No ; from the standpoint of his activity, identification 
or affiliation within the communications industry. 

Mr. Iannucci. Well, sir, he is presently employed at RCA Com- 
munications in New Yojk, and he is an operating maintenance tech- 
nician, which is a different classification than my own. He is an 
officer of the union. 

Mr, Arens. By "the union" you mean the American Communica- 
tions Association ? 

Mr. Iannucci. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Do you know where he is physically engaged in RCA 
as an operating technician ? 

Mr. Iannucci. Well, mainly he is located on the operating floor 
where the general commercial circuits are. 

Mr. Arens. Could you give us a word about the type of work he 
does as an operating technician ? 

Mr. Iannucci. He services various types of teletype equipment, to 
the best of my knowledge. 

Mr. Arens. Does he have access in the course of his work to mes- 
sages that go over the lines or facilities of RCA ? 

Mr. Iannucci. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Does he in his work, to your knowledge, have access 
to confidential, restricted, or security messages processed by RCA 
facilities ? 

Mr. Iannucci. Well, sir, I wouldn't know anything about the 
classification of the messages. 

Mr. Arens. Do classified messages go over the type of facilities 
which he services ? 

Mr. Iannucci. I really can't say what type of messages they are. 
I know they are Government messages that do go over the facilities. 

Mr. Arens. Does he have access to Government messages ? 

Mr, Iannucci. Yes, sir. The facilities do carry Government mes- 
sages. 

Mr. Arens. What is the size, description, or nature of the machin- 
ery on which he actually works ? 

Mr. Iannucci. Well, mainly they are teletype machines and auxil- 
iary teletype equipment. I believe you are familiar with the approxi- 
mate description of a teletype machine. 

Mr. Arens. How many such machines are there in the physical 
plant at which he is engaged ; approximately ? 

Mr. Iannucci. Well, it would be several hundred. 

Mr. Arens. Does he likewise have access, to your knowledge, to 
any of the overseas facilities — facilities for transmission of messages 
overseas ? 

Mr. Iannucci. Yes, sir. This equipment is employed on these cir- 
cuits which are used overseas. 

Mr. Arens. Did you, in the course of your membership in the 
Communist Party, know as a Communist a person by the name of 
Howard Vincent Troutman, T-r-o-u-t-m-a-n ? 

Mr. Iannucci. I believe it is T-r-a-u-t-m-a-n. 

Mr. Arens. T-r-a-u-t-m-a-n ? 

Mr, Iannucci. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Could you give us a word of identification or descrip- 
tion of him as you did with Mr, Stallone ? 



COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 1451 

Mr. Iannucci. He is employed at KCA and has been for many- 
years. He is an officer of the union. 

Mr. Arens. Where is he employed in RCA ? 

Mr. Iannucci. He is an operating technician, but he does not do 
operating technician's work. 

Mr. Arens. What type of work does he do ? 

Mr. Iannucci. Benchwork. He services different types of equip- 
ment. 

Mr. Arens. Does he service the equipment which transmits Gov- 
ernment messages ? 

Mr. Iannucci. No; except he does service certain types of equip- 
ment that are used in this equipment ; yes. 

Mr. Arens. Do you know whether or not the company, as a matter 
of company policy, has undertaken to preclude him from having 
access to certain types of messages ? 

Mr. Iannucci. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Wliat has the company done along that line, and why 
did it do it? 

Mr. Iannucci. He was precluded from entering the area where the 
operating technicians work. 

Mr. Arens. Why was that ? 

Mr. Iannucci. Well, for a specific reason. I really don't know. 

Mr. Arens. Did the company do it because they did not want him 
to have access to confidential or security information if they could 
help it? 

Mr. Iannucci. Apparently so. 

Mr. Arens. Did you, in the course of your experience in the Com- 
munist Party, know as a Communist a person by the name of Michael 
Mignon ? 

Mr. Iannucci. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. And you know, of course, that Mr. Mignon has co- 
operated with this committee, and, in the course of the last day or so, 
has given us very significant information? 

Mr. Iannucci. Well, I heard it. 

Mr. Arens. I say that only for this purpose and reason : I did not 
want you to feel that Mr. Mignon was anything other than a coopera- 
tive witness. 

Mr. Iannucci. Yes, sir; except I have not heard his testimony. 

Mr. Arens. I understand. Did you, in the course of your experi- 
ence in the Communist Party, know as a Communist a person by the 
name of Frances Halpern ? 

Mr. Iannucci. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Give us a word of description or characterization or 
identification of Frances Halpern, please. 

Mr. Iannucci. She was employed in the union ; that is, in Local 10, 
in the office. 

Mr. Arens. ACA? 

Mr. Iannucci. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Do you know whether or not she was likewise at any 
time employed in the communications facilities field itself ? 

Mr. Iannucci. No, sir ; she was not. 



1452 COMMIIOTST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 

Mr. Aeens. Did you, during the course of your experience in the 
Communist Party, know as a Communist a person by the name of 
Jewell Hobbs ^ 

Mr. Iaxnucci. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Doyle. Counsel, may I make a standing order on these hearings 
to the reporter for the record? Where a witness is asked a ques- 
tion as to whether or not he knew any person as a member of the 
Communist Party and the witness says "No" or that he did not, we 
ask that the record be deleted as to that question and answer. We do 
not want the name of any person that is not a positively identified 
Communist to be given any publicity in our record. That may be a 
standing order. 

Mr. Arens. Can you kindly give us a word of description about 
Jewel Hobbs, with emphasis upon any activity that he may have 
had in the communication industry ? 

Mr. Iannucci. He was employed by RCA at the time that I at- 
tended these meetings, and later on he was employed at Mackay Radio,, 
of the International Telephone & Telegraph Co. 

Mr. Arens. In what capacity, sir, if you know ? 

Mr. Iannucci. In both places, I believe, as a radiotelegraph oper- 
ator. 

Mr. Arens. Does a radiotelegraph operator have access to confi- 
dential or security information or messages of the United States 
Government ? 

Mr. Iannucci. He has access to United States Government mes- 
sages ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. How about security messages ? 

Mr. Iannucci. Well, sir, there, again, that is a classification that 
the Government would just designate, but does not make apparent to 
uninitiated people on the message itself. You see, we don't know 
what we are handling, actually. 

Mr. Arens. Dul you know, in the course of your experience in the 
Communist Party, a person by the name of Reuben Kaplan? 

Mr. Iannucci. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Give us, if you please, sir, a characterization or descrip- 
tion of Mr. Kaplan. 

Mr. Iannucci. He was employed in RCA as a radiotelegraph oper- 
ator some years ago, I think, up to World War II. 

Mr. Arens. Do you know where he is now ? 

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

Mr. Arens. Did you know as a Communist a person by the name of 
Louis Jenkins ? 

Mr. Iannucci. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. And can you tell us something about him ? 

Mr. Iannucci. He was and still is employed as a radiotelegraph 
operator. 

Mr. Arens. And where is he presently employed ? 

Mr. Iannucci. RCA Communications. 

Mr. Arens. In his function, activity, :uk1 availability to confidential 
messages about the same as the gentlemen, the persons whom you 
talked about a few moments ago ? 

Mr. Iannucci. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Is there any other person whom you know, presently 
in the communications industry, who to a certainty was known by you 



COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 1453 

to have been a member of the Communist Party during your career 
in the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Iannucci. No, sir ; I don't believe. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Chairman, I think also at this time the record 
should reflect that Mr. Iannucci was most reluctant to testify because 
of possible embarrassment to himself and we on the staff want on this 
public record, to extend our congratulations to Mr. Iannucci, and our 
thanks to him for the service he has rendered to the staff and to the 
committee, both in staff consultations and in this public proceeding. 

Mr. Doyle. Judge Frazier, do you have any questions or statements? 

Mr. Fr^vzier. No questions. 

Mr. Doyle. Mr. Scherer ? 

Mr. Scherer. No. 

Mr. Doyle. On behalf of the committee, Mr. Iannucci, I want to 
supplement the statement of our director and say this: that I think 
every member of this committee realizes it is not exactly an easy 
thing for a former Communist to come forward and testify, not only 
as to his former membership in the party, but as to those he could 
positively identify in the Communist Party at the time he was a 
member. 

I have often said that I can understand how many loyal people, 
loyal to the United States, might have joined the Communist Party 
in 1936, 1937, 1938, 1940, even some later than that, in connection with 
their work or employment or otherwise, or there was a philosophical 
reason. But I do not understand how any person who claims to be a 
patriotic American citizen today can stay in the Communist Party 
subsequent to 1945, when Earl Browder was kicked out of command 
of the Communist Party in this country, because by that act, every 
American citizen was given notice that it was a showdown between 
the two systems, our system of constitutional liberties and the Soviet 
system. 

And furthermore, I do not understand, I wish to say again in the 
presence of you, Mr. Witness, and some of the people who have not as 
yet been witnesses but will, why it is that any patriotic American 
citizen cannot come forward before any congressional committee, if he 
was a Communist many years ago, and say so, and then help Congress 
to get at the problem, the basic problem of legislation in the field of the 
Communist conspiracy. 

I do not understand how a person can claim to be 100 percent 
American and refuse to come in and say: "Sure I was, but I got 
out, and I am no longer, and here is what I know about the operations 
of the Communist Party." 

Congress is involved in a sincere, diligent study of this problem in 
the field of legislation, and I would think that the United States Con- 
gress in its work is more important than a membership in the Com- 
munist Party, not going into the field of beliefs, or freedom of thought 
or any of those philosophical problems or freedoms guaranteed by the 
Bill of Rights, but in the area of the operations of the Communist 
Party, which we know to be still part of the cold war against the 
United States of America and our constitutional form of government. 

So we thank you, and we thank the others, and hope the time will 
come when the leaders of this particular union, which some years ago 
was evidently controlled by the Communist Party, will be qualified to 



1454 COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 

take steps and have some desire to make a reapplication to CIO-AFL 
and see if they can get on a level with those other miions which are 
not afraid of the Communist conspiracy. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Chairman, may I say that we have a number of wit- 
nesses yet to be heard, but I understand it is the pleasure of the com- 
mittee to recess now. 

Wlien would you like to reconvene, or do you think you will be able 
to reconvene this afternoon ? 

Mr. Doyle. I regret to state that the committee will have to recess 
until tomorrow at 10 o'clock because a very important bill will be in a 
debate on the floor of the House for 3 days and will be in debate today. 

Mr. BouDiN. May I be heard, Mr. Chairman ? 

(Discussion off the record not included by direction of the chairman 
of the subcommittee.) 

Mr. DoTLE. We will adjourn, gentlemen, until 10 o'clock tomorrow 
morning. 

(Whereupon, at 11 : 55 a. m. Thursday, July 18, the subcommittee 
recessed until 10 a. m., Friday, July 19, 1957.) 



INVESTIGATION OF COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF 
COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES— PART 1 



FRIDAY, JULY 19, 1957 

United States House of Representatives, 

Subcommittee of the 
Committee of Un-American Activities, 

Washington^ D. G. 
public hearing 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10 : 15 a. m., in the 
caucus room, Old House Office Building, Washington, D. C, Hon. 
Clyde Doyle (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Committee members present : Representative Clyde Doyle, of Cali- 
fornia (presiding), and James B. Frazier, Jr., of Tennessee. 

Staff members present: Richard Arens, director, and W. Jackson 
Jones, and Louis J. Russell, investigators. 

Mr. DoYiiE. The subcommittee will please come to order. 

Are you ready Mr. Arens ? 

Mr. Arens. Yes, sir. 

The jfirst witness, if you please, Mr. Chairman, will be Mr. M. A. 
Solga. 

Mr. DoTLE. May the record show, please, that Judge Frazier, of 
Tennessee, and Doyle, of California, are both present, therefore, a 
legal quorum of the subcommittee of three is present to proceed. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Solga, would you kindly come forward, please? 
Remain standing while the chairman administers the oath to you. 

Mr. DoTL,E. Do you solemnly swear that you will tell the truth, 
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? 

Mr. Solga. I do. 

Mr. Doyle. Please take the witness chair. 

TESTIMONY OP MARK ANTHONY SOLGA 

Mr. Abens. Kindly identify yourself by name, residence, and 
occupation. 

Mr. Solga. My name is Mark Anthony Solga, 425 Myrtle Avenue, 
Scotch Plains, N. J. I am presently employed at RCA Communi- 
cations, and have been employed for the past 28 years. 

Mr. Doyle. How do you spell your last name, please ? 

Mr. Solga. S-o-l-g-a. 

Mr. Doyle. Thank you. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Solga, in what capacity are you employed at RCA 
Communications ? 

Mr. Solga. For the past 20 years I have been employed as a radiO' 
operator. 

1455 



1456 COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 

Mr. Akens. Can you give us just a thumbnail sketch of the duties 
and fmictions of a radio operator in the status that you have at the 
present time '^ 

Mr. SoLGA. Presently there are various forms of communications 
that we are permitted to work within. One deals with foreign com- 
munications coming from all over the world, which involves Govern- 
ment traffic as well as normal commercial traffic, as well as direct 
coimnunications with Washington and special tape service that we 
have going overseas from some of our Government ag'encies to over- 
seas. 

^Ir. Arens, Would it be convenient for vou to keep your voice up, 
Mr. Solga ? 

]Mr. Solga, do you as a radio operator employed at KCA have access 
to confidential or restricted Government messages that are processed 
by RCA? 

Mr. Solga. We do handle governmental traffic but it is difficult to 
determine whether the information is classified or of a secret nature. 
However, we have to assmne that merely the fact that it is a Govern- 
ment message, it has to be treated with the utmost secrecy and con- 
fidence. 

Mr. Arens. Are RCA facilities used to transmit messages to and 
from the various Army establishments overseas, and by "Army" I 
mean the United States Army. 

Mr. Solga. Yes, they are. When the facilities somethnes within 
the Pentagon are not in order, many many times, because of a break- 
down within their own sources, they are compelled to transmit via 
the services of RCA Communications. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Solga, have you ever been a Communist ? 

Mr. Solga. I have been, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Give us a thumbnail sketch for the purpose of this 
record, of your career in the Communist Party. 

Mr. Solga. In 1938, for a period of 5 or 6 months, I was a member 
of the Communist Party. During that period — that was during the 
period when we were anti-Nazi and anti-Fascist, and it was during 
the trying period, and I felt that at that particular time that it seemed 
to offer a reasonable solution. 

However, it didn't take too long to determine that what I had 
assumed, was just a form of misconception on my own part. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Solga, during your brief active membership in the 
Communist Party, did you have occasion to ascertain the importance 
of the communications industry to the Communist Party ? 

IMr. Solga. I did have a vague knowledge, but I have since begun to 
realize that it has taken on much greater importance then what I 
originally realized. 

Mr. Arens. How significant is the communications industry of this 
Nation to the national security ? 

Mr. Solga. Well, during any potential difficulties that might arise 
because of international conflict the attempt normally is to utilize 
means of communication or to stop their normal overflow of traffic of 
an emergency nature, involving Government security. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Solga, on this record thus far a number of persons 
have been identified as persons Imown to have been Communists. As- 
suming for the sake of this question that these persons are presently 
engaged in the communications industry, and are presently Com- 



COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACII/ITIES 1457 

manists, on the basis of your background and experience, could you 
tell us, in your judgment, does that constitute a serious menace to the 
security of this Nation ? 

Mr. SoLGA. Potentially, I honestly believe that it does. In the event 
of any further conflict between the East and West, as that tension 
increases during the so-called cold war, if it should ultimately develop 
to a stage where it becomes rather hot, then I do honestly believe they 
are in a potentially dangerous position to inflict harm on our national 
security. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Solga, in pursuit of that judgment of years, I 
should like to ask you : 

Are confidential security messages of this Government, which are 
processed b}' your company, RCA, or the company by which you are 
employed, transcribed as they are sent on to a tape ? 

Mr. SoLGA. Yes ; that is one of the processes. 

Mr. Arens. Is that tape available to radio operators engaged in 
HCA? 

Mr. SoLGA. Yes ; that tape is potentially possible to be had by anyone 
within RCA. 

Mr. Arens. Could you as a radio operator, pick up that tape con- 
taining the confidential Government security messages, and remove that 
tape from the premises ? 

Mr. SoLGA. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Would that action by yourself be easily detectable ? 

Mr. SoLGA. It could potentially be done. It would have to be done 
with a little bit of discretion, I presume. However, the availability, 
I believe, is there, to permit such action, if that occasion should arise. 

Mr. Arens. Assuming that you were still active in the Communist 
Party, and under Communist Party discipline as a radio operator, 
could you, in the normal course of your work therc^. copy the confi- 
dential messages of the United States Government and slip the copy 
into your pocket and walk out ? 

Mr. SoLGA. Yes, sir. It is possible to make a monitor copy of a 
tape which is being relayed to Washington, and to slip a copy of that 
paper within your own person. 

Mr. Arens. Now, this is not just the ordinary message; this is the 
secret confidential message, is it not, that }^ou are talking about, as 
well as other messages ? 

Mr. SoLGA. As well as other messages ; that is correct, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Solga, I don't want you, as an experienced com- 
munications man, to give too much detail, for obvious reasons, on a 
public record, as to how the facilities could be sabotaged, in the event 
that a Communist or one under Communist discipline were disposed 
to do so, but, on the basis of your background and experience, could 
you tell this subcommittee whether or not the communications facili- 
ties of RCA could be put out of commission with reasonable ease by 
a Communist, in the event of a national emergency ? 

Mr. Solga. Frankly, I can't tell you that. I couldn't tell you 
whether they would be in a position to put out of commission the com- 
munications. However, I can say it is potentially possible to affect 
communications messages involving our security, which would not 
necessarily affect the entire status of communications.^ In other 
■words, it would merely be a strategic attempt on a certain phase of 
development, rather than an overall attempt. 



1458 COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 

Mr. Arens. I should like to ask you, during the course of your 
experience in the Communist Party, did you come to know as Com- 
munists certain other persons ? 

Mr. SoLGA. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens, Did you serve in closed Communist Party meetings 
with certain other persons, as Communists ? 

Mr. SoLGA. I did, sir. 

Mr. Arens. During the course of your membership in the Com- 
munist Party did you know as a Communist a person by the name of 
Louis J. Stallone ? 

Mr. SoLGA. I did, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Did you know 

Mr. Doyle. May I ask this, Mr. Arens, in laying a foundation, may 
it be understood by the witness and counsel that these names that will 
be read to you by our director, if you identify them as known to you 
as Communists, during the time you were in the Communist Partj, 
the reason that you knew them as Communists was that you sat m 
closed Communist Party meetings with them 

Mr. SoLGA. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. Doyle (continuing). At closed meetings 

Mr. SoLGA. Yes. 

Mr. Doyle (continuing). Of the Communist Party, known to you 
to be closed meetings of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. SoLGA. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Did you know as a Communist a person by the name of 
Howard Vincent Trautman ? 

Mr. SoLGA. I did, sir. 

Mr. Arens. I should ask you, and I beg your pardon for not doing 
so, in what type of work was Mr. Louis J. Stallone engaged, whom 
you have already identified ? 

Mr. SoLGA. For a number of years he was classified as a radio opera- 
tor; since that time I believe he was placed in another department 
involving the servicing of equipment on the general operations floor. 

Mr. Arens. Where ? 

Mr. SoLGA. In RCA Communications. 

Mr. Arens. Does he have access to these messages which we have 
been talking about? 

Mr. SoLGA. He doesn't — he is within the range of having access, 
but specifically the nature of his work involves the servicing of equip- 
ment on which messages are processed. 

Mr. Arens. Can he monitor secret messages of the Government? 

Mr. SoLGA. I don't know whether his classification permits him to 
do that without being made aware of 

Mr. Arens. Does he service the machines on which secret messages 
of this Government are transmitted ? 

Mr. SoLGA. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Now, I believe this record is correct, that you have iden- 
tified Howard Vincent Trautman as a person known by you to have 
been a Communist ? 

Mr. SoLGA. That is correct. 

Mr. Arends. Give us just a word of description of Mr. Trautman. 

Mr. SoLGA. Well, Mr. Trautman, likewise, was a radio operator for 
a number of years, the number of which I am not aware of at this 
time. 



COMMUNIST PENETRATION" OF COMMTJNICATIONS FACILITIES 1459 

He has since then, I understand, been placed in a position of serv- 
icing special types of equipment, involving operations within KCA 
Communications. 

Mr. Arens. Does he service equipment which transmits confidential 
or secret messages ? 

Mr. SoLGA. He services equipment which I am not aware whether 
he actually services traffic. 

Mr. Arens. Did you in the course of your experience in the Com- 
munist Party know as a Communist a person by the name of Frances 
Halpern ? 

Mr. SoLGA. I did, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Give us a word of description about that person ? 

Mr. SoLGA. The young lady you are having reference to was em- 
ployed by American Communications Association in the capacitj of 
secretary-clerk. She was not employed in RCA Communications. 

Mr. Aeens. And the American Communications Association — is 
that the labor organization which has the contracts ? 

Mr. SoLGA. That is correct. 

Mr. Arens. Within these various communications establishments? 
Is that correct? 

Mr. SoLGA. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Did you know as a Communist a person by name of 
Reuben Kaplan? 

Mr. SoLGA. Yes ; he was a young man that I worked with as a radio 
operator for a period of about 5 or 6 years. I don't know of his where- 
abouts at this time. He has since left the company, a period of about 
12 years ago. 

Mr. Arens. Do you know where his is now ? 

Mr. SoLGA. I personally don't know where he is at this time. 

Mr. Arens. Did you know as a Communist a person by the name 
of Louis Jenkins? 

Mr. SoLGA. Yes, sir. Louis Jenkins is presently employed in RCA 
as a radio operator. 

Mr. Arens. And does he have about the same status as you have, the 
same type of work ? 

Mr. SoLGA. Yes ; we are both in the same classification, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Does he have access or could he have access in his work 
or in his presence in the department in which he is engaged to con- 
fidential or secret messages ? 

Mr. SoLGA. To the same degree I specified, prior to this time. 

Mr. Arens. Did you know as a Communist a person by the name of 
Geraldine Shandros ? 

Mr. SoLGA. Yes, sir; she was employed with the American Com- 
munications Association in the capacity as a secretary and clerk, 
representing the union in their relationship with RCA. 

Mr. Arens. Can you now recall any other persons in the communi- 
cations industry who were known by you to a certainty to have been 
Communists ? 

Mr. SoLGA. Offhand — I tried to rack my brain on that last night, 
and I have been unable to come across any other names which would 
reflect any further light. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Solga, assuming, for the sake of this question 
that the persons whom you have named are presently Commmiists, 



1460 COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 

and are, as you have testified, presently engaged in the communi- 
cations industry; on the basis of jouv background and experience 
and knowledge of the communications industry and the type of mes- 
sages which are transmitted, in your judgment, on this assumption 
which I have given you, is there a security threat in the existence 
of those facts ? 

Mr. Soi.GA. There is a potential security risk, depending on the 
tension that develops between our country and any other major 
country. 

Mr. Arens. We thank you very much for your testimony. 

And that will conclude, if you please, Mr. Chairman, the staff 
interrogation of this witness. 

Mr. Doyle. Mr. Frazier, do you have any questions ? 

Mr. Frazeer. I have no questions. 

Mr. DoTEE. We want to thank you very much for coming and 
helping this congressional committee studying this problem, look- 
ing toward possible remedial legislation by Congress in this impor- 
tant field. 

I would like to ask you this question: I think you are a member 
of the ACA union ? 

Mr. SoLGA. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. Doyle. How many years have you been in the field of com- 
munications ? 

Mr. SoLGA. For the past 28 years. 

Mr. Doyle. Twenty-eiglit years. You did not ask the witness, 
Mr. Arens, if he had knowledge of whether or not any of the present 
officers of the union were known to him to be Communists? 

Mr. Arens. I did it a little bit differently. 

I asked him to name those he knew as Communists, and they did 
not encompass the present officers. 

They have heretofore been identified on this record, however. 

Mr. Doyle. Very well. 

How often does ACA have union meetings ? 

Mr. SoLGA. Once a month, sir. 

Mr. Doyle. How large a number attend ? 

Mr. SoLGA. Frankly, I can't tell you that because I haven't been 
attending. 

Mr. Doyle. Approximately. 

Mr. SoLGA. A normal meeting, from what I heard — which is 
hearsay — there might be 30 or 40 members present. 

Mr. Doyle. Out of a membership of how many ? 

Mr. SoLGA. Of approximately 1,100. 

Mr. Doyle. Out of a membership of 1,100? 

Mr. SoLGA. Of course, there is also the question of a 3-shift affair, 
where all 3 shifts cannot attend the meeting. 

Mr. Doyle. Yes, I realize that. 

Mr. SoLGA. That is partially the reason. 

]Mr. Doyle. Do you know approximately how many members of 
the union could attend, on account of their being free fi^om employ- 
ment at 1 of the 3 shifts ? 

Mr. SoLGA. It would have to be a theoretical guess. It might be 
125,150,200. 

Mr. Doyle. In other words, the working shifts have their union 
meetings in between ? 



COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 1461 

Mr. SoLGA. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. Doyle. If there are 1,100 members of the union, how many 
shifts are there ? 

Mr. SoLGA. There are three basic shifts, sir, and then with varia- 
tions, with intermediary shifts involved. 

Mr. DoTLE. Thank you very much. We wish to thank you again. 

Mr. SoLGA. You are welcome, sir. 

Mr. Arens. The next witness, Mr. Chairman, is Mr. Samuel 
Rothbaum. 

Would you, Mr. Rothbaum, kindly come forward and remain stand- 
ing, please, while the chairman administers the oath to you. 

Mr. DoTLE. Do you solemnly swear that you will tell the truth, the 
whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? 

Mr. Rothbaum. I do, sir, 

Mr. Doyle. Please have the witness chair. 

TESTIMONY OF SAMUEL EOTHBAUM 

Mr. Arens. Kindly identify yourself, please, by name, residence,, 
and occupation. 

Mr. Rothbaum. My name is Samuel Rothbaum. My residence is 
1105 Gipson Street, Far Rockaway, Long Island, N. Y. My occupa- 
tion is assistant repeater chief. Western Union Telegraph Co. 

Mr. Arexs. How long have you been an assistant repeater chief at 
the Western Union ? 

Mr. Rothbaum. It will be a little over 2 years in this capacity. 

Mr. Arens. And how long have you been engaged with Western 
Union ? 

Mr. Rothbaum. Ever since the merger with Postal TelegTaph. 

Mr, Arens. And when was that ? 

Mr. Rothbaum. I believe it was 1943 or 1944; I am not sure of the 
date, sir. 

Mr, Arens, Kindly tell us how long you have been engaged in any 
capacity in the communications industry ? 

Mr, Rothbaum. I worked for Postal Telegraph from June 1935 
until the present, of course, I am with Western Union, I have been 22 
years in the service, 

Mr, Arens, Kindly give us just a very brief description of your 
duties and functions, as an 

Mr, Rothbaum, Assistant repeater chief. 

Mr, Arens, Yes, sir, assistant repeater chief, 

Mr. Rothbaum, Well, an assistant repeater chief takes care of all 
leased communications in the central office of Western Union, every- 
thing going in and out of New York City goes through there. 

Mr, Arens, Kindly direct your attention specifically to leased 
lines which are leased to agencies of the Federal Government. 

Mr, Rothbaum. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. And tell us which of those are processed by your 
operations. 

]Mr. Rothbaum. Civil defense, our Government, various Govern- 
ment agencies, our Air Force circuits, our naval circuits, our Army 
circuits, 

Mr, Arens, And do confidential, security-restricted messages pass 
over these circuits ? 



1462 coMMinsnsT penetration of communications FAcrLmES 

Mr. RoTHBAUM. I would say, Yes, sir; all Government informa- 
tion is confidential. 

Mr. Arens. Now, using one of the agencies as an illustration 

Mr. RoTHBAUM. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Rather than have me interrogate you on all of them, 
let us take the Air Force, if you please. Do Air Force messages of 
a confidential nature go over the facilities of Western Union ? 

Mr. RoTHBAUM. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Do those confidential messages physically appear in the 
form of tapes ? 

Mr. RoTHBAUM. They do, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Within the office? 

Mr. RoTHBAUM. They do, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Without undertaking in this testimony of yours to 
assert what any one individual is presently doing — we will get to that 
in a little while — is it possible for an employee of Western Union in 
the office in which you are engaged to take from the premises, the 
physical tape on which the Air Force secret or confidential messages 
appear? 

Mr. RoTHBAUM. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Is it possible for that to be done without being easily 
detected ? 

Mr. RoTHBAUM. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Is it possible, likewise, for an employee working in the 
general area in which you are engaged, to not only take the tape, but 
in place of taking it, to copy the message, put it in his pocket and 
walk out with it ? 

Mr. RoTHBAUM. He definitely could copy the substance of the 
message. 

Mr. Doyle. May I have the answer again ? 

Mr. Arens (quoting Mr. Rothbaum) : 

He definitely could copy the substance of the message. 

Mr. Doyle. Thank you. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Rothbaum, are you familiar with what they call in 
the industry, so I understand, monitoring ? 

Mr. Rothbaum. Monitoring, yes sir. It is necessary for trouble 
shooting purposes. 

Mr. Arens. Tell us just in a word what is "monitoring" ? 

Mr. Rothbaum. Monitoring is a process whereby a technician will 
insert a teletype into a circuit for the purpose of helping to determine 
the trouble by reading the copy. 

Mr. Arens. Are the tie lines and leased lines of this Government, 
which are processed by your organization, and which carry confiden- 
tial, secret Government messages — are they monitored by employees 
of Western Union ? 

Mr. Rothbaum. They definitely are, from time to time, if neces- 
sary, for trouble shooting purposes. 

Mr. Arens. Have you ever been a Communist ? 

Mr. Rothbaum. I have, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Give us, if you please, a brief thumbnail sketch of your 
career in the Communist Party. 

Mr. Rothbaum. Well, when I was 20 years old, 1938, 1 was a mem- 
ber of the Communist Party in Postal Telegraph. I belonged to a 
small group which I believe was a sort of study group. 



COMMXJNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILmES 1463 

I didn't get the rest of that question. 

Mr. Arens. Just your career in the Communist Party. It was a 
brief period ; was it not ? 

Mr. KoTHBAUM. Yes; it was for a period of around 8 months. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Rothbaum, I inform you now that the persons 
whom you have told us about in staff consultations have already on 
this record been the subject of testimony, with the exception of 1 or 2 
persons, and I should like, therefore, to just ask you about 1 or 2 per- 
sons, so that we will not have a record that is encumbered with repe- 
tition. 

Did you, while you were a member of the Communist Party attend 
a closed Communist Party meeting with a person by the name of 
Mollie Townsend ? 

Mr. RoTHBAUM. I did. 

Mr. Arens. Do you here now, while you are under oath, testify to a 
certainty that you knew Mollie Townsend as a Communist? 

Mr. RoTHBAUM. I did. 

Mr. Arens. Kindly tell us, if you please, sir, in what capacity she 
was engaged and, if you know, where she is employed at the present 
time. 

Mr. RoTHBAUM. Mollie Townsend at present is an officer of the 
American Communications Association. 

Mr. Arens. The American Communications Association is that 
association which has contracts within the communications industry, 
to represent certain employees; is that correct? 

Mr. RoTHBAUM. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. In what capacity was Mollie Townsend engaged, at 
the time you knew her as a Communist ? 

Mr. RoTHBAUM. As, I would say, a leader in this study group that 
I belonged to. 

Mr. Arens. I meant did you know where she was employed at that 
time, other than her activity in the Communist Party ? 

Mr. RoTHBAUM. Where she was employed ? 

Mr. Arens. Yes, when you knew her as a Communist: Was she 
then employed in the American Communications Association? 

Mr. RoTiiBAUM. Oh, I see, sir. I think she was, sir, to the best of my 
recollection. 

Mr. Arens. Is she presently an officer of the American Communica- 
tions Association ? 

]\Ir. RoTHBAUM. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Doyle. Judge Frazier, do you wish to ask the witness any 
questions? 

Mr. Frazier. I have no questions. 

Mr. Doyle. Witness, I wish to ask you just a couple of questions. 

On yesterday, a witness by the name of Frank Grumman testified 
that he was a radio operator and secretary-treasurer of Local 10 of the 
American Communications Association. He was before us as a 
witness. 

In substance, when he was asked about the possibilities of sabotage 
his answer was as follows : 

It would be possible only to a small degree and impossible to get away with. 

That is almost an exact quote, I think. 

94781 — 57 — pt. 1 7 



1464 COMJMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 

From your 22 years of experience, what is your answer to the ques- 
tion of whether or not an evil, unpatriotic person, desirous of weaken- 
ing our national defense and aiding our enemy, even in this time of 
the cold war, could sabotage ? Would it be an easy accomplishment ? 

Mr. RoTHBAUM. Well, sir, from a technical aspect of what is easy, 
I can't say what is in a person's mind. I do Imow this, that a saboteur 
could inflict quite a bit of damage upon the communications industry. 

Mr. D0TI.E. Could inflict quite a bit of damage? 

Mr. RoTHBAUM. Yes, he could. 

Mr. Doyle. And get away with it for how long a period of time ? 

Mr. RoTHBAUM. That is hard to say, sir. 

Mr. Doyle. But long enough to do definite damage and injury to it? 

Mr. RoTHBAU]\r. In a period of crisis ; yes, sir. He definitely could 
do an awful lot of damage. 

Mr. Doyle. In a period of crisis, your answer is they could do an 
awful lot of damage? 

Mr. RoTHBAUM. Definitely, sir. 

Mr. Doyle. I have one more question here. I think I heard you 
testify tliat classified, confidential messages went over the lines which 
you handle, which your company handles, from the Civil Defense 
Department, the Air Force, the Navy, and the Army. How about 
the State Department ? 

Mr. RoTHBAUM. Yes; we do have some State Department leases. 

Mr. Doyle. Would there be the same degree of ease and possibility 
to sabotage those messages, as well as others, in time of conflict? 

Mr. RoTHBAUM. Yes, sir. They are in the same place, the same 
area. We are centralized. Our communications are centralized. 

Mr. Doyle. May I ask you a very direct, personal question? 

Mr. RoTHBAuM. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Doyle. Assuming that you were a Communist and in the 
position you now hold with the company, and you were desirous of 
sabotaging messages, classified code messages from any of these Gov- 
ernment departments to our allies or to our outfits in Europe, Asia, 
or Africa, wherever they are, could you easily sabotage those messages? 

Mr. RoTHBAUM. Sir, it is a hypothetical question. I could not say 
that it would be easy to do — definitely not — it is a hard question to 
answer for me. The thought has never been entertained in my mind. 
I just couldn't give you an answer to that, sir. I probably would have 
to rack my brains on it. 

Mr. Doyle. All right. Strike out the word "easy" then. Let me 
ask you the question, striking out the word "easy." 

Could you accomplish it if you had that evil design to do damage 
to our national security ? 

Mr. RoTiiBAUM. Well, I could accomplish it, and I imagine I would 
be caught, definitely. 

Mr. Doyle. You w^hat? 

Mr. RoTHBAUM. I would be caught doing it. 

Mr. DoY^LE. Sure you would be caught, but you could do the damage 
before you were caught ? 

Mr. RoTHBAUM. Yes, sir; I could do some damage before I was 
caught. 

Mr. Arens. We have three other names that we would like to ask 
him about. T\'liile you were a Communist, Mr. Rothbaum, did you 
know a person to be a Communist by the name of William Burke? 



COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 1465 

Mr. RoTHBAUM. Yes ; I did. 

Mr. Arens. In what capacity? 

Mr. RoTHBAUM. He was an organizer originally, when Postal Tele- 
graph was being organized. 

Mr. Arens. For what organization ? 

Mr. RoTHBAUM. Well, I believe the name then was American Radio 
and Telegraphers Association. 

Mr. Arens. Did you know as a Communist a person by the name of 
Sol Klein? 

Mr. RoTHBAUM. Yes, I did. 

Mr. Arens. In what capacity ? 

Mr. RoTiiBAUM. A telegraph operator. 

Mr. Arens. Do you know where he is now ? 

Mr. RoTHBAUM. I don't know, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Did you know as a Communist a person by the name 
of Dave Shawn ? 

Mr. RoTHBAUM. I did, sir. 

Mr. Arens. In what capacity ? 

Mr. RoTHBAUM. Telegraph operator. 

Mr. Arens. Do you know where he is now ? 

Mr. RoTHBAUM. No, sir. 

Mr. Arens. We have no further questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Doyle. I wish to thank you on behalf of the committee, for 
your cooperation, and for the information you have given us in our 
study of possible remedial legislation in this field of sabotage, espion- 
age, and injuring our national security, especially in the field of 
communications. 

Thank you very much. 

The committee will stand in recess until July 29, 1957, at 10 o'clock, 
in this room. 

(AVliereupon, at 10:48 a. m., Friday, July 19, 1957, the subcom- 
mittee was recessed to reconvene at 10 a. m., Monday, July 29, 1957.) 



INVESTIGATION OF COMMUNIST PENETRATION 
OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES— PART 1 



FRIDAY, AUGUST 2, 1957 

United States House of Representatr^s, 

Subcommittee of the 
Committee on Un-American Activities, 

Washington, D. G. 

PUBLIC HEARING 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 : 05 a. m., in the 
caucus room, Old House Office Building, Washington, D. C. Mr. 
Clyde Doyle (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Committee members present : Representatives Clyde Doyle, of Cali- 
fornia (presiding), James B. Frazier, Jr., of Tennessee, and Gordon 
H. Scherer of Ohio. 

Staff members present: Richard Arens, director, and W. Jackson 
Jones and Louis J. Russell, investigators. 

Mr. Doyle. The committee will please come to Order. 

This morning's hearings are a continuation of previous hearings 
started on July 17, 1957, this being a continuation of a series of hear- - 
ings in the communications industry in the United States, namely, the 
position and influence held by members of the Communist Party and 
organizations dedicated to the Communist objectives in that field of 
communications industry, principally. 

On July 10, 1957, at a regular m.eeting of the committee, with all 
members except two present and voting, a motion was macte by Mr. 
Scherer and seconded by Mr. Frazier, which authorized the holding 
of these hearings in Washington, D. C, on this general subject. 

The resolution adopted by the committee on July 10, 1957, was as 
follows : 

A motion was made by Mr. Scherer, seconded by Mr. Frazier, and unanimously 
carried, approving and authorizing the holding of hearings in Washington, be- 
ginning July 17, 1957, or at such later date as the chairman may determine, 
for the purpose of considering whether or not members of the Communist Party, 
or persons subject to its discipline are employed in various media of communica- 
tions used in the transmission of vital communications, and the advisability, in 
the national defense and for internal security, of the adoption of remedial legis- 
lation autliorizing the Defense Department and other Government agencies to 
adopt and enforce appropriate regulations designed to protect and preserve in- 
violate secret and classified Government information, and investing in appro- 
priate Government agencies, power to preclude access to vital communication 
facilities in time of war or other national emergency, persons who probably will 
engage in, or probably will conspire with others to engage in, acts of espionage 
or sabotage. 

Before proceeding further, I would like to include in the record 
a copy of the order for appointment of this subcommittee, signed by the 
chairman on the 12th day of July 1957. In it, there is appointed a 

1467 



1468 COIVTMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILmES 

subcommittee consisting of Mr. Frazier of Tennessee, who is on my 
left, and Mr. Scherer of Ohio, who is on my right, and myself, Doyle 
of California, subcommittee chairman, to conduct these hearings in 
Washington, D. C, which began on July 17, 1957. 

As this order authorized the subcommittee to conduct hearings on 
this general subject, beginning on July 17. 1957, lot the record fur- 
ther reflect that this hearing is a continuation of those begun on that 
date. 

(The order of appointment follows :) 

Ordee foe Appointment of Subcommittee 

To the Clerk of the Committee on Un-American Activities of the House of 
Representatives: 
Pursuant to the provisions of law and the rules of this committee, I hereby 
appoint a subcommittee of the Committee on Un-American Activities, House of 
Representatives, consisting of Hon. Clyde Doyle, chairman, and Hon. James B. 
Frazier, Jr., and Hon. Gordon Scherer, associate members, to conduct hearings 
in Washington, D. C, beginning on July 17, 1957, on all matters within the 
jurisdiction of the committee, and to take testimony on said day or any succeed- 
ing days, and at such times and places as it may deem necessary, until its work 
is completed. 

The clerk of the committee is directed to immediately notify the appointees 
of their appointment and to file this order as an official committee record, in 
the order book kept for that purpose. 

Given under my hand this 12th day of July 1957. 

(Signed) Francis E. Walteb, 
Committee on Un-American Activities, 

House of Representatives. 

Mr. Doyle. Those of the subcommittee who are now present and 
constitute a quorum are, in fact, the full subcommittee which I have 
just identified. 

Congress, by Public Law 601 of the 79th Congress, placed upon this 
committee the duty of investigating the extent, character, and objects 
of un-American propaganda activities in the United States, the dif- 
fusion within the United States of subversive and un-American prop- 
aganda that is instigated from foreign countries, or of a domestic 
origin and attacks the principle of the form of government as guaran- 
teed by our Constitution, and all other questions in relation thereto 
that would aid Congress in any necessary remedial legislation. 

Congress has also placed upon this committee the duty of exer- 
cising continuous watchfulness of the execution by the administration 
agencies concerned of any laws, the subject-matter of which is within 
the jurisdiction of this committee. 

In these hearings, the second of a series on this general subject, the 
committee hopes to obtain additional information respecting the ex- 
tent of the penetration and control exercised by members of the Com- 
munist Party in the United States over an industry which is vital at 
all times to our defense, namely, communications. 

In the event that testimony given during these hearings reflects a 
situation correctable by legislation or which may be remedied by legis- 
lation, the committee will recommend the appropriate measures at the 
proper time. 

It is the purpose of the subcommittee in the conduct of these hear- 
ings to discharge the duties placed upon us by the Congress by calling 
witnesses who, we have reason to believe, possess information which 



COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 1469 

will be of value to us and to the Congress in the consideration of such 
legislation. 

It is a standing rule of this committee that any person named in the 
course of committee hearings, will be given an early opportunity, 
upon request, to appear before this committee if he so desires, for the 
purpose of denying or explaining any testimony given adversely affect- 
ing such person. In the event that there are such persons, they should 
immediately communicate with any member of the committee staff 
and make their requests known. 

In every hearing, the committee has encouraged witnesses to have 
legal counsel with them, if they so desire, and it has always welcomed 
the presence of legal counsel. In fact, the rules of the committee, 
which are well known and have been publicly distributed and widely 
distributed, provide that — 

at every hearing, public or executive, every vpitness shall be accorded the privilege 
of having counsel of his ov^^n choosing. 

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

I would respectfully remind those present that we are here at the 
direction of Congress to discharge an important legislative function. 
Those in the hearing room are here by permission of the committee, 
and I trust and I know that you will all conduct yourselves as guests 
of the committee and of the Congress at all times. 

A disturbance of any kind, or audible comment during the course 
of testimony, whether favorable or unfavorable to any witness, will 
not be tolerated. 

Mr. Frazier, do you have anything further to add ? 

Mr. Frazier. Nothing. 

Mr. Doyle. Mr. Scherer, have you anything further to add ? 

Mr. Scherer. Nothing. 

Mr. Doyle. Are you ready, then, Counsel, with your first witness? 

Mr. Arens. May I make an announcement and a request of the 
Chair, if you please ? 

One of the witnesses who was subpenaed to appear here today was 
Louis Jenkins. I have been advised by his counsel that Mr. Jenkins 
has been taken ill. 

Therefore, I respectfully request that this record reflect that he be 
continued under his subpena and excused from appearance today. 

Mr. Scherer. Has a doctor's certificate been filed ? 

Mr. Arens. No. I understand that the illness just took place in 
tlie course of the last few hours. I have been advised by his counsel 
that he came to Washington to appear and became ill at breakfast 
this morning. 

Mr. Doyle. Will counsel agi-ee that he will appear at a later date 
as shall be mutually arranged ? 

Mr. Eabinowitz. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that, as Mr. 
Arens suggests, the subpena be continued in effect. I was advised 
this morning, and I Iniew nothing about it until this morning, that 
he has for a long while been suffering from a rather serious heart 
condition and that, as a matter of fact, he has been on sick leave for the 
last 2 or 3 weeks, which was the occasion on which he was down here 
last time, only the committee did not get to him. He is perfectly 



1470 CORIMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 

willing to appear if he is advised that it would be safe for him, from 
the point of view of liealth, but I would like to consult with his doctor. 
As I say, I knew nothing at all about this until this morning, and I 
really haven't had a chance to discuss it with him, because he wasn't 
in a condition to talk about it. 

Mr. Doyle. Of course, the committee would reserve the right to 
have a physician of our own choosing also examine the witness. 

Mr. Kabinowitz. Wliy, of course. 

Mr. DoTLE. Even though he may have his own physician. 

Mr. Rabinoavitz. Of course. I would expect that, and what I sug- 
gest is that some time during the next week I consult with Mr. Arens 
and tell him just what the situation is. 

Mr. DoTLE. Very well, if that will be satisfactory. 

Mr. ScHERER. Mr. Chairman, may I suggest in connection with 
those discussions, that he file a medical report from his own doctor? 

Mr. Rabinowitz. Either he will be here on such agreed upon date 
as the committee sets, or there will be a doctor's certificate filed, cer- 
tainly. 

Mr. Arens. Will the record reflect, if you please, JVir. Chairman, 
the order of the chairman that this record show that he is continued 
under his subpena ? 

Mr. Rabinowitz. Certainly. 

Mr. Doyle. Very well. That will be the order. 

Mr. Arens. If you please, Mr. Chairman, the first witness today 
will be Mr. Louis J. Stallone. 

Kindly remain standing, Mr. Stallone, while the chairman ad- 
ministers the oath to you. 

Mr. Doyle. Do you solemnly swear you will tell the truth, the 
whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Stallone. I do. 

Mr. Doyle. Take the witness chair, please. 

TESTIMONY OF LOUIS J. STALLONE, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 
VICTOR RABINOWITZ 

Mr. Arens. Kindly identify yourself by name, residence, and occu- 
pation. 

Mr. Stallone. My name is Louis J. Stallone. I live at 440 41st 
Street, Brooklyn, N. Y., and my occupation is an operating mainte- 
nance man and technician, RCA Communications. 

Mr. Scherer. I didn't hear that. 

Mr. Stallone. Maintenance and technician. 

Mr. Scherer. With whom ? 

Mr. Stallone. RCA Communications. 

Mr. Arens. You are appearing today, Mr. Stallone, in response to 
a subpena that was served upon you by the House Committee on 
Un-American Activities ? 

Mr. Stallone. Yes ; I am. 

Mr. Arens. And you are represented by counsel ? 

Mr. Stallone. Yes ; I am. 

Mr. Arens. Counsel, kindly identify yourself. 

Mr. Rabinowitz. Victor Rabinowitz, New York. 

I wonder, Mr. Chairman, whether I might not at this time intro- 
duce into the record with the consent of ]\ir. Arens a telejrram I sent 



COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILrTIES 1471 

to him yesterday which I would like to read, if I may. It is ad- 
dressed to 

Mr. Doyle. On what subject? 

Mr. Eabinowitz. On the subject of these hearings. 

Mr. Arens. Is that the telegram, Mr. Eabinowitz, in which you 
requested that the hearings be taken in executive session ? 

Mr. Eabinowitz. Yes. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Eabinowitz has made a request that 
the hearings be taken in executive session and pursuant to the policy 
of the committee as announced, and the direction from the chairman, 
I advised Mr. Eabinowitz that that request would be denied. 

Mr. Eabinowitz. May I read the telegram just so that as a matter 
of record it appears before the committee. I don't know whether the 
subcommittee even knew about the telegram, and I think it ought to 
pass on the request, rather than counsel. 

Mr. Doyle. No. 

Mr. Eabinowitz. It is a short telegram. I could have finished it by 
this time. 

Mr. Doyle. No, counsel. You see, our director acts on these formal 
requests in a matter of established policy by the committee. It is not 
a matter that has to be presented to the subcommittee. 

Mr. Eabinowitz. I don't want to argue it. 

Mr. Doyle. I know. But there is no need in encumbering the record 
with a telegram that is not pertinent to the hearing. 

Mr. Eabinowitz. Except the court may consider it pertinent. 
Many things considered by these 

Mr. Doyle. Counsel, please. I called attention in my opening 
statement that your exclusive function is to advise your client. It 
is not a legal forum ; it is an investigating committee. 

Mr. Eabinowitz. Well, if you 

Mr. Doyle. I cannot see how in the world any rights of your 
client are jeopardized by our refusal to accede to your request for 
an executive hearing. 

Mr. Eabinowitz. Very well. If the chairman is satisfied to have 
counsel make rulings for the committee, I will desist. 

Mr. Doyle. The counsel made that ruling in accordance with our 
established policy and when he made that ruling he was acting 
Avithin his province. 

Mr. ScHERER. The regular order, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Eabinowitz. Well, very well. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Stallone, kindly tell us when and where you were 
born? 

Mr. Stallone. Prior to that, if I may, I should like to refer to a 
statement made by a previous witness on July 18, Mr. Frank 
Grumman. 

As you probably will recall, he introduced into the record a state- 
ment. I should like permission, of course, to adopt tliat statement 
as my own, and have it entered into the record as my statement, by 
reference. 

Mr. Doyle. I think you cannot do that, sir. He made his record. 
I think it is pertinent and proper that you make your own record, 
and stand on your own record. 

Mr. Stallone. I have that statement here, if you wish. 

94781— 57— pt. 1 8 



1472 COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 

Mr. Arens. Kindly tell this committee \yhen and where you were 
born. 

Mr. Rabinowitz. Mr. Chairman, I don't want to argue this point, 
really, and I am raising a point 

Mr. ScHERER. Mr. Chairman, I suggest that counsel knows the 
rules of this committee. I object to any further statement by counsel, 
and I ask that the witness be instructed to answer the question pro- 
pounded to him by counsel of this committee. 

jNIr. Arens. Kindly tell us when and Avhere you were born. 

Mr. Stallone. I was born on March 28, 1912, in Brooklyn, N. Y. 

Mr. Arens. Give us, if you please, just a thumbnail sketch of your 
educational background. 

Mr. Stallone. Well, I attended grammar school and G months of 
high school. That is my formal education. I started working for 
RCA at the age of 15 and I am still there. 

Mr. Arens. Tell us, please, sir, the principal jobs you have held with 
RCA during these many years. 

Mr. Stallone. Well, going back from today, I am now a technician, 
which is a nice title for a teletype repairman. Prior to that I was a 
radio operator. Prior to that I was a teletype operator, clerk, down 
through to messenger. 

Mr. Arens. How long have you occupied your pre.sent job? 

Mr. Stallone. About 6 years, more or less. 

Mr. Arens. Could you give us just a brief description of your func- 
tions and duties in your present job as a technician? 

Mr. Stallont:. Well, the main function is to repair teletype equip- 
ment, that is, wdiat we call on-line repair, if possible. If something 
goes wrong with a radio circuit using teletype equipment, of 
course 

Mr. Arens. Do you have access in your repair work to the teletype 
equipment wdiich processes or handles messages from the Air Force? 

Mr. Stallone. No, I have not. 

Mr. Arens. Do you have access to any equipment which handles any 
messages by any agency of the Government of the United States? 

Mr. Stallone. Yes, I suppose so. In the course of my work I 
handle troubles that come up on teletype circuits, some of them, the 
traffic coming over these circuits might be Government traffic. I 
don't know. 

Mr. Arens. Did any of this traffic that comes over the circuits to 
which you have access in your routine duties contain messages from 
the Pentagon, from any agency in the Pentagon, the Air Force or the 
Army or any of our military establishments ? 

Mr. Stallone. It is very hard to say. They may. Probably they 
do, but I don't know. It is very difficult to say at any given moment 
what is coming over. 

Mr. SciiERER. Just a minute now. Not "any given moment," but 
counsel's question was not whether these come over at any given 
moment. The question was whether any such messages do go over 
this equipment at any time. 

Mr. Stallone. Well, I will assume they do go over. Yes, they do 
go over. 

Mr. ScHERER. All right. 

Mr. Arens. Are any of these messages, messages in code ? 



COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS rACILITTES 1473 

Mr. Stallone. I suppose so. I don't really know. I don't know. 
I don't look at these things. The only time I see a circuit is when 
it is in trouble. At that moment there are no messages going over it. 
There is nothing going over it because it is in trouble. 

Mr. Arens. When you have your hands on the equipment, are there 
within the limitations of tlie equipment, paper tapes with messages 
on them ? 

Mr. Stallone. Yes. 

Mr. Arens. And do those paper tapes contain messages from the 
Government of the United States? Or agencies of the Govern- 
ment of the United States ? 

Mr. Scherer. Or to the Government of the United States ? 

Mr, Stallone. Well, when the circuit is operating properly I sup- 
pose those circuits do contain tapes. When I get at them and I am 
called in to them they don't contain anything, because they are no 
good. In other words, I wouldn't be called in unless they were in 
trouble, 

Mr. Arens. Do you have monitoring equipment that you use in 
the course of your duties ? 

Mr. Stallone. Yes. 

Mr. Arens. And what is the nature of that monitoring equipment ? 
Give us just a word description on tliat, please. 

Mr. Stallone. Well, the nature of it is, to jack in on a circuit that 
is in trouble — in a circuit in trouble. My supervisor tells me — or some 
other supervisor tells me ''Mr. Stallone, would you please look at 
so-and-so ? We can't get anything on it. It is all garbled." 

At that point I will jack in and see what I think of it. 

Mr. Arens. AAHiere are you when you jack in or tie in on messages? 

Mr. Stallone. Oh, I am right in front of the chief supervisor on 
the main floor. 

Mr. Arens. Are you in the headquarters of RCA in New York 
City? 

Mr. Stallone. Oh, yes. 

Mr. Arens. And do you have occasion in the course of your work 
to jack in or listen in on messages emanating from the Pentagon? 

Mr. Stallone. No, I don't think so. 

Mr. Scherer. Wait a minute. The witness says no, he doesn't think 
so. 

Mr. Stallone. I don't recall. I don't think we have a circuit from 
the Pentagon. If there is, I never saw it. At least, I have no access 
to it. 

Mr. Arens. Does RCA service any of the lines from the Pentagon? 

Mr. Stallone. I really don't know. I don't have any access to it. 
I don't have any knowledge of it. 

Mr. Arens. Does RCA service any lines, to your knowledge, for 
the Government of the United States ? 

Mr. Stallone. I suppose they do — I am not positive. 

Mr. Arens. You know the Air Force is serviced by RCA, do you 
not? 

Mr. Stallone. Yes, but I told you I don't have any access to it so 
I am not too familiar with it. 

Mr. Arens. Do you know now, as of the time you are presently testi- 
fying under oath, whether or not RCA employees service messages 
from the Air Force? 



1474 COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Stallone. As I said before, I am not positive they do. I as- 
sume that they do. I know they used to — let's put it that way. Since 
T don't have access to that area I don't know what they do at the 
moment. I still assume there has been no change. 

Mr. ScHERER. Wliat do you mean that you do not have access to 
the area ? 

Mr. Stallone. This is a security area which I don't enter. 

Mr. Scherer. I didn't hear you. 

Mr. Stallone. It is a security area, which I do not enter. 

Mr. Arens. A^Hiere is the security area ? 

Mr. Stallone. It is on a different floor of the building. 

Mr. Arens. And have you ever been precluded from entering that 
area? 

Mr. Stallone. Yes, I have. 

Mr. Arens. "Wlio precluded you from entering the security area of 
the RCA facilities? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Stallone. The company did — RCA Communications. 

Mr. Arens. Was that by a written order? 

Mr. Stallone. No. 

Mr. Arens. How were you notified that you were to be precluded 
from access to the security area ? 

Mr. Stallone. Personnel. The department of the company called 
me over and told me. 

Mr. Arens. When was that ? 

Mr. Stallone. Oh, more than a year ago, or about that. 

Mr. Arens. Wliere were you working at that time? 

Mr. Stallone. Same place that I am now. 

Mr. Arens. Did they announce any reasons as to why you were to 
be precluded from the security area ? 

Mr. Stallone. No. 

Mr. Arens. Did you at the time, or immediately prior to the time 
that you were told that you were to keep away from the security area 
of RCA, go into the security area every now and then. 

Mr. Stallone. Yes. 

Mr. Arens. And how often did you go into the security area before 
you were told not to go there ? 

Mr. Stallone. Well, it is hard to say, and I will repeat again the 
nature of my work consisted of such that I am only called in when 
there is some trouble, and I would say 

Mr. Arens. Would you go to the security area as much as once a 
week? 

Mr. Stallone. Just about, maybe more and maybe less. 

Mr. Arens. How big is this security area where you went about 
once a week before you were precluded from going there a year ago? 

Mr. Stallone. Well, the area occupied half of a floor. 

Mr. Arens. And what type of messages are there in this security 
area ? 

Mr. Stallone. Now, you mean ? 

Mr. Arens. Yes — or at any time. 

Mr. Stallone. Wlien I had access to it ? 

Mr. Arens. Or when you had access to it. 



COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 1475 

Mr. Stallone. I don't understand now, but when I had access to 
it, I don't know what they had in it. I presume it was Government 
messages. 

Mr. Arens. Were those secret messages ? 

Mr. Stallone. I don't know. 

Mr. Arens. What did you do in the security area when you went 
there about once a week up until a year ago ? 

Mr. Stallone. Well, I went in there only upon being called in 
there. Let's start off with that. 

Mr. Arens. What did you do after you got there, is what I want to 
know, please, sir ? 

Mr. Stallone. They tell me that there is some trouble on a partic- 
ular machine, and I would go over there and see if I could fix it. 

Mr. Arens. Did those particular machines process Government 
messages ? 

Mr. Stallone. I think I should explain. In that area there about 
nine-tenths of the equipment in that area that is not Government 
equipment — let's put it that way — so there could be troubles, I could 
be called down there to repair something which had nothing what- 
soever to do with security. The wide area itself was set up as a 
security area. 

Mr. Arens. Did you, at any time, when you went in there, work on 
machines that processed secret Government messages ? 

Mr. Stallone. At any time? 

Mr. Arens. Yes. 

Mr. Stallone. Yes. The answer to that is "Yes" — occasionally, 
yes. 

Mr. Arens. Do you have any idea why the company called you in 
a year ago and told you to stay out of the confidential restricted area 
of the building ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Stallone. No. I don't know w^hy the company told me not to. 
If they have a reason, I suggest you get in touch witli them. 

Mr. Arens. Are you sure you have not any idea why they asked 
you to stay out of the confidential area ? 

Mr. Stallone. They never told me. 

Mr. Arens. That is not quite responsive. Do you have any idea 
that you can help this committee with as to why this company would 
tell you, a technician, about a year ago, to stay out of this area ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Stallone. I really don't know. I can't guess a thing like that. 
I suggest you ask them. 

Mr. Arens. You were a radio operator there for a while : were vou 
not? ' ^ 

Mr. Stallone. Yes. 

Mr. Arens. And over what period of time were you a radio oper- 
ator? 

Mr. Stallone. Seventeen years, more or less. 

Mr. Arens. Up until when ? 

Mr. Stallone. 1951. 

Mr. Arens. During the course of the time that you were a radio 
operator, did you process any Government messages in the course of 
your duties ? 

Mr. Stallone. Yes. 



1476 COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 

Mr. Arens. And did you process messages from the Pentagon dur- 
ing the course of your duties ? 

Mr. Stallone. I don't recall. 

Mr. Arens. For what agencies did you process messages when you 
were a radio operator ? 

Mr. Stallone. I don't recall. In a sense, when a message comes in, 
or came in at that time, it was marked "Government" and we have no 
idea where it comes from. As to what agency sent it, we don't know. 

Mr. Arens. You knew it was a Government message, though? 

Mr. Stallone. Yes. 

Mr. Arens. Did you process any confidential Government messages 
or Government messages in code or any cryptic Government mes- 
sages? 

Mr. Stallone. Confidential — I suppose all messages are confiden- 
tial, whether they are Government or not. We don't know if any 
particular message is more confidential than another. 

Mr. Arens. Did you process any Government messages in code or 
cryptic messages? 

Mr. Stallone. In code, yes. 

Mr. Arens. About how many Government messages did you process 
that were in code ? 

Mr. Stallone. I have no idea. 

Mr. Arens. Was it quite a volume or not much ? 

Mr. Stallone. Throughout the entire 17 years ? 

Mr. Arens. Yes. 

Mr. Stallone. Probably a lot of them, I guess. 

Mr. Arens. And about how often in the course of a week would you 
process a Government message in code ? 

Mr. Stallone. It is hard to say. 

Mr. Arens. Would you process as many as a dozen Government 
coded messages in the course of a week ? 

Mr. Stallone. If you want me to say as many as or less than, it is 
pretty hard to say. 

Mr. Arens. Would you process less than 10 Government messages 
in a week ? 

Mr. Stallone. It is pretty hard to say. You are asking me to say, 
to go over a period of 17 years. 

Mr. Arens. Your best knowledge, please ? 

Mr. Stallone. Sometimes, month on end I never went near a cir- 
cuit that a Government message would come over. I have no idea, 
actually. 

Mr. Arens. What would be your best estimate as to the number 
of secret Government messages you processed, say — let us try a 
month — in the course of a month, on an average ? 

Mr. Stallone. I really couldn't say. I don't know. 

Mr. Arens. Would you process as many in a month as 50 messages, 
Government coded messages? 

Mr. Stallone. I don't think so. 

Mr. Arens. Would you process in a month as many as a couple 
dozen Government coded messages on the average ? 

Mr. Stallone. I have no idea. 

Mr. Arens. Would you process in a month as many as — say a dozen 
Government coded messages? 



COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 1477 

Mr. Stallone. It is very hard to say. It might be, miglit not b-e. 

Mr. Doyle. I^t me ask' this : Would you average 1 a month over 
17 years ? 

Mr. Stallone. That is safe enough, I would assume. 

Mr. Doyle. Sir? 

Mr. Stallone. One a month is a safe enough figure. I don't know. 

Mr. Doyle. Seventeen times 12, then, in 17 years? 

Mr. Arens. Is your present jot) a promotion from radio operator 
or a demotion? Do you have a higher status or is it a demotion? 

Mr. Stallone. It is a promotion. 

Mr. Arens. Do you belong to the American Communications Asso- 
ciation ? 

Mr. Stallone. I do. 

Mr. Arens. How long have you belonged to that organization? 

Mr. Stallone. I would say a little over 20 years. 

Mr. Arens. Have you ever held an ofiice in that organization? 

Mr. Stallone. Yes. 

Mr. Arens. What office have you held ? 

Mr. Stallone. I am the president of Local 10 now. 

Mr. Arens. You are now president of Local 10; is that correct, sir? 

Mr. Stallone. That is right. 

Mr. Arens. How long have you held that post ? 

Mr. Stallone. I don't know — I think it is about 5 years. 

Mr. Arens. What is the jurisdiction of Local 10 of ACA? 

Mr. Stallone. Well, its charter includes all radio and cable, of 
course. We don't actually have all cable companies in Local 10, but 
its charter includes that, from the Atlantic coast to the Mississippi 
River. 

Mr. Arens. How many members are there in Local 10? 

Mr. Stallone. I am not positive, but I would say roughly 1,200 — 
something like that. 

Mr, Arens. And where are most of the members located who are 
ni Local 10 ? 

Mr. Stallone. In the metropolitan area of New York. 

Mr. Arens. What contracts, or companies, does Local 10 have? 

Mr. Stallone. RCA Communications, French Cables — that is it. 

Mr. Arens. By French Cables, what do you mean ? 

Mr. Stallone. It is a cable company. 

Mr. Arens. Is it a North Atlantic cable? 

Mr. Stallone. It is a North Atlantic cable. 

Mr. Arens. Do Local 10 people service the North Atlantic cable, 
the French Cable? 

Mr. Stallone. Service the cable? 

Mr. Aeens. Yes. 

Mr. Stallone. Not that I know of. 

Mr. Arens. Service the messages going over the cable? 

Mr. Stallone. We have members employed by French Cable, you 



mean 



Mr. Arens. Yes. 

Mr. Stallone. The answer is "Yes." 
Mr. Arens. What is French Cable, a French company? 
Mr. Stallone. I think so. 

Mr. Arens. Do United States Government messages go over the 
French Cable? 



1478 COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMTJNICATIONS FACILITIES 

Mr. Stallone. I have no idea. 

Mr. Arens. Do you know a man by the name of Joseph Finsmith ? 

Mr. Stallone. I do. 

Mr. Arens. How long have you known him ? 

Mr. Stallone. A good 20 years, I imagine. 

Mr. Arens. Do you know a man by the name of A. T. lannucci ? 

Mr. Stallone. I do. 

Mr. Arens. Do you know a man by the name of Michael Mignon ? 

Mr. Stallone. I do. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Stallone, each and every one of these men, Mr. Fin- 
smith, Mr. lannucci, and Mr. Mignon, have sworn before this com- 
mittee that when they were members of the Communist Party they 
knew you as a Communist — as a member of the Communist Party. 
Were they correct in that identification or were they in error? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Stallone. Let me say, first, I am not a Communist. As to the 
rest of your question, I must decline to answer on the grounds of the 
statement contained in Mr. Grumman's testimony, and also the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. Arens. Were you a Communist yesterday ? 

Mr. Stallone. I must decline to answer for the same reasons. 

Mr. Arens. Did you yesterday resign technical membership in the 
Communist Party so that you could appear today before this com- 
mittee and tell this committee that you are not now a Communist? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Stallone. No. 

Mr. Scherer. Did you resign yesterday for any other reason ? 

Mr. Stallone. No. 

Mr. Arens. When did you disassociate yourself from technical 
affiliation with the Communist Party? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Stallone. I must refuse to answer that question for the same 
reasons. 

Mr. Doyle. May I ask this: "Wliy did you resign or disassociate 
yourself fi'om the Communist Party? Why did you do it ? I am not 
asking you when you did it. "Wliy did you do it ? 

Mr. Stallone. I must decline to answer that question, too. 

Mr. Arens. Do you have information presently, Mr. Stallone, re- 
specting the activities of the Commimist Party in the communica- 
tions field? 

Mr. Stallone. I have no information whatever. 

Mr. Arens. Do you have any information respecting Communists 
or persons known at any time to have been Communists, to your 
Imowledge, in the communications field? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Stallone. I must decline to answer that question on the same 
grounds as stated. 

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

Mr. Doyle. Yes. 

Mr. Scherer. Witness, Mr. Mignon, when he identified you as a 
member of the Communist Party, told this committee in substance 
that it was the policy of the Communist Party at that time to control 
the Communications Workers Association, so that in tlie event of war 
with Russia the cable lines could be sabotaged more easily. 



COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 1479 

Are you familiar with that policy of the Communist Party at 
that time ? 

Mr. JStallone. I am not familiar with anything involving the 
cables whatever, or what Mr. Mignon may have told you. 

Mr. Doyle. You have had the benefit of reading the transcript of 
his testimony ; have you not ? You say you are not familiar ? 

Mr. Stallone. I am not familiar with the cables — you mean cables? 

Mr. Doyle. You just said you are not familiar with anything he 
told the committee, and the contrary is true; isn't it? You read the 
transcript, or have had it read to you ; have you not ? 

Mr. Stallone. I read the transcript. As far as I know, he didn't 
name me in the transcript, unless in executive session. 

Mr. Doyle. So you are familiar with what he told the committee? 

Mr. Stallone. I am not. 

Mr. Doyle. I thought so, you just said you read the transcript. 

Mr. Scherer. My question was not whether you are familiar with 
the cables ; my question was whether you were familiar with the policy 
of the Communist Party some years ago when Mr. Mignon was a 
member of the party and you were a member of the party and both 
of you were members of the Communications Workers Association, 
and that is my question. 

Mr. Stallone. I must decline to answer that question on the 
grounds previously stated. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Stallone, on the basis of your extensive experience 
in the communications industry, servicing these various messages of 
the Government as a radio operator and as a technician, can you tell 
this committee whether or not in your judgment it is safe for Com- 
munists to have access to the communications facilities of this Nation? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Stallone. I really have no opinion on that subject. I am not 
an expert. I don't know what is safe and what is not. There are 
others far more qualified than I am to answer that question. 

Mr. Arens. Do you know any Communists who have access to the 
communications facilities of this country ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Stallone. I must decline to answer on the same grounds. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Stallone, the Committee on Un-American Activi- 
ties, as the distinguished chairman stated tliis morning in opening this 
session, is considering legislation developing facts on the question of 
protecting the communications facilities of this Nation from pene- 
tration by Communists, or by those who might intercept secret mes- 
sages or potentially be saboteurs of the communications facilities. 

Can you serve your Government now by giving us any informa- 
tion respecthig such persons — Communists — who might sabotage or 
might intercept secret messages? Will you give this committee any 
information along that line that 3'ou may possess? 

Mr. Stallone. I, of course, never engaged in sabotage or espionage 
or anything else that would be detrimental to our country. I don't 
know anyone else who ever has, wants to, ever did, or was ever told 
to, now or at any time in my life or experience. 

Mr. Arens. Go one step further, please, and tell us whether or not 
you know Communists, members of the Communist conspiracy, who 
now are servicing communications facilities of this Government? 

Mr. Stallone. I don't know of any. 



1480 COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 

Mr. Arens. Are you a Communist ? 
Mr. Stallone. I refuse to answer- 



(Counsel conferred with the witness.) 

Mr. Arens. Are you under Communist discipline ? 

Mr. Rx\BiN0wiTz. What question wns that? 

Mr. Arens. Are you under Communist discipline ? 

Mr. Stallone. The answer is "No.-' 

Mr. Arens. Were you under Communist discipline yesterday? 

Mr. Stallone. No. 

Mr. Arens. Were you under Communist discipline a year ago ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Stallone. I must decline to answer that question on the 
grounds previously stated. 

Mr. Scherer. Were you under Communist discipline when you re- 
ceived the subpena to testify before this committee ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Stallone. No. 

Mr. Arens. Have you received any instructions at any time respect- 
ing the objectives of the Communist Party in the communications in- 
dustry ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Stallone. I must decline to answer that question on the pre- 
vious gi^ounds stated. 

Mr. Doyle. Would you please read back that question to me? 

(The record was read by the reporter.) 

Mr. Doyle. "Wliat was the gentleman's answer ? 

(The record was read by the reporter.) 

Mr. Doyle. I am surprised, in view of some of your other answers, 
that you could not answer that question and say "No." 

But, of course, I am dumfounded that you, sir, should make cer- 
tain other answers, and then plead your privilege in that sort of a 
question, 

Mr. Scherer. May I make this observation, Mr. Doyle ? 

He also invoked the fifth amendment when I asked him whether or 
not the policy of the union of which he is now a president of a local 
was not, at the time Mignon was in the party, to the effect 

Mr. Stallone. I don't recall such a question. 

Mr. Scherer. What is that ? 

Mr. Stallone. I don't recall such a question. 

Mr. Scherer. I will ask you again, if you don't recall the question : 

Mr. Mignon, when he testifiecl before this committee a few weeks 
ago, said that he was a member of the Communist Party and also a 
leader in the Communications Workers Association, a union of which 
you now are a president of a local. 

He said at that time it was the policy of the Communist Party to con- 
trol this union so that if we should ever be at war with Soviet Russia 
sabotage could be more easily accomplished. That was the substance 
of his testimony. 

I now ask you whether or not you are familiar with that policy or 
have any knowledge of that policy of the Communist Party. 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Stallone. Could we have the page reference to that testimony, 
sir ? I have the transcript here. 



COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACrLITIES 1481 

Mr. ScHERER. I don't have it. I am giving it from memory, sir. 
I am sure he said it in substance. He said more than that. 

Mr. Rabinowitz. I read it, and I don't remember it. 

Mr. Doyle. If you read it, and are familiar with it, will you point 
out Mr. Mignon's testimony? We do not have the transcript. 

Mr. Rabinowitz. We don't know where that testimony is. That 
is why I asked Mr. Scherer if he could find it for me. 

Mr. Doyle. Pass it up to us and we will try to find it. In the mean- 
time, proceed with the witness. 

Mr. Scherer. Even more than that is in there. 

Mr. Doyle. Sure. 

Mr. Scherer. He said tliat if there should be a revolution in this 
country that sabotage could be more easily accomplished if the Com- 
munist Party had control of this very same union. 

Mr. Doyle. That is right. 

Mr. Scherer. May we have just a few minutes' recess, Mr. Chair- 
man ? 

Mr. Doyle. Yes ; that will give our expert reporter a minute to rest. 

(At this point a short recess was taken, after which the hearing was 
resumed.) 

Mr. Doyle. The subcommittee will please come to order again ; full 
committee present. 

Let the record show that all the subcommittee members are present. 

Mr. Scherer. Mr. Chairman, may I just read 

Mr. Doyle. "Wliat are you reading, Mr. Scherer ? 

Mr. Scherer. I am reading from the transcript of the testimony of 
Mr, Mignon, taken in this room before this subcommittee on July 17 
of this year. 

Mr. Doyle. As furnished you by counsel for the present witness. 

Mr. Rabinowitz. What page? 

Mr. Scherer. Page 77. 

I might say that I scanned through it hurriedly and picked out 
some of the questions and answers that refer to the subject which was 
under discussion before the recess. 

On page 77, Mr. Arens asked this question : 

Mr. Arens. During the course of your membership in the Communist Party, 
did you have occasion to learn of any particular importance which the Com- 
munist Party attached to the enteri>rise of infiltrating the communications 
industry in the United States? 

Mr. MiGNON. To the best of my recollection, sir, it was always pointed out to 
me that the importance of obtaining control of the communications industry in 
times of stress or in revolutionary times, was a primary factor, and therefore 
the efforts of the Commimist Party in subsidizing the union and offering what- 
ever assistance they could in building the union in the communications industry 
was primarily the main objective. 

Then on page 78, at the bottom : 

Mr. Doyle. What did the Communist Party have to do with determining 
policy for the union? That was not the union doing it, was it? 

Mr- Mignon, Well, you see when a union Ls controlled by the Communist 
party or under Communist Party discipline, the directives for that particular 
pnion in dealing with management or in attempting to establish policies within 
that union through the media of memliership meetings, are determined by the 
leadership of the Communist Party : it is transferred to the officers of the union, 
who are dutybound to attempt to establish that policy as if it were the policy 
of the union r 



1482 COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 

This is on page 79 : 

Mr. Doyle. In other words, it is a secret conspiracy to control the American 
trade union in that area of communications? 

Mr. MiGNON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SciiEKER. The eventual olijective being that if we should ever be at war 
with the Soviet Union, to be able to more effectively control the communications 
system of the country. Isn't that the end objective? 

Mr. MiGNON. The end objective, sir, as I learned it, was when and if the 
revolution came to change this form of government, our form of government, that 
the Communists would be in a position to immediately control the communica- 
tions facilities of the Nation. 

Mr. ScHERER. To the advantage of the revolution? 

Mr. MiGNON. For the advantage of the revolution or the success thereof. 

Mr. ScHERER. Or if, in the event as I have said, in the case Russia should 
participate in that revolution, or we should be at war with the Soviet Union, 
then to control the communications, to the advantage of the Soviet Union? 

Mr. MiGNON. Yes, sir. 

There are a number of other parts of his testimony that are similar. 
This is on page 85 : 

Mr. Doyle. * * * in other words, Mr. Witness, the program of the Communist 
Party at that time, between 1936 and 1940 — and you joined in 1936 and left in 
about 1940, was to get as many employees in the field of communications in New 
Yorlj, both domestic and intercontinental, to get as many employees in that field 
as possible to bo members of the Communist Party? 

Mr. MiGNON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Doyle. And, therefore, when the Communist Party nationally sent the 
word, or internationally spoke the word, of the revolution, the communications 
people would be in control? 

Mr. MiGNON. Correct. 

Mr. Doyle. The Communist Party would have control of that very vital field 
throughout our country? 

Mr. MiGXON. Yes. sir. 

Mr. Fkazier That ought to be sufficient. 

Mr. Doyle. Shoukhi't that be sufficient, counsel? 

Mr. R.ABiNOwiTz. I would just like to point out that my recollection 
was better tlian the Congressman's. I haven't heard a word about 
sabotage and espionage of cables that the Congressmen read. 

Mr. SciiEKER. We will get to that now. 

But from what I read you certainly can't infer anything else but 
they wanted control in time of war for espionage and sabotage. 

Mr. Kabinowitz. You can't infer anything else, Mr. Congressman, 
but not me. 

Mr. SciiERER. This appears at page 98 : 

Mr. SciiERER. I do not want to labor the point that I have raised before, but 
just so that I iiave it straight in my own mind and we have it straight in the 
record, I understand the substance of your testimony initially was to the effect 
that during the time you were a member of the Communist Party and a member 
of the American Communications Association, the Communists both in and out 
of the union desired to control the union, so that if a revolution should take 
place at some indefinite future time, or if we should be at war at some indefinite 
future time with the Soviet Union, then, and in that event, it might be possible 
either to commit espionage or sabotage more effectively if the party controlled 
the union. I understood that thit was the substance of it. 

Mr. MiGNON. I would place control before sabotage and espionage. In their 
chronology, I would say control, and if unable to control, sabotage, and as for 
the question o* espionage, very frankly I am not convinced in my own mind that 
that Is the important point. 

Mr. DoYLE. Well, all right. The record speaks for itself. Let us 
proceed. 



COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMXJNICATIONS FACILITIES 1483 

May I say, Mr. Witness, my knowing that that had been the tes- 
timony of Mr. Mignon, a member of the same union of which you 
were a member and are a member, at the same time, the same term of 
years, as I recall it, being an officer at one time, my recollection that 
that was his testimony was why I was surprised at your answer to 
the question which I had the reporter read back. 

Mr. ScHERER. I have a question pending. 

Mr. Doyle. Go ahead. 

Mr. ScHERER. I asked him whether or not he was familiar with 
that policy of the Communist Party as enunciated by Mr. Mignon. 
Do you know of that policy of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Stallone. I must decline to answer that question for the same 
reasons. 

Mr. Arens. We have no further questions of this witness, Mr. 
Chairman. 

Mr. Doyle. Judge Frazier ? 

Mr. Frazier. I have no questions. 

Mr. Doyle. Mr. Scherer? 

Mr. ScHERER. I have no questions. 

Mr. Doyle. I have just a couple of questions. Witness. 

I noticed your answer that — 
If something goes wrong with the teletype service, I have to repair it. 

Now, that I think was directed to the service at RCA prior to the 
time you were precluded from the security area, was it not ? 

Mr. Stallone. The nature of my work was not changed, other 
than 

Mr. Doyle. You were precluded from work of that nature in the 
security area about a year ago? 

Mr. Stallone. That is right. 

Mr. Doyle. You testified, too, that you had no idea why your em- 
ployer, the RCA, gave you orders excluding you from going into the 
security area. Do you remember so testifying? 

Mr. Stallone. I do. 

Mr. Doyle. Now, don't you have any idea why they excluded you? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Doyle. I would think you had, after only a year. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Stallone. I prefer not to guess as to what the reason is. 

If the court or the committee is interested, I suggest that they ask 
RCA what the reason was. I would be just guessing. I prefer not to. 

Mr. Doyle. We do not want you to guess, sir. I am not asking you 
for a guess. 

It was not on account of your health, was it ? 

Mr. Stallone. I really wouldn't know. 

Mr. Doyle. They did not tell you it was on account of your health, 
did they ? 

Mr. Stallone. They didn't say that. 

Mr. Doyle. They did not tell you it was on account of your union 
membership, did they? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Stallone. No ; they didn't tell me that. They didn't tell me 
anything, as a matter of fact. 



1484 COMMUNIST peintetration of communications facilities 

Mr. Doyle. They did not tell you it was on account of your not 
being an expert repairman, did they ? 

Mr. Stallone. They didn't tell me anything. 

Mr. Doyle. Other men go into that security area to make repairs, 
do they not ? 

Mr. Stallone. That is right. 

Mr. Doyle. But you can't go any more. Have you not made any 
effort to find out why they would pick on you and exclude you from 
jacking in any more in the security area ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Doyle. Have you not made any effort to find out ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Stallone. No ; I did not make any effort to find out. As far 
as I was concerned, my work went on just the same. I'll tell you, a 
very small portion of my work was in that area. The exclusion from 
it made no difference for me. 

Mr. Doyle. Made no difference ? 

jNIr. Stallone. I had no reason to w^ant to go into that area. 

Mr. Doyle. Didn't you ask your union steward to find out why, 
if he could? 

Mr. Stallone. No. 

Mr. Doyle. No? 

Mr. ScHERER. You indicated that you have no idea as to why you 
were excluded, why your employer excluded you from this sensitive 
area. Do you have any knowledge why the CIO expelled this union 
of which you are now president of the local ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Rabinowitz. What is the form of the question ? May I ask that 
the question be repeated, please? 

(The record was read by the reporter.) 

(Counsel conferred with the witness.) 

Mr. Stallone. "Well, I know what reasons the CIO gave, if you 
prefer. If you want to hear what I know as their reasons, I will tell 
you. 

Mr. SciiERER. Go ahead. That is what I asked for. 

Mr. Stallone. They said the reasons why we were expelled from 
the CIO was that this union consistently followed the Communist 
Party line. This was the reason they gave. I don't believe that is 
true, but that is the reason they gave. That is the question. 

Mr. ScHERER. That is the reason the}^ gave for expelling you. That 
was the reason for their action in expelling you ? 

Mr. Stallone. The reason they gave for their action. 

Mr. Doyle. What were the reasons in your judgment? 

Mr. Stallone. I wouldn't venture to say that. 

Mr. Doyle. We are not inquiring on confidential union matters. 
We do not intend to go into that. It is your business. 

Let me ask you this : How long have you been president of Local 10 ?. 

Mr. Stallone. About 5 j^ears. 

Mr. Doyle. About 5 years? 

Mr. Stallone. Yes. 

Mr. Doyle. How many years ago was it that the CIO expelled the 
union of which you have been president for 5 years, on account of 
their claim that it was Communist controlled, or for following the 
Commie Party line ? 



COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 1485 

Mr. Stallone. I think 7 years. 

Mr. Doyle. Seven years ? 

Mr. ScHEKER. May I interrnpt for one question, ISIr. Doyle ? 

Mr. Doyle. Yes, indeed. 

Mr. ScHERER. You said that the CIO expelled your union because 
it claimed that it was Communist dominated. Was the CIO's claim 
true or false ^ 

Mr. Stallone. That wasn't what I said. 

Mr. Scherer. All right. Let me put it to you this way : Was the 
CIO's action in expelling your union on the basis of its being Com- 
munist dominated correct when it did that i' 

Mr. Stallone. That wasn't what I said either. 

Mr. Scherer. Well, I realize you didn't say that. I withdraw all 
those questions. I will put to you another question, then. 

Let me ask you: Was your union, in fact. Communist dominated 
at that time ? 

Mr. Staixone. Absolutely not. 

Mr. Scherer. Or at this time ? , 

Mr. Stallone. Not at that time or any time. 

Mr. Scherer. Were you a member of the Communist Party at that 
time ? 

Mr. Stallone. I must refuse to answer that question on the grounds 
previously stated. 

Mr. Scherer. Isn't it a fact that practically all of the leaders of 
the union at that time were members of the Communist Party, as 
testified to by Mr. Mignon and other witnesses who have appeared 
before this committee a few weeks ago ? 

Mr. Stallone. I must again refuse to answer on the grounds pre- 
viously stated. 

Mr.' Doyle. I noticed in answer to Mr. Scherer 's question to you 
that you observed that you had not testified that it was Communist 
controlled. You said the CIO did say that you were following the 
Communist line. That was your testimony, was it not ? 

Mr. Stallone. Substantially. 

Mr. Doyle. Substantially. Did you know that Mr. Mignon, when 
he was a leader in your union, 7 years ago, was a member of the 
Communist Party? He came in here and voluntarily cleaned his 
dirty linen and testified that he was a Communist at the time you 
were. Did you know he was a Communist ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Stallone. I must refuse to answer on the grounds previously 
stated. 

Mr. Doyle. You couldn't hurt him. He came in here as a patriotic 
American citizen and said he was. You can't hurt his reputation any 
more than he has. 

Now, about Finsmith. Did you know he was a Communist? He 
also came to us voluntarily and said Sure, I was a Communist, but 
I have cleaned up, and I want to help the United States Government 
protect itself against this subversive garbage. Did you know that 
he was a Communist at the time you were in the union ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Stallone. I must refuse to answer on the same grounds. 



1486 COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 

Mr. DoYi.E. Anotlier member of the union — -what was his name? 

Mr. Arens. lannncci. 

Mr. Doyle. lannncci. He testified vohmtarily. Let me ask this: 

You have been president of this local for 5 years. What have you 
done, if anything;, what has yonr local done, if anything;, in the 5 
3'ears, to try to change the conditions which the CTO expelled your 
nnion for, or have yon claimed all these 5 years that the CIO was 
wrong, that they had no basis; is that yonr claim? 

Mr. Stallone. It is not only a claim, it is a fact. 

Mr. Doyle. A fact? 

Mr. Stallone. Yes. 

Mr. Doyle. Some of ns know it is not a fact; some of ns Icnow 
that a bunch of you executive officers were at that time — and we be- 
lieve still are — members, technically, of the Communist Party. And 
I have no understanding of why a man like you, the head of one of 
the American trade unions in a sensitive area, very sensitive, very, 
very sensitive, for our national security, don't put yourself in a posi- 
tion where you can come in here and honestly say, if it is an honest 
statement, "Yes, I was a Communist a year ago, 6 months ago, but 
I got out, and I want to help the Government understand the prob- 
lem." Why don't you get yourself in that position before many hours, 
instead of having to come in and say what you do? I invite you to 
do so and urge you to do so, and be a vigorous, vigilant leader of your 
union, furthering national security, instead of staying in the position 
you are in. 

Are there any other questions? 
(There was no response.) 

INIr. Doyle. Thank you. Witness. You are excused. And, counsel, 
thank you. 

Mr. x\rens. Tlie next witness, if you please, Mr. Chairman, will 
be Mr. Willis Chew. 

Kindly come forward, Mr. Chew, and remain standing while the 
chairman administers the oath to you. 

Mr. Doyle. Do you solemnly swear that you will tell the truth, 
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? 

Mr. Chew. I do, 

Mr. Doyle. Thank you. 

TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM JOHNSON CHEW, ACCOMPANIED BY 
COUNSEL, VICTOR RABINOWITZ 

Mr. Arens. Kindly identify yourself by name, residence, and oc- 
cupation. 

Mr. Chew. Willis, W-i-1-l-i-s, J — for Johnson, Chew, C-h-e-w. 

Mr. Arens. Your residence, please, sir? 

Mr. Chew. 333 East 43d Street, New York City. 

Mr. Arens. And your occupation ? 

Mr. RABiNOwrrz. What was that? 

Mr. Arens. And your occupation? 

Mr. Chew. Radio technician, operating technician. 

Mr. Arens. You are appearing today, Mr. Chew, in response to a 
subpena that was served upon you by the House Committee on Un- 
American Activities? 

Mr. Chew. Am I appearing, you say ? 



COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 1487 

Mr. Arens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Chew. Yes, I am. 

Mr. Arens. And you are represented by counsel ? 

Mr. Chew. Yes, sir ; I am. 

Mr. Arens. Counsel, kindly identify yourself. 

Mr. Rabinowitz. Victor Eabinowitz. 

Mr. Arens. Where and when were you born, Mr. Chew ? 

Mr. Chew. Philadelphia, 1905. 

Mr. Arens. And please give us a word about your formal education ? 

Mr. Chew. Grammar school and then adult education of my own, 
some technical and otherwise. 

Mr. Arens. How long have you been engaged in the communications 
industry? 

Mr. Chew. 36 years. 

Mr. Arens. And give us, if you please, just a thumbnail sketch of 
the principal employments that you had in that industry. 

Mr. Crew. United States Navy, 6 years, RCA Communications, 30. 

Mr. Arens. And tell us the service that you had in the Navy. 

Mr. Chew. Six years. 

Mr. Arens. When ? 

Mr. Chew. 1921 to 1927. 

Mr. Arens. In what capacity? 

Mr. Chew. Radio-operator technician. 

Mr. Arens. Did you immediately thereafter engage yourself to the 
RCA Communications facilities? 

Mr. Chew. I did. 

Mr. Arens. And tell us, if you please, sir, the various jobs that you 
held in RCA? ^ ^ 

Mr. Chew. Clerk for a few months, radio operator tor about 18 
years, radio-operating technician for about, oh, somewhere near 12. 

Mr. Arens. How long have you been engaged in your present assign- 
ment? 

Mr. Chew. My particular assignment today ? 

Mr. Arens, Yes, sir. 

Mr. Chew. Somewhat — about a year's time, I guess. 

Mr. Arens. And you are now a radio technician ? _ 

Mr. Chew. Oh, my present assignment as radio-operating tech- 
nician, about 12 years a^o. 

Mr. Arens. Do you, m the course of your routine discharge of yoar 
duties have access to any messages emanating from the Government 
of the United States? 

Mr. Chew. Communications are rather complicated. At any par- 
ticular time you can't say for sure. I would say to assist the com- 
mittee, yes, that some time or other, I do. 

Mr. Arens. Do you have access to some confidential or restricted 
messages to the Government of the United States? 

Mr. Chew. That is also rather difficult. Technically, things are 
quite complicated in communications, and perhaps 90 percent I would 
say negative and maybe perhaps 10 percent, to assist the committee, 
yes. 

Mr. Arens. Do you have access to the security section of the RCA 
plant ? 

Mr. Chew. At the present time the section called the security sec- 
tion I am excluded from. 

94781— 57— pt. 1 9 



1488 COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 

Mr. Arens. When were you excluded from the security section? 

Mr. Cheav. About, as I say, a year ago. 

Mr. Arens. Were you exchided by written order or by oral con- 
versation ? 

Mr. Chew. An oral conversation, I believe. 

Mr. Arens. With whom ? 

Mr. Chew. I don't particularly remember if I can say with whom. 
Perhaps it was 

Mr. Scherer. 1 am sorr}-. I can't hear the witness. 

Mr. Chew. I say I am not exactly sure with whom it was. It was 
very likely with either ]\Ir. Taylor or, let's see, there is another gentle- 
man there, Mr. Jamason, I believe it is. 

Mr. Arexs. Give us their positions, please. What are they, officers ? 

Mr. Chew. I am not sure. I don't read the directory, and I am not 
exactly sure, but I believe it is with personnel. 

Mr. Arexs. How frequently did you actually physically gain admis- 
sion to the security section ? 

Mr. CHEw^ Before ? 

Mr. Arens. Prior to the time you were ordered to be excluded? 

Mr. Chew. I was there all the time — most all of the time. 

Mr. Arexs. Over what period of time were you engaged in that 
section ? 

Mr. Chew. Eleven years. I think that makes it about 11. 

Mr. Arexs. During the course of your work in the security section 
of RCA, did you have access to confidential or restricted messages of 
the Government of the United States ? 

Mr. Chew^ Whatever went through RCA Communications I had 
access to. 

Mr. Arexs. Did you you have access to confidential and resticted 
messages of the Government of the United States ? 

Mr. Chew. If they passed through. 

Mr. Arexs. Did you have access to them ? 

iNIr. Chew. Well, I presume they do. I am not a mindreader, I 
don't read them. I can't determine whether scramblers or these 
things are confidential or whether they are not. 

Mr. Arexs. Did you have access to coded messages of the Gov- 
ernment of the United States ? 

Mr. Chew. If they passed through the RCA Communications. 

Mr. Arexs. Did the}^ pass through the security section? 

Mr. Chew. I would take for granted that they did. 

]Mr. Arexs. Do you know whether they did or not ? 

Mr. Chew\ Taxes and death I am positive of — nothing else, 

Mr. Arexs. Did you see scrambled messages or coded messages in 
the security section ? 

Mr. Chew. I can say }es, I think. 

I would say that I clid. I said I would try to assist the committee. 

Mr. Arexs. Yes ? 

Mr. Chew. Yes. If you like to have it, it is "Yes." 

Mr. Arexs. Do you know a man by the name of Michael Mignon? 

Mr. Chew. Yes. 

Mr. Arexs. How long have you known him? 

Mr. Chew. Well, I knew him many years ago. I would say close 
to 30 years. 

Mr. Arens. In what capacity did you know him? 



COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 1489 

Mr. Chew. Well, when he worked with RCA. 

Mr. Arens. Did you know him in any other capacity? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Chew, ^^^lat other capacity do you have in mind ? 

Mr. Arexs. Do you have any other capacity in mind ? 

Mr. Chew. No ; I don't. 

Mr. Arens. Did you ever belong to any organization of which he 
was a member? 

Mr. Chew. Yes ; the union. 

Mr. Arens. Any other organization ? 

Mr. Scherer. I am sorry, Witness. Would you speak up? It is 
not coming over. 

What was the answer to the last question ? 

Mr. Arens. He said : "Yes, the union." He has not responded to 
the current question. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Chew. Are you referring to the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Arens. Yes, sir. 

(Witness conferred with his counsel. ) 

Mr. Chew. I am not a member of the Communist Party. 

Mr. Arens. I didn't ask you that. 

Mr. Rabinowitz. "WHiat is the question ? 

Mr. Arens. Did you know Michael Mignon as a Communist? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel. ) 

Mr. Chew. I decline to answer that on the grounds as stated in Mr. 
Grumman's brief and on the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Doyle. I wish to inform the witness that the brief that you re 
fer to, this committee will not adopt as part of your answer. We 
would like to accommodate you, but that is not before the committee 
this morning. I don't want you to rely on something that we will not 
rely on as far as your testimony is concerned. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Chew. Counsel advises me that the Supreme Court has ruled 
to the contrary, and I prefer to take his position, sir, if you don't 
mind. 

Mr. Doyle. We never object to the witness relying upon his own 
counsel's advice. 

Mr. Rabinowitz. And the Supreme Court's. 

Mr. Doyle. We will follow the Supreme Court. We know what 
those decisions are, too. But I did not want you misled, Witness, by 
thinking that because you stated you are going to rely upon the brief 
of a witness who was before this committee 2 or 3 weeks ago, that we 
were going to let you inferentially believe we were accepting that as 
part of your answer ; is that clear ? 

You follow your own counsel's advice. We are not asking you to 
follow our advice. 

Mr. Arens. Were you a member of the Communist Party a year 
ago ? 

Mr. Chew. No. 

Mr. Arens. Were you a member of the Communist Party 5 years 
ago? 

Mr. Chew. No. 



1490 COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 

Mr. Arens. Do you presently know people in tlie communications 
facilities at RCA who, to your certain knowledge, have been members 
of the Communist Party ? 

(Counsel conferred with the witness.) 

Mr. Chew. I decline to answer on the grounds stated. 

Mr. Arens. "Wliat grounds ? 

Mr. Chew. That of Mr. Grumman's brief and the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Arens. Were you under Communist Party discipline a year 
ago? 

Mr. Chew. No. 

Mr. Arens. Were you under the Communist Party's discipline 5 
years ago ? 

Mr. Chew. No. 

Mr. Arens. Kindly raise your voice. 

Mr. Chew. No. 

Mr. Arens. Are you a member of the American Communications 
Association ? 

Mr. Chew. Yes, I am. 

Mr. Arens. How long have you been a member of that organiza- 
tion ? 

Mr. Chew. As long as it has existed. 

Mr. Arens. Have you ever held an office or post in the AC A? 

Mr. Chew. No. 

Mr. Arens. Were you a member of the Communist Party at the time 
of the expulsion of the American Communications Association by the 
CIO in 1950? 

Mr. Chew. The answer is "No." 

Mr. Arens. Have you ever disassociated yourself from the Com- 
munist Party ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Chew. I refuse to answer on the grounds stated. 

Mr. Arens. Do you honestly appreliend that if you told this com- 
mittee truthfully, while you are under oath, whether or not you had 
disassociated yourself from the Communist Party, you would be 
supplying information which might be used against you in a crim- 
inal proceeding? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Chew. I might be subjected to an unjustified prosecution, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Have you ever received instructions or directions from 
the Communist Party respecting the progi-am of the Communist 
Party in undertaking to penetrate the communications facilities of 
this Nation? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) . 

Mr. Chew. I refuse to answer that on the grounds stated. 

Mr. Arens. Do you presently have information respecting the pro- 
gram or policies of the Communist Party, with reference to the com- 
munications facilities of this Nation? 

Mr. Chew. No, sir. 

Mr. Arens. When did you last have such information? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Chew. I decline to answer that, sir, on the grounds of the 
reasons stated. 

Mr. Arens. Do you have any idea why you were excluded from 
access to the security section of RCA ? 



COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 1491 

Mr. Chew. I understand that my security clearance was lifted, sir. 

Mr. Arens. What do you mean your security clearance was 
"lifted"? 

Mr. Chew. I had a yellow badge and they took it away from me. 

Mr. Arens. What significance does a yellow badge have ? 

Mr. Chew. I can get into the security area with one; without one, 
I can't. 

Mr. Arens. Now, in the section in which you are presently en- 
gaged, are coded messages processed ? 

Mr. Chew. No, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Do you have any access directly or indirectly to coded 
messages ? 

Mr. Chew. No, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Do you have any access presently to any Government 
messages, irrespective of whether they are coded or not ? 

Mr. Chew. Well, there might be certain levels of Government, say 
State, or local governments, or something of that nature, that I per- 
haps might have, but I am not sure, of the United States Government. 

Mr. Arens. Have you ever obtained any directions or information 
via the route of the Communist Party on techniques or objectives of 
the Communist Party looking toward sabotage of the commimica- 
tions facilities? 

Mr. Chew. Would you give me that question again ? 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Reporter, would you kindly repeat it for the wit- 
ness and counsel ? 

(The record was read by the reporter.) 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Chew. Not to my knowledge. 

Mr. ScHERER. I understand your answer to that question to be 
not to your knowledge ? 

Mr. Chew. The answer is "No." 

Mr. Arens. Michael Mignon took an oath before this committee 
about 10 days ago, and testified that while he was a member of the 
Communist Party he knew you to a certainty to be a Communist. 

We would like to give you an opportunity now to deny that iden- 
tification, if you care to avail yourself of it. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Chew. I decline to answer that, sir, on the grounds stated 
before. 

]\Ir. Arens, Was Mignon in error or was he correct? 

Mr. Chew. Same answer. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully suggest that that will 
conclude the staff interrogation of this witness. 

Mr. Doyle. Mr. Frazier, do you have any questions? 

Mr. Frazier. I have no questions. 

Mr. Doyle. Mr. Scherer, do you have any questions? 

Mr. Scherer. Yes. 

Do you know what the objective of the Communist Party was in 
attempting to control the Communications Workers association ? 

(The witness conferred with liis counsel). 

Mr. Chew. Would you read that back to me now, the last question, 
please ? 

(The record was read by the reporter). 

Mr. Rabinowttz. Will you read that again ? 



1492 COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 

Mr. Chew. I would like to have a clarification. Are those words 
"Communications Workers Association" { Is that the name? 

Mr. Arexs. He means the American Communications Association. 

Mr. Eabixowitz. He has been saying the ''Comnnmications Work- 
ers Association" all day. There is a Communications Workers of 
America. It is very confusing. 

Mr. Chew. There is a diil'erence. There is the Communications 
Workers of America that Mr. jMignon works for. And the question 
is very unscientific, if you don't mind. That is the objection. 

Mr. Scherer. Let us make it scientific. What is the name of your 
Union ? 

Mr. Chew. American Communications Association. 

Mr. Scherer, The American Communications Association. 

Mr. Chew. The American Communications Association as against 
the Communications Workers of America, which Mr. Mignon is now 
associated with. 

Mr. Scherer. All right. 

Mr. Chew. I know nothing about the CWA. 

Mr. Scherer. Well, do you know the objective of the Commmiist 
Party in attempting to control your union ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Chew. I am rather confused. 

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

Mr. Rabinowitz. Could the question be reread? I don't understand 
it either. 

Mr. Doyle. Will you please read the question for the benefit of 
counsel and the witness? 

(The record was read by the reporter) . 

Mr. Rabinowitz. The witness has not testified about any such ob- 
jective or any such control. 

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

Mr. Doyle. The question did not say he had so testified. I call coun- 
sel's attention to that. It is a direct question. 

Mr. Chew. Well, I never so testified, sir. 

Mr. Doyle. We didn't say you had, sir. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Doyle. Do you understand the question? 

Mr. Rabinowitz. Is there a question pending? 

Mr. Doyle. Oh, yes. We had it reread for your benefit. 

Mr. Rabinowitz. But you didn't direct the answer. 

Mr. Doyle. I did not. I will direct him now that we cannot ac- 
cept that answer as sufficient. Witness, please answer the question. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Doyle. It is as clear as crystal. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Chew. I decline to answer on the grounds stated, because it is 
rather nebulous like. I am not sure I understand it. 

Mr. Scherer. Declining to answer because the question is nebu- 
lous — that is the only reason ? 

Mr. Chew. I didn't say that was the only reason. 

Mr. Scherer. What is your other reason for declining to answer 
the question, other than that you think it is nebulous ? 

(The witness couf erred with his counsel.) 



COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILrTIES 1493 

Mr. Chew. Well, I will decline entirely, sir, on the grounds stated. 

Mr. ScHERER. What grounds? 

Mr. Chew. Mr. Grumman's brief and the fifth amendment. 

Mr. ScHERER. Isn't it a fact that the Communists did control your 
union ? Isn't that a fact ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Chew. I was under the impression that the membership con- 
trolled it. 

Mr. Scherer. You deny that the Commiuiists controlled your 
union ? 

Mr. Chew. I can only give you my impression, sir. I thought the 
memberehip controlled it. 

Mr. Scherer. Let me ask you this : Isn't it a fact that your union 
was expelled by the CIO because CIO contended that you were Com- 
munist-dominated, controlled ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Chew. Counsel advises me that it was not exactly that, that 
it was our union was supposed to have followed the Communist Party 
line. I am not sure exactly what the nature of the expulsion was 
about. I have not been active in the union for many years. 

Mr. Scherer. He hasn't been connected with what ? 

Mr. Rabinowitz. He said he hasn't been active. 

Mr. Chew. Active in the union for many years. 

Mr. Scherer. I am talking about the time you were active. You 
are a member ? 

Mr. Chew. I am a member, yes. Wliether it was union policies — I 
am not exactly sure why they have been expelled. 

Mr. Scherer. You haven't heard? 

]Mr. Chew. Counsel advised me. 

Mr. Scherer. Is this the first time, when counsel advised you, that 
you heard why your union was expelled from the CIO ? 

Mr. Chew. The exact word for word, the reason why, I am not sure 
I recall it. 

Mr. Scherer. Is this the first time, when counsel told you, that you 
knew that your union was expelled by the CIO for following the 
Communist Party line? 

Mr. Doyle. Seven years ago. 

]Mr. Chew. Tlie exact wording is what I had in mind, given by the 
CIO. I am not sure I ever read the resolution or something on the 
floor of the CIO, is what I had in mind. I am not sure that I read 
that. I was sure we were expelled. 

Mr. Scherer. You were sure you were expelled ? 

Mr. Chew. Yes. 

Mr. Scherer. And why were you expelled ? 

Mr. Chew. The definition of the resolution I was not positive about. 

Mr. Scherer. What did it have to do with ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Chew. Probably a difference in policies. I am not exactly 
sure. I didn't have the proceedings of the convention when they were 
expelled, sir. 

Mr. Scherer. I am not asking you whether you had the proceedings. 

You know, as a matter of fact, do you not, that your union was 
expelled because the CIO contended at least that you were following 



1494 COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILTnES 

the Communist Party line? Isn't that what you just said to us a few 
minutes ago? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Chew. That is what counsel advised me, sir — yes. 

Mr. ScHERER. Then before counsel advised you just a few minutes 
ago, you had no idea as to why your union was expelled from the CIO, 
is that right? 

Mr. Chew. I didn't say I didn't have an idea. I wasn't exactly sure 
of the resolution that expelled us. I was sure we were expelled. 

Mr. Scherer. You are sure it was expelled. But you didn't know 
for what reason? 

Mr. Chew. As to the resolution expelling them I was not positive 
of the resolution. 

Mr. Scherer. All right. 

Mr. Doyle. Do you have any other questions, Mr. Scherer? 

Mr. Scherer. No. 

Mr. Doyle. May I ask the witness : 

For how many years were you in our United States Navy ? 

Mr. Chew. Six years, 

Mr. Doyle. And received an honorable discharge, of course? 

Mr. Chew. I did. 

Mr. Doyle. And how long have you been with the company ? 

Mr. Chew. Thirty years. 

Mr. Doyle. Thirty years. Well, I want to compliment you on that 
employment. 

I observed you answered the question of counsel that you have not 
been in the Communist Party 5 years ago. Do you remember so 
testifying ? 

Mr. Chew. Yes. 

Mr. Doyle. And that you are not a Communist now? I want to 
ask you a question, and perhaps you can help us. I hope so. 

A function of the committee in these particular hearings is to see 
if we can come up with some remedial corrective legislation in the 
field of subversive activities, if in the field of communications, in 
which you have been concerned for some 30 years. 

Mr. Chew. Thirty-six years. 

Mr. Doyle. Thirty-six years. 

Do you have any suggestion as to legislation that Congress should 
consider to further protect this sensitive area of communications, to 
protect the national security of this Nation, against persons or groups 
of persons who might have a desire and a plan to injure, wreck or 
control, directly or indirectly our communications with other nations, 
and especially in wartime? Do you have suggestions for any such 
legislation? 

Mr. Chew. I think there is a considerable body of law restricting 
certain activities in communications, on the record today, I believe. 
They were quite adequate, I believe, in the last war — they appeared 
to be. There were no additional ones made, I believe. That is my 
belief. 

Mr. Doyle. Who was quite active in the Government? 

Mr. Rabinowitz. He said the laws were quite adequate in the last 
war. 



COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 1495 

Mr. Chew. They appeared to be that way, since there was 

Mr. Doyle. Well, do you think they are adequate ? 

Mr. Chew. I wouldn't 

Mr. DoTLE. That is my question. Do you have any suggestions? 

(Counsel conferred with the witness.) 

Mr. Doyle. No. We want your answer, not your counsel's. 

Mr. Chew. I would like to know the exact technical meaning of it. 
I don't have any answer, I am sure. I am a technician. 

Mr. Doyle. You work in a sensitive area, in an area of communica- 
tions. You testified that possibly 10 percent of the messages that 
come across your attention may be Government messages. Tlie testi- 
mony of the other witness today and Mr. Mignon and ]Mr. Finsmith 
and others shows verv definitely that this communications area is an 
area over which messages are sent, for instance, ECA and otherwise, 
over the North Atlantic cables. 

Mr. Chew. We don't have a North Atlantic cable, sir. 

Mr. Doyle. Sir? 

Mr. Chew. We don't have a North Atlantic cable, sir. 

Mr. Doyle. I know you don't. I say that is what they testified to — 
it still is communications. 

Have you any suggestion as to where we shoidd tighten or change 
or modify or strengthen our legislation ? 

Mr. Chew. I haven't. 

Mr. Doyle. You have been in the hearing room all morning. I 
have seen you here. You heard the transcript read of Mr. Mignon's 
testimony, and he was active in the Communist Party and in the 
imion. You know that. 

Now, he testified, as you heard his testimony read, that the Com- 
munist Party has given directions to try and take control of your 
union in the field of communications. Is there any wa}', bearing that 
testimony in mind, that you feel in your 36 years of experience that 
your Government — which you served in the Na\^^ — should further 
protect itself against subversive, unpatriotic agents of some miserable 
outfit that entered this country ? Have you any suggestion ? 

Mr. Chew. I am afraid I don't. No ; I don't, sir. 

Mr. Doyle. All right, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Have you ever been a member of an underground group 
of the Communist Party ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Chew. I don't exactly understand. Wliat is the nature of this 
underground business ? 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully suggest that the witness 
be ordered and directed to answer that question. 

Mr. Doyle. Do you mean you don't know what the term "under- 
ground" refers to? Is that the reason you are hesitating? Do I 
understand that that is the reason you are counseling ? 

Mr. Rabinowitz. Everybody understands what "underground" 
means. It is just "underground Communist movement" that I assume 
the witness doesn't understand. 

Mr. Doyle. Well, maybe, JNIr. Arens, as long as the witness claims 
he doesn't loiow about any Communist movement, maybe you had 
better elaborate a little bit for him, at least, and help him out. 

Mr. Arens. You know what "underground" means, an underground 
operation ? 



1496 COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 

Mr. Chew. I think so. 

Mr. ScHERER. You can answer "No" if yon do not understand %Yhat 
"underground" means. 

Mr. Arens. He just said he thinks he knows what an underground 
operation is. 

Now, tell us, have you ever been a member of an underground 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Arens. Group or cell of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Rabinowitz. ]\Iay we have the whole question read? 

(The record was read by the reporter.) 

Mr. Chew. I decline to answer on the gromids given the committee. 

Mr. Arens. Now, I put it to you as a fact, sir, based upon investi- 
gation of the staff of this committee, that you were a member of the 
underground group of the Conmiunist Party in the communications 
field. I ask you now, while you are under oath, to affirm or deny that 
assertion. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

j\Ir. Chew. I refuse to answei- on the same grounds. 

Mr. Doyle. Are there any further questions? 

Mr. Arens. No, sir. 

Mr. Doyle. Judge Frazier ? 

Mr. Frazer. I have no questions. 

Mr. Doyle. Mr. Scherer ? 

Mr. Scherer. No questions. 

Mr. Doyle. The witness is excused. There are no further questions. 

Mr. Arens. The next witness, if you please, will be Mr. Bernard 
Silber. 

Kindly come forward, Mr. Silber, and remain standing while the 
chairman administers the oath to you. 

Mr. Doyle. Mr. Silber, please raise your right hand. 

Do you solemnly swear you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and 
nothing but the truth, so help you God? 

]Mr. Sn.BER. I do, sir. 

Mr. Doyle. Please take the witness chair. 

testimony of beenard silber, accompanied by victor 
rabinowitz, counsel 

]Mr. Arens. Kindly identify yourself by name, residence and 
occupation ? 

Mr. Rabinowitz. All right. If we are going to have more pictures, 
let's get them over with before we start. 

Mr. Silber. The question, please? 

Mr. Arens. Kindly identify yourself by name, residence, and 
occupation. 

Mr. Silber. My name is Bernard — B-e-r-n-a-r-d — Silber, S-i-1-b-e-r, 
residence 504 Grand Street, New York. 

Mr. Arens. And your occupation? 

Mr. Silber. Service writer for Western Union Telegraph. 

Mr. Arens. You are appearing today, Mr. Silber, in response to 
a subpena which was served upon you by the House Connnittee on 
Un-American Activities? 

]Mr. Silber. That is correct. 

Mr. Arens. And you are represented by counsel ? 



Communist penetration of communications facilities 1497 

Mr. SiLBER. That is correct. 

Mr. Arens. Counsel, kindly identify yourself. 

Mr. Rabinowitz. Victor Rabinowitz. 

Mr. Arexs. How long have you been engaged as a service ^Yriter? 

Mr. SiLBER. Forty-one years. 

Mr. Arens. And have you been engaged as a service writer all that 
time at Western Union? 

Mr. SiLBER. That is correct. 

Mr. Arens. Did you have any other job at Western Union besides 
service writer? 

Mr. SiLBER. I think for 2 years I was a service clerk, which is just 
before you become a service Avriter. 

Mr. Arens. Give us just a thumbnail sketch, Mr. Silber, if you 
please, of your duties as a service writer ? 

Mr. Silber. ]\Iessages — I will put it this way : We handle messages 
after they have been transmitted, and they are referred to our depart- 
ment for certain types of handling, messages undelivered. We report 
and handle complaints from senders regarding deliveries, nonde- 
liveries, immediate service, messages that come in bearing wrong 
checks, or what — wrong number of words. We manage to get the 
record for purposes of charging properly and so forth. 

Mr. Arens. Have you or have you not access to confidential or 
restricted messages of any kind of the Government of the United 
States? 

Mr. Silber. Government messages are handled in the usual course 
of events. 

Mr. Arens. Just answer the question, please, sir. Do you have 
access to Government messages ? 

Mr. Silber. In my line of work I would say "Yes." 

Mr. Arens. Do you have access to Government security messages, 
coded messages of any kind ? 

Mr. Silber. Coded messages; yes. We have no way of telling 
whether they are security messages or not. 

Mr. Arens. You have access to Government coded messages; is that 
correct ? 

Mr. Silber. That is correct. 

Mr. Arens. Have you now or have you ever been a member of the 
Communist Party? 

Mr. Sn.BER. I must ansAver that in two ways. I am not a member 
of the Communist Party ; I was a member of the Communist Party. 

Mr. Arens. When were you a member of the Communist Party? 

Mr. Silber. Well, if I may answer my way, I was a member for a 
brief period. Oh, from approximately 1948. I almost immediately 
drifted away. I wasn't too much interested. I was never active. I 
probably attended meetings for a year or so and then very rarely, and 
then, within a few years, I just was out. 

INIr. Arens. What cell did you belong to, Mr. Silber, at that time ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

]\Ir. Silber. Just what do you mean by "cell''? 

Mr. Arens. What group of the Connnunist Partv were you a mem- 
ber of? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Silber. It had no real name, no designation for it of any kind. 

Mr. Arens. Who enlisted you in the Communist Party? 



1498 COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMTJNICATIONS FACILITIES 

(The witness conferred with his counseh) 

Mr. SiLBER. I must decline to answer that, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Wliy ? 

Mr. SiLBER. On the basis — I have a short statement prepared, if I 
may — I must decline to answer on the grounds set forth in the decision 
of the Supreme Court in the Watkins and Sweezy cases, and the state- 
ment filed witli the connnittee by Mr. Grumman on July 18, including 
(1) the lack of jurisdiction of the committee; (2) my rights under the 
first amendment; (3) the vagueness of the resolution setting up this 
committee; and (4) the lack of pertinency of this committee. 

Mr. DoYi.E. JNIay I inquire ? 

Mr. SiLBER. Yes. 

Mr. DoYX-E. Of course, you didn't prepare that yourself. Your 
legal comisel — ~ 

Mr. SiLBER. It was prepared in conjunction with counsel. 

Mr. Doyle. Yes. 

You have been in the hearing room all morning ? 

Mr. SiLBER. Yes. 

Mr. Doyle. And you heard me state to the last witness that we would 
not accept — and made it clear to him, I am sure, that we would not 
accept his reference and stated reliance upon a brief filed by someone 
else or offered by some other witness on July IT or 18 before this 
committee? 

Mr. SiLBER. Yes. 

Mr. Doyle. I want to make it clear to you, therefore, regardless of 
what your own legal counsel advised you, tliis committee does not 
rely in any way upon your reference to the brief of the gentleman on 
July 17 or 18, as a valid ground of objecting to answer the question. 
Is that clear to you ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. SiLBER. All right. 

Mr. Doyle. All right. 

Mr. Arens, Before we proceed, if you are 

Mr. Scherer. Just a minute, ]\Ir. Arens. 

Mr. Arens. I beg your pardon. 

Mr. SciiERER. You refused to answer Mr. Arens' question as to the 
person who recruited you in the Communist Party. You refused to 
identify that person. 

Now, without identifying him or telling us his name, is that person 
still a member of the Communist Party today ? 

(The witness confers with his counsel.) 

Mr. SiLBER. I have no knowledge of such. 

Mr. Scherer. Is he still associated in the same type of work you 
are associated in ? 

(The witness confers with his counsel.) 

Mr. Scherer. As a communications worker ? 

Mr. SiLBER. To the best of my knowledge he is no longer in the 
industry. 

Mr. Scherer. AVas he a communications worker ? 

Mr. SiLBER. I must decline to answer that on the same grounds. 

Mr. Scherer. I ask that j'ou direct the witness to answer the ques- 
tion. 

Mr. Doyle. I direct you to answer the question. 

Mr. SiLBER. I must decline. 



COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 1499 

Mr. Doyle. I didn't hear you. 

Mr. SiLBER. I must still decline. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully suggest that I be permit- 
ted to explain to the witness why it is pertinent to this inquiry for us 
to insist that this witness tell us whether or not the person who re- 
cruited him into the Communist Party was at that time in the com- 
munications field as a communications worker. 

Now, Mr. Witness, this committee is considering legislation to safe- 
guard this Nation from possible espionage or sabotage facilities by 
Communists. 

If the person who enlisted you into the Communist Party was en- 
gaged in the communications field, that person undoubtedly would 
have some information which would be of use to this committee in 
developing facts respecting Communist penetration of the communi- 
cations facilities of this country. 

Therefore, I respectfully suggest now, Mr. Chairman, that this wit- 
ness be ordered and directed to tell the committee whether or not the 
person who recruited him into the Communist Party was, to his 
knowledge, engaged in the communications industry. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Doyle. Go ahead, continue your counsel with the witness. 

Mr. Rabinowitz. I understand that coimsel asked for a direction. 

Mr. Arens. That is correct. 

Mr. Doyle. I will make the direction when you are through coun- 
seling the witness. 

Mr. Rabinowitz. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, you make the direction 
first. If you do not make your direction, I will not have to counsel 
the witness. 

Mr. Doyle. I want to say to the witness before I make the direc- 
tion : You were in the hearing room all this morning. Witness ? 

Mr. Silber. That is correct. 

Mr. Doyle. And you heard me read my opening statement ; did you 
not? 

Mr. Silber. I believe I did, yes. 

Mr. Doyle. You believe you did. Now, I direct you to answer 
counsel's question. I direct you to answer that last question. He has 
explained to you the pertinency, and my opening statement explained 
the pertinency of this investigation also. 

Mr. Arens. And so that there can be no question on this record, 
the question presently asked and outstanding is for you to please tell 
the committee whether or not the person who recruited you into the 
Communist Party was himself engaged in the communications in- 
dustry. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Silber. May I have a short recess, please, for a few moments ? 

Mr. Rabinowitz. May we have a moment or two to consult on 
this? 

Mr. Doyle. Yes ; go ahead and take it. 

(At this point a short recess was taken, after which the hearing 
was resumed.) 

Mr. Doyle. The committee Avill please come to order again, after a 
few minutes' recess, and the record will show that all three persons 
who are members of the subcommittee are personally present. 



1500 COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 

Proceed, Mr. Arens. 

Mr. Arexs. There is a question outstandiiio; on the record and the 
witness wanted to confer Avith counsel, and I take it he has conferred 
and he is now ready to <iive his response to the (juestion. 

Mr. SiujKR. After consultation with counsel, I decided I must 
answer that on the grounds, on the reasons stated previously, in addi- 
tion I wish to add the question 

Mr. Doylp:. Well, previously stated in the statement you read? 

Mr. SiLBER. That is right. 

Mr. Doyle. That will be sufficient. 

Mr. SiLBER. Including the matter of personal conscience which 
prevents me from doing things that I am not sure of, and also on the 
grounds that I don't see what this question has to do with the ques- 
tion propaganda which this committee is concerned with. 

Mr. Arexs. Mr. Chairman, when you said that would be sufficient, 
I take it you wanted the record to reflect his reasons are sufficiently set 
forth in the record but that this committee does not accept his reasons 
and directs him and orders him to give a response. 

Mr. Doyle. That is correct. 

We are not accepting the reasons; we are merely stating that the 
reference to the same statement you said was prepared with the assist- 
ance of counsel, and which you previously read will be sufficient for 
you to refer to that as reasons why 3'ou refuse to answer this instead of 
taking the time to reread it. 

Mr. SiLBER. That is right. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Witness, I want to make a statement to you. 

On the basis of extensive staff investigation it is the judgment of 
the staff' that there is now in the establishment in which you are en- 
gaged at least one cell of the Communist Party operating. 

W^e should like to have you tell us now w^hether or not there are 
any persons engaged at Western Union who at any time have been 
known by you to be Communists. 

Mr. SiLBER. I think I must decline to answer that question on the 
grounds stated. 

Mr. Arens. I say to you that the pertinency of that question is 
this : 

If you do have such information and if we can get the names of those 
people and if we can cret them to testify, we will have information 
which will form a solid foundation upon which this committee can 
recommend legislation to the Congress, to protect the security of this 
Nation. 

I therefore, INIr. Chairman, respectfully suggest now that the wit- 
ness be ordered and directed to answer the question which is out- 
standing on this record. 

Mr. Doyle. I make that direction. 

Counsel now for the second time has explained the pertinency of 
the other question, and that same explanation plus this explanation 
as to pertinency applies. 

(The witness confers with his counsel.) 

Mr. SiLBER. The fact is. having been out of the party 

Mr. ScHERER. I didn't hear that. 

Mr. SiLBER. Having been out of the group so long I have no knowl- 
edge of anyone at this time of the people — no knowledge of anyone 



COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 1501 

being a member, who was a member of that group, being a member 
of that group today. I can't 

Mr. Arens. You know that isn't the question I asked you. 

Let us get the record clear. 

Mr. Rabinowitz. Let's give the reason for the question. 

Mr. Arens. Counsel, you know your sole and exclusive prerogative 
is to advise your client as to his legal rights. 
■ You know what the question is, ancl you understand it. If you do 
not understand it say ''I don't understand it." 

The question is : Do you, ]Mr. Witness, know people who are pres- 
ently engaged in Western Union in the communications facilities 
who at any time have been known by 3 ou to be Communists 'i 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. SiLBER. I must decline to answer that for the same reasons. 

Mr. Arenas. Now, Mr. Witness, let the record carry forth the same 
explanation that I gave to you a few moments ago as to why I regard 
this question as pertinent. 

And I respectfully suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the record now 
reflect an order and direction of the witness to answer the question. 

Mr. Doyle. I direct you to answer the question, Witness. We do 
not feel that your answer is sufficient ancl cannot accept it here. 

Mr. SiLBER, I must still decline. I am sorry. 

Mr. ScHERER. As I understand it, in refusing and in declining to 
answer this last question and the previous question, you are not 
refusing to do so on the basis of the fifth amendment ? 

Mr. SiLBER. That is correct. 

Mr. ScHEREJt. All right. 

Mr. Rabinowitz. May I address the Chair just for a moment on 
this ? There is a legal issue involved ? 

Mr. DoTLE. No. We are not settling issues here. This is not a 
court. 

Mr. Rabinowitz. I would like to clarify the reference to the fifth 
amendment. There are many parts of the fifth amendment. 

Mr. DoYLE. You clarify it with your witness, not with us. 

(Counsel conferred with the witness.) 

Mr. SiLBER. I am stating I am not relying on the self-incriminating 
clause of the fifth amendment. 

Mr. DoYLE. Judge Frazier? Have you any questions? 

Mr. Frazier. I have no questions. 

Mr. Doyle. Have you any further questions, Mr. Scherer ? 

Mr. Scherer. I have no further questions. 

Mr. Doyle. May I ask this. Witness : 

When you first began to answer questions here, you volunteered the 
statement, in answer to the question, that you had been a Communist ? 

Mr. SiLBER. That is correct. 

Mr. DoYLE. Do you remember doing that? 

Mr. SiLBER. That is correct. 

Mr. Doyle. All right. 

Now, why did you do that ? 

Mr. SiLBER. I probably was interested. It is hard to explain, 
probably for theoretical grounds or some other grounds. 

Mr. DoYLE. Why did you withdraw from the Communist Party ? 

Mr. SiLBER. I lost 

Mr. Doyle. After being in it a few years, as you testified ? 



1502 COMlVrUNIST penetration of COMRIUNICATIONS FACILITIES 

Mr. SiLBER. It wasn't a few years, sir ; it was relatively short. 

I lost interest in it. I found I wasn't interested enough to do any- 
thing about it. 

Mr. Doyle. Why weren't you interested in the Communist Party 
group that you were in ? What did you find about it that didn't keep 
your interest ? 

Mr. SiLBER. Well, it simply didn't. I had other interests probably, 
that kept me more occupied. I didn't think sufficiently of it to keep 
me there. 

Mr. Doyle. You attended meetings quite frequently. 

Mr. SiLBER. Not frequently, sir. I might say frankly, after a very 
short time I attended the meetings infrequently. In other words, it 
was just a complete drifting away and it took such a time. 

Mr. Doyle. What caused you to drift away ? 

Mr. SiLBER, I stated I was no longer interested in it. I don't be- 
lieve that I M^as politically conscious in the first place; it wasn't inter- 
esting, and I just drifted away. I never formed too many opinions on 
it, and that was it. 

Mr. ScHERER. "WTiat union do you belong to ? 

Mr. SiLBER. The American Communications Association. 

Mr. ScHERER. Were any of the officers of your union members of 
the Communist Party at the time you were a member of the Communist 
Party? 

Mr. SiLBER. I must decline to answer that, sir. 

Mr. ScHERER. I ask that you direct the witness to answer the ques- 
tion. 

Mr. DoYLE. I direct you to answer the question. 

Mr. SiLBER. I must decline on all the grounds previously stated. 

Mr. SciiERER. Were any of the present officers of your union mem- 
bers of the Communist Party at the time you were in the party ? 

Mr. SiLBER. I must decline for the same reasons. I must decline to 
answer. 

Mr. ScHERER. I ask that you direct the witness to answer the ques- 
tion. 

Mr. Doyle. I direct you to answer the question. 

Mr. SiLBER. I must decline to answer. 

Mr. ScHERER. And those questions were asked you for the same 
reasons that Mr. Arens, our counsel, gave you for asking the other 
questions. They are pertinent for the same reasons that he advanced. 

Mr. D0Y1.E. May I inquire for one question ? 

Mr. SiLBER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Doyle. Plave you any suggestions to this committee, and there- 
fore, your Congress, in the field of legislation, anything you think or 
suggest that we might consider legislation which would protect the 
security of this Nation against any subversive activities, sabotage, 
or interference with Government messages, either in time of war or 
peace? 

Mr. SiLBER. Frankly, I don't consider myself qualified to offer any 
suggestions along technical lines or things of that sort. I really don't 
consider myself qualified in offering any suggestion. 

Mr. Doyle. I want to compliment you in getting out of the Com- 
munist group when you did. I also hope the time will come before 
long when you will feel it is also your duty and your obligation to 



COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMAIUNICATIONS FACILITIES 1503 

yourself and family and your Xation to come to Congress and help us 
understand the Communist Party as you understood it when you got 
out of it. You got out of it, although you have not given us the full 
reasons here today, I don't feel, you got out of it for some other reasons. 
You were dissatisfied with it. It had no attraction for you. 

Now, why didn't it!^ I do not think you have given us the full 
answer, and I wish you would come to the point where you can help us. 

Try to do that, will you ? 

Mr. SiLBER. I am sorry. 

Mr. Doyle. You needn't be sorry. I have given you an invitation, 

Mr, SiLBER. I have given you the best answer that I could under the 
circumstances. I have a conscience to protect, and other things. I 
am sorry. 

Mr. D0YI.E. The witness is excused, and counsel. 

The committee today is continued to Friday, August 9, at 10 a. m. 
in this room. 

(Whereupon, at 12 : 15 p. m., Friday, August 2, 1957, the subcom- 
mittee recessed to August 9, 1957, at 10 a. m.; 



04781— 57— pt. 1 10 



INVESTIGATION OF COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF 
COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES— PART 1 



FRIDAY, AUGUST 9, 1957 

United States House of Representatp.'es, 

Subcommittee of the 
Committee on Un-American Activities, 

Washington^ D. G. 

PUBLIC HEARING 

The subcommittee of the Committee on Un-American Activities met, 
pursuant to notice, at 2 : 13 p. m., in the caucus room, Old House Office 
Building, Washington, D. C., Mr. Clyde Doyle (chairman of the sub- 
committee) 

Committee members present: Clyde Doyle, of California (appear- 
ance as noted) , and Gordon H. Scherer, of Ohio. 

Staff members present : liichard Arens, director, W. Jackson Jones 
and Louis J. Russell, investigators. 

Mr. Scherer (presiding). The committee will come to order. 

Will you call your first witness, Mr. Arens. 

Mr. Arens. Mrs. Greenberg, would you kindly come forward. 
Please remain standing while an oath is administered to you. 

Mr. Scherer. Will you step up here and raise your right hand. 

You do solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give shall 
be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you, 
God? 

Mrs. Greenberg. I do swear, so help me, God, sir. 

Mr. Scherer. Will you be seated, please. 

TESTIMONY OF CONCETTA PADOVANI GREENBERG 

Mr. Arens. Would you please identify yourself by name, residence, 
and occupation. 

Mrs. Greenberg. I am ISIrs. Concetta Greenberg. I am a Western 
Union worker. I live at 52 Westervelt Avenue, Staten Island, N. Y. 

Mr. Arens. Mrs. Greenberg- you are appearing today in response to 
a subpena which was served upon you by the House Committee on Un- 
American Activities ? 

Mrs. Greenberg. I am. 

Mr. Arens. How^ long have you been employed by Western Union ? 

Mrs. Greenberg. Since 1927. 

Mr. Arens. Tell us, if you please the various jobs that you have held 
with Western Union. 

Mrs. Greenberg. I started on route aiding, and I route-aided for 
12 

1505 



1506 COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 

Mr. ScHEREK, We cunnot lieur you. 

Mrs. Greenbekg. I route-aided. I started out route-aiding, and 1 
route-aided for many years. And I helped out on the route center 
early at night once in a while, and then I went into the D. and A. 
bureau, and I have been in the D. and A. bui-eau for the last 17 yeai-s, 
approximately. 

Mr. ScHERER. What is the D. and A. bureau ? 

Mrs. Greenberg. Distributing and addressing. We handle local de- 
liveries and materials that go out to newspapers, magazines, and busi- 
ness firms, et cetera. 

Mr. Arens. Now, Mrs. Greenberg, tell this committee have you 
ever been a member of the Communist Party ? 

Mrs. Greenberg. I was a member of the Communist Party. 

Mr. Arens. And tell us, if you please, the period of your member- 
ship in the Communist Party. 

Mrs. Greenberg. I joined in 1936; until approximately 1949, the 
end of 1948. 

Mr. Arens. And where did you join the Communist Party? 

Mrs. Greenberg. In New York City. 

Mr. Arens. Kindly tell us the branches, units, or cells of the Com- 
munist Party to which you were attached while you were in the 
Communist Party. 

Mrs. Greenberg. The communications cell, the communications 
branch. 

Mr. Arens. What was the name of that? Just the communications 
branch ? 

Mrs. Greenberg. No. It was called 16-B or something like that. 
It is so long ago. 

Mr. Arens. Where did the communications branch of the Com- 
munist Party to which you were attached operate ? 

Mrs. Greenberg. We met at various places. 

Mr. Arens. Did you hold any offices or posts of responsibility in 
this branch of the Communist Party ? 

Mrs. Greenberg. At one time I collected dues and also took them 
over to 12th Street, which was the party headquarters. 

Mr. Arens. Then what caused you to become disassociated from the 
Communist Party ? 

Mrs. Greenberg. It was a very slow process of inner unquiet or 
disq^uiet, unease and dissatisfaction with my real principles and the 
feeling — well, my mind wasn't at rest, my heart wasn't at rest. In 
my case I felt I couldn't deny my God. I am a Catholic, and I will 
always be, and I didn't like the atmosphere. 

Gradually got worse and worse — the feeling. I didn't like the 
atmosphere of always having to agree or else you were a big traitor. 

I know and saw what it did to others. And for any disagreement 
you were either a reactionary or a Trotskyite or some such thing. 

Mr. Arens. During the course of your experience in the Com- 
munist Party, did you receive any indoctrination or training by the 
Communist Party in the objectives of the Communist Party in the 
communications industry ? 

Mrs. Greenberg. Well, Ave read pamphlets and books and discussed 
them in a form of indoctrination, I will say, and that the ultimate 
struggle was for a socialization the world over, 

Mr. Arens. By a socialization, do you mean communization ? 



COIVIMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 1507 

Mrs. Greenberg. That is right; and everything belonged to the 
people, in quotes, and 

Mr. Arens. Did you receive any training or instructions with re- 
spect to any revolutionist tactics in connection with the communica- 
tions industry? 

Mrs. Greenberg. Well, it was a favorite slogan that an enlightened 
minority would do the job, would do the trick, as it was always pointed 
out as we read that in Russia it was always the enlightened minority, 
in quotes, that did the trick. 

Mr. Arens. By "the trick" what do you mean? Take over the 
industry ? 

Mrs. Greenberg. That had brought about the changes, the 
revolution. 

Mr. Arens. Now during the coui-se of your membership^ in the 
Communist Party, were you likewise active in a labor organization? 

Mrs. Greenberg. Yes. 

Mr. Arens. What was the name of that group ? 

Mrs. Greenberg. It started out as ARTA. 

Mr. Arens. "Wliat did that mean ? 

Mrs. Greenberg. I believe American Radio Telegraphers Associa- 
tion. It later became the ACA, American Communications Associa- 
tion. 

Mr. Arens. Did you hold any office in the American Commmiica- 
tions Association ? 

Mrs. Greenberg. Several times I was shop steward, and I believe 
three times I was on the executive board of the union. 

Mr. Arens. Do you know the top leadership of the ACA now? 

Mrs. Greenberg. They are Mr. Sellj , Mr. Kehoe. 

Mr. Arens. Excuse me just a moment. 

Would you be good enough to call those names out, give us the full 
names and then give us their titles. 

Mrs. Greenberg. Mr. Joseph Selly, president of the ACA. 

Mr. Joseph Kehoe, vice president — no — he is the secretary-treasurer. 

And there is Mr. Louie Siebenberg, 

Mr. Arens. What is his status ? 

Mrs. Greenberg. He is the chairman of Local 40. 

Mr. Arens. Of ACA? 

Mrs. Greenberg. Of ACA. 

Mr. Arens. In New York City ? 

Mrs. Greenberg. That is right. 

There is Mr. John Weiners, the vice chairman. And Mr. Alfred 
Doumar. He is secretary-treasurer, I believe. I haven't been too 
active in the last few years. 

Mr. Arens. Do you know that all of these persons you have just 
named were members of the Communist Party during the time that 
you were a Communist ? 

H: 4: * 4= 4: * :)« 

Mrs. Greenberg. I know Mr. Joseph Selly, Mr. Joseph Kehoe, Mr- 
Louie Siebenberg, Mr. Alfred Doumar, ]SIiss Mollie Townsend 

Mr. Arens. As Communists? 



1508 COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 

Mrs. Greenberg. Yes. 

Mr. Arens. Did you serve in closed Conununist Party meetings 
with eacli of them ? 

Mrs. Greenberg. I did. 

Mr. ScHERER. Pardon me just a minute. 

^Vlien, Witness, did you say you left the party ? 

Mrs. Greenberg. Approximately 1948-1949; something like that. 
I just drifted away. I probably sliould have sent in a notice of resig- 
nation, but I drifted away. 

Mr. Arens. Mrs. Greenberg, during the course of your experience 
in the ACA as an officer, while you were a Communist, did you become 
acquainted with the shop steward system ? 

(Representative Clyde Doyle, chairman of the subcommittee, en- 
tered the hearing room at this point.) 

Mrs. Greenberg. Yes ; because I was a shop steward several times. 

Mr. Arens. On the average, how many shop stewards are there in 
the ACA operations in New York City? 

Mrs. Greenberg. When I was active we had quite a number of shop 
stewards, including the commercial and traffic. We had — I am not 
going to be pinned down, but there must have been about 40 shop 
stewards. 

Mr. Arens. As to these shop stewards, were their posts actually 
caused to be assumed by the leadership of the ACA ? In other words, 
were they really responsible to the leadership of the ACA ? 

Mrs. Greenberg. Oh, yes, certainly. 

Mr. Arens. They were the picked men of the Communists in the 
ACA ; is that correct ? 

Mrs. Greenberg. No, not the 4(3 ; by no means. 

Mr. Arens. I say were they the picked men ? Were they picked by 
the leadership ? Is that correct ? 

Mrs. Greenberg. Not picked by the leadership. They were voted 
by the membership. But the key people, of which I was one, we all 
always maneuvered ourselves into the position where we would win. 

Mr. Arens. How many of the shop stewards were under the direct 
or indirect discipline of the Communist Party leadership? 

Mrs. Greenberg. Oh, I would say about 10. 

Mr. Arens. How many of the shop stewards were themselves Com- 
munists ? 

Mrs. Greenberg. Of all the number that I mentioned ? 

Mr. Arens. Yes. 

Mrs. Greenberg. There was only that handful, I would say ; that 10. 

Mr. Arens. During the course of your membersliip in the Com- 
munist Party and during the course of your service in the Western 
Union in various jobs which you have described, did you have occasion 
to see confidential messages? 

Mrs. Greenberg. Oh, yes; I have seen them. I saw them during 
the war and after the war. 

Mr. Arens. Do you now see confidential messages ? 

Mrs. Greenberg. Yes, I do. 

Mr. Arens. Are confidential messages now processed by Western 
Union personnel in New York City — confidential Government mes- 



sages 



Mrs. Greenberg. I beg your pardon. I don't know what you mean 
by processed. 



COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 1509 

Mr. Arexs. Do Western Union employees in New York City have 
access to Government confidential messages i 

Mrs. Greexberg. Yes, I Avould say Ave do. It is in code. We don't 
understand it, but we do have it. 

Mr. Arexs. Do j^ou understand any of it ? 

Mrs. Greexberg. "When I see words like "proving grounds'" or some- 
thing to do with tests. But, truthfully, we try not — we do our work 
and we try to do it correctly, but we try not to concentrate on the 
message iself . We don't want to remember. 

]\Ir. Arexs. Have you seen, or do you process, messages about the 
nuclear tests that are going on right now? Confidential Government 
messages ? 

Mrs. Greexberg. I see confidential Government messages, but I 
couldn't say that they are exactly — they are actually about the nuclear 
tests. 

Mr. Arexs. Have you seen any about the nuclear tests? 

Mrs. Greexberg. I have seen the words "proving grounds'' in mes- 
sages, and I have gotten the impression that it concerned that type 
of activity. 

Mr. Arexs. What type of activity? 

Mrs. Greex'berg. To do with the nuclear. 

Mr. Arexs. Nuclear tests? Are these messages in code? 

Mrs. Greexberg. Yes, many of them are in code. 

Mr. Arexs. But some of them not in code are confidential ; is that 
correct ? 

Mrs. Greexberg. Well, they are worded so that one could not really 
get a message out of them. 

]Mr. Arexs. Do you see in some of these confidential messages 
allusions to the testing of the atom bomb and the hydrogen bomb? 

Mrs. Greexberg. I have seen — I will put it this way : I have seen 
messages that, if there were unfriendly people about, they could use 
them very nicely. 

Mr. Arexs. You mean dangerously to the security of this country ? 

Mrs. Greexberg. That is right. 

]\Ir. Arexs. Tell us, do you know a woman by the name of Sally 
Goldstein Freestone ? 

Mrs. Greexberg. I know Sally Goldstein Freestone. 

]\Ir. Arexs. Did you know her as a Communist during the period 
of your membership in the Communist Paity ? 

]SIrs. Greexberg. I knew her as a Communist for many years. 

Mv. Arens. Have you served in closed Communist Party meetings 
with Sally Freestone? 

Mrs. Greex^berg. Yes. 

Mr. Arexs. Do you see Sally Freestone in this room here today ? 

Mrs. Greexberg. I see Sally Freestone. 

^Ir. Arexs. "Wliere is she ? 

Mrs. Greexberg. The lady in green. 

Mr. Arex^s. Sitting here in this room ? 

Mrs. Greexberg. Sitting with Mr. Kehoe. 

Mr. Arexs. Where is she employed ? 

Mrs. Greexberg. The City Route Center in New York City. 



1510 COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 

]\Ir. Arens. You say she is sitting with Mr. Kehoe in this room? 

Mrs. Greenbero. Mr. Kehoe is the treasurer of our union, the na- 
tional office, 

INIr. Akens. Joseph Kelioe. Did you know liim as a member of the 
Communist Party when you were a Communist? 

Mrs. Greenbero. Yes, I did. 

Mr. Arexs. Where does Sally Freestone w^ork? 

Mrs. Greenbero. In 60 Hudson Street, New York City, the City 
Route Center. 

Mr. Doyle ( presiding) . May I inquire there ? 

How did you know that gentleman? "V^Hiy do you say you knew 
him as a member of the Communist Party? 

Mrs. Greenbero. Because I was in closed meetings with him. 

IVIr. Doyle. What kind of closed meetings ? 

Mrs. Greenbero. Back in the late 1930's and the early 1940's and 
after 1946 also. 

Mr. Doyle. Closed meetings of what group ? 

Mrs. Greenbero. We met at various places. 

Mr. Doyle. "VYliat group ? 

Mrs. Greenbero. Of the communications cell of the landline. We 
would be called the landline people ; not the cable side. 

Mr. Do-iXE, A closed cell of what ? 

Mrs. Greenbero. Of Communists. 

Mr. Doyle. Thank you. 

Mr. Arens. Do you now testify under oath that you knew the 
man seated next to Mrs. Sally Freestone as a Communist? 

Mrs. Greenbero. I knew Joseph Kehoe as a Communist. 

Mr. Arens. Now during the course of your membership in the Com- 
munist Party did you know a number of people as Communists who 
were engaged in the communications field? 

Mrs. Greenbero. I did. 

Mr. Arens. Have you conferred with myself and with other mem- 
bers of the staif with reference to the facts as you have knoAvn them? 

Mrs. Greenbero. Yes, sir. 

INIr. Arens. Do you have before you now a list of names of persons 
that you have given to the staff here, persons known by you to a cer- 
tainty to have been members of the Communist Party ? 

INfrs. Greenbero. I have. 

Mr. Arens. As to each of these persons, have you served with him 
or her in a closed Communist Party meeting ? 

Mrs. Greenbero. I have. 

Mr. Arens. Would you kindly tell us the name of each of these 
persons, and give us just a word of description concerning each one 
of them. 

Mrs. Greenbero. Mr. Joseph Selly. I knew him wa}^ back in the 
late 1930's. He was a leader of our group. 

I knew Joseph Kehoe. He did a lot of instructing and analysis on 
material we read, IT. S. S. R., and so forth. 

I knew Mrs. Ruth Blatt or Bollinger. Ruth Blatt Bollinger. 

Mr. Arens. If you will excuse me a moment, please, Mrs. Green- 
berg. 

As you proceed tell us not only a word about the individual, the 
identification, the characterization, but also tell us the incidents con- 



COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 1511 

cerning how 3'ou know those persons who are presently employed 
at Western Union or in the communications field. 

Mrs. Greexberg. Well, Joseph Selly is the president of the union. 

Mr. Arens. That is the ACA? 

Mrs. Greenberg. Of the ACA. You consider that 

Mr. Arens. That is within the communications field. 

Mrs. Greenberg. I see. He is president of the ACA, and he was 
also one of our leaders in our cell, our Communist cell. 

Mr. Arens, Do these persons who are leaders of the ACA, whom 
you have identified as Communists and with whom you have served 
in the Communist Part}- — do the}^ love the United States of America ( 
Could you give us your judgment on that. 

Mrs. Greenberg. Well, I will sa}' from my own experience, before 
I became honest with myself 

Mr. Arens. I was asking principally about those named. 

Mrs. Greenberg. They believe they are more patriotic than every- 
body that is patriotic. 

Mr. Arens. Why? 

Mrs. Greenberg. Because they feel this country is, well, not I'un 
the way it should be run. It is not run in the interest of the people, 
so to speak. 

Mr. Arens. What is their attitude toward the Soviet Union ? 

Mrs. Greenberg. That was the leader of the workers of the world. 

Mr. Arens. What was their attitude while you were in the Com- 
munist Party toward Joseph Stalin? 

Mrs. Greenberg. He was practically idolized, alinost as a god. 

Mr. Doyle. I wonder, Mr. Arens, while this witness is a friendly 
witness — I grant that — I think the form of that question "How do 
they feel ; what was their feeling" should be changed. I wonder if 
it should be asked and answered that way. I wonder if it should not 
be asked 

Mrs. Greenberg. Well, I will say this 

]Mr. DoTi,E. You see my point. What were their activities; what 
were their statements in your presence? I think that is quite differ- 
ent. In other words, I do not think you are qualified to testify what 
their feelings were. 

Mrs. Greenberg. One of the greatest men that ever lived. And 
some thought of him as the greatest man that ever lived. 

Shall I go on ? 

Mr. Doyle. Excuse me for interrupting. 

Mrs. Greenberg. I said Joseph Kehoe was very active in the cell, 
and he did a great deal of instructing and analyzing for us on the 
U. S. S. R. and the revolution in the U. S. S. R. and what they called 
dialectics and so on. 

Ruth Blatt was also a very active, highly trained very ardent 
Communist. 

jNIr. Arens. If you please, be sure and tell us those who are pres- 
ently engaged in communications, and where. 

Mrs. Greenberg. All right. Those presently engaged. 

Aaron Shapiro is dead. 

Rudy Ortner, although he is very inactive, never dropped out of 
the party to my knowledge. 

Mr. Arens. Where is he employed, please ? 



1512 coMMuisnsT penetration of communications facilities 

Mrs. Greenberg. In D. & A. Bureau in Western Union with me. 

Mr. Arens. Does he have access to confidential or restricted mes- 
sages ? 

Mrs. Greenberg. As much as any of us have. 

Mr. Arens. Kindly proceed to the next one, please. 

Mrs. Greenberg. Sally Goldstein Freestone was a party member, 
and I met with her ; I sat in with her in closed party meetings. 

Mr, Arens. Where is she employed ? 

Mrs. Greenberg. 60 Hudson Street, City Route Center. 

Mr. Arens. In what capacity ? 

Mrs. Greenberg. As a route clerk. 

Mr. Arens. Does she have access to confidential messages ? 

Mrs. Greenberg. As much as anyone else. 

Mr. Arens. Next name, if you please. 

Mrs. Greenberg. Michael Goldstein. He never dropped out of the 
party as far as I know. 

Mr. Arens. Where is he now ? 

Mrs. Greenberg. City Route Center in New York City. 

Mr. Arens. Does he have access to these confidential or restricted 
Government messages ? 

Mrs. Greenberg. As much as anyone else. 

Mr. Arens. And tlie next name, please. 

Mrs. Greenberg. Frank Lagos. He is now suspended from the 
company by the company. As far as I know, they never dropped 
out of the Communist Party. Lola Lagos is a housewife. She is out 
of the industry. 

William Bender was not in our group. He was in broadcast al- 
though he belonged to the same Communist fraction. We used to say 
fraction when I was in the party. 

Mr. Arens. Where is he now, please ? 

Mrs. Greenberg. As far as I know, he is with the Broadcast Division 
ofACA. 

Mr. Arens. And he is engaged in communications in New York 
City? 

Mrs. Greenberg. That is right. 

Mr. Arens. Did you know liim as a Communist ? 

Mrs. Greenberg. That is right. 

Mr. Arens. Do you have another name there ? 

Mrs. Greenberg. Clair Feller. I also met with her in closed 
Communist meetings. 

Mr. Arens. Where is she now ? 

Mrs. Greenberg. She is an operator at 60 Hudson Street, New York 
City. 

Mr. Arens. In Western Union ? 

Mrs. Greenberg. That is right. 

Mr. Arens. Does she have access to confidential and security infor- 
mation ? 

Mrs. Greenberg. As much as anyone else. 

INIr. Arens. The next name, please. 

Mrs. Greenberg. Frank Grumman. Although he is not with West- 
ern Union, I knew him as a Communist, and he works for one of the 
other communications — what is it ? Mackay ? 

Mr. Arens. RCA? 

Mrs. Greenberg. Or RCA. 



COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 1513 

Mr. Doyle. May I interrupt there ? I think it is important. Maybe 
we can lay a foundation for the witness' statement "I knew him as a 
Communist." 

Mr. Arens. We have an introductory statement. 

Mr. Doyle. By her? 

Mr. Arens. By the witness to the effect that every person on this 
list is a person with whom she has served in a closed party meeting. 

Mr. Doyle. Excuse me. 

Mr. Arens. She is only now giving a word of description with 
reference to each. 

Mr. Doyle. I beg your pardon. That is sufficient, certainly. 

INIrs. Greenberg. Vincent Trautman. I sat in closed fractions with 
him. 

Mr. Arens. Wliere is he now ? 

Mrs. Greenberg. KCA. 

Mr. Arens. Is he engaged in communications with RCA ? 

Mrs. Greenberg. Yes. As far as I know, he is still engaged. 

Some of them have bsen suspended. I don't know really 

Mr. Arens. Some of them have been suspended since these hearings 
of ours began ? 

Mrs. Greenberg. Yes. I don't laiow just which ones. 

Mr. Arens. Is there any other person known by you to a certainty 
to have been a Communist? 

Mrs. Greenberg. Yes. Louie Siebenberg. 

Mr. Arens. Where is he now ? 

Mrs. Greenberg. ACA local office. Local 40. 

Dominick Panza, Local 40. I also met him in closed Communist 
cell meetings. 

Mr. Arens. Is Dominick Panza an officer of Local 40, ACA ? 

Mrs. Greenberg. That is correct. 

Mr. Arens. Do you recall what office he holds ? 

Mrs. Greenberg. I don't know right off. 

Mr. Arens. You know he is an official of ACA? 

Mrs. Greenberg. He is an official, yes. And Charlie Silberman. 
He is the newspaper editor of the ACA News. I sat in with him at 
closed membership, closed cell meetings. 

Mr. Arens. Of the Communist Party ? 

Mrs. Greenberg. Of the Communist Party. And, likewise, Alfred 
Doumar. 

Mr. Arens. And where is Mr. Doumar? Where is he engaged? 

Mrs. Greenberg. In ACA, Local 40. He is the secretary-treasurer. 

Mr. Arens. That is a full-time job, is it not ? 

Mrs. Greenberg. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. And he was a Communist to your knowledge, is that 
correct ? 

Mrs. Greenberg. Yes. I sat in with him. 

Miss Mollie Townsend. She is the, I believe, recording secretary 
of Local 40, ACA, and I sat in with her also. 

Samuel Eothbaum. Although he dropped out a long time ago, I 
sat in with him also. 

Edith Alberts dropped out a long time ago, and I sat in with 
her also. 

Rose Margulis is out of the industry. 

Mr. Arens. Do you know where she is employed ? 



1514 COMMUNTIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 

Mrs. Greenberg. I don't know. She is a housewife as far as I 
know. 

Sam Testa 

Mr. Doyle. Wlien you say she "dropped out" do you mean she 
dropped out of the Communist Party ? 

Mrs. Greenberg. No, I don't know, I mean they left the industry, 
and after that I don't know a thing about them. 

Mr. Doyle. That is wliat you refer to wlien you say they dropped 
out? 

Mrs. Greenberg. I will be a little more explicit. 

Mr. Doyle. Please. 

Mrs. Greenberg. Yes. 

Mr. Arens. Next name, if you please. 

Mrs. Greenberg. Sam Testa. He was with either Mackay or RCA. 
I don't know which. 

Mr. Arens. Either with Mackay or RCA ? 

Mrs. Greenberg. Yes. I sat with him also in fractions. 

And Josephine Timms She is out of the industry. 

And Jack and Murray Winocur. I sat with them at fraction 
meetings. 

Mr. Arens. Where are Jack and Murray Winocur ? 

Mrs. Greenberg. I don't know too much about them any more. 
Truthfully I haven't seen them in years. 

Mr. Arens. Is there any other person known by you to have been a 
member of the Communist Party ? 

Mrs. Greenberg. Yes. There is John Campbell and Harold Green- 
berg, my husband. 

Mr. Arens. John Campbell. "Wliere does he live ? 

Mrs. Greenberg. Jersey City. And I sat in once or twice where 
John Campbell and I were cell mates. 

Jeanette Kotzun, as far as I know, dropped out of the party. I sat 
in closed cell meetings with Charlie Merlino. 

Mr. Arens. With reference to John Campbell, do you haA^e any 
information other tlian the information you liave already given 
us on this record ? 

Mrs. Greenberg. No. The only information I know is that his 
party book was once seen by Western Union supervisors, and he was 
admonished. But that was all. But he was very frightened about it, 
but nothing came of it. 

Mr. Arens. Is there another name ? 

Mrs. Greenberg. Harold Greenberg, my husband. I never sat in 
on any closed meetings with him, because he was a night worker, and 
they met in the afternoon. 

Mr. Arens. Is he out of the party now ? 

Mrs. Greenberg. He is my status. 

Charles Merlino. I sat in on closed meetings with him. He is a 
supervisor of Western Union. 

Mr. Arens. A supervisor now in Western Union ? 

Mrs. Greenberg. He is a supervisor in Western Union in the 
D. and A. bureau. 

Mr. Arens. What is the D. and A. bureau ? 

Mrs. Greenberg. Distributing and addressing. 

Mr. Arens. Does he have access to confidential and security infor- 
mation of the Government ? 



COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 1515 

Mrs. Greenberg. As much as anyone else there. 

Mr. Arens. Do you have another name there ? 

Mrs. Greenberg. Tony Napoli. He dropped out years ago. 

Mr. Arens. He dropped out ? 

Mrs. Greenberg. Never resigned, but he just became very inactive 
in the party years ago. 

Mr. Arens. I see. Do you know where he is employed ? 

Mrs. Greenberg. In the D. and A., distributing and addressing 
department. 

Mr. Arens. Of Western Union ? 

Mrs. Greenberg. Yes. 

Likewise, Tommy OTveefe came to several meetings and then just 
drifted away. 

Mr. Arens. Where is Tommy O'Keefe ? 

Mrs. Greenberg. Also in distributing and addressing. 

And then Betty Fishgold, who is now out of the communications, 
but I met with her in closed-cell meetings. 

Mr. Arens. Is there any other person who was, to a certainty, 
known by you to have been a Communist because of your attendance 
with that person in a closed Communist Party meeting ? 

Mrs. Greenberg. I don't recall right off. 

Mr. Arens. Did the ACA, the American Communications Associa- 
tion, to your knowledge, engage in any activities other than activities 
which we might describe as communication workers' activities, any 
political activities? 

Mrs. Greenberg. We were very political. 

Mr. Arens. What did they do ? 

Mrs. Greenberg. We tried to, at all the meetings — we always tried 
to slant the meetings toward political gain for the party; and at that 
time there were people who heckled the U. S. S. R., openly hostile, and 
it was always planned at cell meetings how to run the union meetings so 
they would be taken care of. In other words, gotten off the floor as 
fast as possible. 

Mr. Arens. During the course of your membership in the Com- 
munist Party and your employment at Western Union, did you have 
access to messages respecting the deployment of troops. United States 
troops ? 

Mrs. Greenberg. During the war, yes. 

Mr. Arens. Were those secret messages ? 

Mrs. Greenberg. Well, as far as — they were confidential. 

Mr. Arens. Confidential messages ? 

Mrs. Greenberg. As all Western Union messages are confidential. 

Mr. Arens. And you had access to those ? 

Mrs. Greenberg. Surely. 

Mr. Arens. You have told us in private conversation that you, as 
an individual, because of your firm religious convictions and your 
personal integi'ity, never transmitted to any person not authorized to 
receive the same, confidential or restricted information. 

Mrs. Greenberg. No, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Is that correct ? 

Mrs. Greenberg. That is correct. 

Mr. Arens. And you disassociated yourself from the Communist 
Party wholly on a voluntary basis ? 

Mrs. Greenberg. That is correct. 



1516 COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 

Mr. Arens. Because you were disgusted with the Communist 
Party ? 

Mrs. Greenberg. That is right. 

Mr. Arens. Is that correct ? 

Mrs. Greenberg. That is correct. 

Mr. Arens. Have you heard any of the officers of the American 
Communications Association give instructions or suggestions with 
respect to the world Communist movement and the extent to which 
the Communist operation in the United States was a part of it? 

Mrs. Greenberg. AYe considered ourselves part of tlie world revolu- 
tionary movement, and they said it had to be changed, and there had to 
be a change in the form of the government. There had to be a change, 
a nationalization of the industries and natural resources, and that 
sort of talk. 

Mr. Arens. In the event of a war between the United States of 
America and the Soviet Union, what would be the position of the 
leadership of the American Communications Association as evidenced 
to you by their instructions, conversations ? 

Mrs. Greenberg. They may deny it, but I would say this: 

They certainly adored the U. S. S. R., or did while I knew them. 

Mr. Arens. We have no further questions of this witness, Mr. 
Chairman. 

Mr. SciiERER. I have no questions. 

Mr. Doyle. May I inquire briefly because I interrupted you, madam, 
when you were saying that they felt so and so — you remember? — and I 
suggested that you tell us what they did or what they said. 

What was said, if anything, in the Communist Party cell meetings 
when you were present about the position of the Connnunist Party in 
this country, or at least in your cell, on any subject dealing with our 
own National Government. 

Mrs. Greenberg. It was business of the Communists to control the 
unions and to put themselves in such positions in the industries as to 
be of the greatest use on the day that any change would occur or would 
be brought about. The idea was that a union that was a political 
union was a good union, and a union that was not politically concerned 
was — the inference was that it was just no good. And for a while 
they went along that way, even the people who opposed the Com- 
munists, until the leadership there finally got the point across. 

Put it this way : they wanted no politics at the union meetings, and, 
so, some sort of a middle ground evolved. 

Mr. Doyle. Now do I understand then that in the Communist cell 
of which you were a member and about which you testified, that in that 
cell Communist Party leaders told you and the other Communists pres- 
ent that there w^as going to be a change of some sort ? 

Mrs. Greenberg. Not in so many words, but we studied pamphlets 
and books and said we were preparing ourselves on what took place in 
the U. S. S. R. ; and for instance, we went to see the picture Ten Days 
That Shook the World, and the Soviet Union was held up as the ex- 
ample for all the workers' parties and all the countries of the world. 
In other words, she was the model, she was to be followed. And, in 
other words, it wasn't told in so many words to a person, but you 
could figure it out. I felt that was the model of happiness on earth, 
true brotherhood and freedom, and the end of depression and so forth. 
I deluded myself for a number of years, until I found out — it was 



COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 1517 

slowly — that there was no such thing. I was projecting my own 
wishes. Because, as I found out through the union cell, there was 
no freedom of expression, true freedom of ex])ression or true freedom 
of thought. If you weren't in with their thinking, you were just plain 
out of luck. 

Mr. Arens. Have you received any threats or suggestions since you 
were requested to appear today ? 

Mrs. Greenberg. Not yet. 

Mr. Arens. Are you apprehensive in that regard ? 

Mrs. Greexberg. Well, knowing the history and knowing what has 
happened to others, and having been through a strike where things 
were done, I thought it was legitimate also — I will say that — we 
figured, well, we have to win that strike. But, knowing all that, the 
pattern, I would expect anything to happen, and I am not being 
dramatic. AAHiat they did to Helen Yewell. They said she was crazy, 
dramatic, unbalanced, and sick, and so forth ancl so on. 

Mr. Arexs. You expect to receive recriminations against yourself? 

Mrs. Greenberg. I certainly expect it, but I will give them a fight. 

Mr. Doyle. Well, possibly this is a case then that we ought to take 
up and consider whether or not we should have this lady continued 
under Federal Government subpena. 

]Mr. Arexs. We were going to suggest that, Mr. Chairman, in view 
of her statements in staff consultation about her fears of possible 
recriminations. 

Mrs. Greenberg. They are going to write it up beautifully in ACA 
with all their innuendoes and inferences and what not. So I expect 
them to be very bitter and to do a job on me, in other words. 

Mr. Aren^s. I respectfully suggest, Mr. Chairman, that this lady 
now be continued under the subpena, but be excused from further 
testimony. 

Mr. Doyle. Mr. Scherer, did you hear the statement of our com- 
mittee director, that this lady who has just testified is in fear of pos- 
sible recrimination, possible harm, bodily harm, because of her helpful 
testimony here today? 

And I ask the question whether or not we should continue her under 
Federal Government subpena. 

Mr. Scherer. I think she should be continued indefinitely under 
subpena, and I think people will understand. 

Mr. Doyle. Then that will be the order. 

]\Irs. Greenberg. Frankly, sir, I will fight for my rights anywhere 
and everywhere. 

Mr. Doyle. No one has the right to lay hands on you or put you in 
a state of fear because of your testimony. 

Mrs. Greenberg. I will not live where people cannot disagree 
without living in fear of their lives. 

Mr. Scherer. Does the witness understand, Mr. Doyle, the protec- 
tion she has as long as she is under subi^ena of this committee? 

Mr. Doyle. Will you state it, Mr. Scherer. 

Mr. Scherer. As long as you are under subpena of this committee, 
any individual who attempts to harm you in any way or threaten you 
is subject to penalties mider the law. 

Mrs. Greex'berg. I hope it will never come to that, sir. 

Mr. Scherer. We do, too. 



1518 COMMUNTIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 

Mrs. Greenberg. I don't wish anyone Ininn. 

Mr. Doyle. May I ask this question : With reference to the rela- 
tionship of the Communist Party cell of Avhich you were a member, 
what Avas the relationship of that cell to the union of which all the 
members of the cell were also members ? In other words, did or did 
not the Communist Party cell actively extend and try to control the 
union ? 

jSIrs. Greenberg. Yes, sir. 

]\Ir. Doyle. What did you want to control the union for ? 

Mrs. Greenberg. The business of the union was ahvays on the 
agenda of the cell meetings. 

]Mr. Doyle. What did you want to control the union for? 

Mrs. Greenberg. Well, a good union was only a union that was 
politically controlled by the right people. You know what I mean. 
For instance, in Latin America the unions, to my knowledge, were 
very politically minded. They were controlled by people also who 
favored the U. S. S. E,. greatly. And they talked about what won- 
derful unions tliey were. And many times they were disgusted with 
the American labor movement and called them names because they 
wouldn't persist in being all one-minded politically. 

Mr. Doyle. You said that you tried to slant the union meetings. 
Slant them to what ? 

Mrs. Greenberg. It was during the war. We tried our best to take 
advantage of the climate of the times and get people favorable to the 
U. S. S. E. And if an^'one got up at any time to remind us that 
communism was in the U. S. S. R. and still, war or no war, ally or 
no ally, they still were enemies, then the idea was to get them oif 
the floor by certain tactics, parliamentary tactics, it is true. But it 
was done so as to make them look foolish, to make them look reac- 
tionary, and then the name calling that they were reactionary, they 
were Christian Fronters, they were Nazis or things like that, in order 
to make them lose all effectiveness. 

Mr. Doyle. How many years were you in the Communist Party, 
actively ? 

Mrs. Greenberg. Oh, activelv, I was in the Communist Party from 
1936 to the end of 1943. 

Mr. Doyle. Why did you get out ? 
. Mrs. Greenberg. Then I didn't attend meetings for the next 2 
years, when they transferred us to comnninity cells. I tried to get 
out then, and then came the strike. 

Mr. SciiERER. She has already testified to that, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Doyle. All right. My colleague tells me you testified to that 
before I got here from the floor of Congress. 

"Wliat was 3'our motive in coming here and testifying as a friendly 
witness ? 

Mrs. Greenberg. Because I have, for years now, never liked the 
idea. It is a clique there, just like the Soviet Union. You cannot 
disagree even honestly, and no one runs against them, no one could 
run against them. It is so controlled. If they want you to lose, you 
lose; if you try to run for any position there — for instance, an honest 
rank-and-filer could not run against any one of tlie top boys. They 
are not qualified. The people will never be qualified who are not 
trained or jjiven a chance. 



COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 1519 

Mr. DoTLE. You are referring to union elections ? 

Mrs. Greenberg. That is right. I am talking about the union. 
There is no real freedom of expression, freedom of thought, freedom of 
speech. If jou are out of favor with that clique down there at Bridge 
Street and Leonard Street, well, you are just out of luck. 

Mr. DoYT.E. May I ask you one more question. 

This committee is interested — and that is why we have had these 
hearings — not only to find the extent to which the Communist Party 
was in control or infiltrated into our sensitive communications system, 
dealing with our national defense and security, but to see in what 
way, if anVj we might suo-gest legislation to Congress dealing with 
the subversive activities ni our country, especially in the field of 
communications. 

Have you any suggestions to give us ? 

Mrs. (jrREEXBERG. I houestly believe this, that anyone who is not 
loyal to our way of life, which, to me, means the right to pass peti- 
tions, the right to free speech, the right to disagree, the right to assem- 
ble, I wish to say this, and I sa}^ it to anj^one to their faces : If they 
were in power these rights would go by the board; if they were in 
power we would not be able to pass a petition. 

They passed a petition in "Western Union for the Rosenbergs and 
the legacies, and I say to them they have the right to pass the peti- 
tion. But here is the rub : If they were in power, we wouldn't have 
the right to pass the petition. 

Mr. Do^T^E. If who was in power ? 

Mrs. Greenberg. Any honest Democrat, Progressive, Republican, 
or Vegetarian. If they passed a petition I would give them the right — 
I would fight for their right to pass a petition. If they w^ere in power 
and I tried to pass a petition disagreeing with them on anything, I 
would be a Trotskyite, I would be a Nazi or a Christian Frontier 
or something. 

Mr. Doyle. To whom do you refer when you say "if they were in 
power" ? 

Mrs. Greenberg. These Communists, the Communists I knew. 

Mr. Doyle. Now may I ask do you have any suggestion to Con- 
gress in the field of legislation ? Have you thought of that at all ? 

Mrs. Greexberg. "Well, I don't think it is in 1113' position to suggest 
legislation. 

Mr. Doyle. All right. 

Mrs. Greenberg. There are more qualified people, I am sure. 

Mr. Doyle. Yes, but you were a former active Communist leader, 
and I thought maj^be the question of legislation or existing laws might 
even have come up for discussion in some of those Communist Party 
cell meetings. 

Mrs. Greenberg. Even I believed for a long time, always in fear 
of, you know, being persecuted, being persecuted terribly, and, you 
know, hounded and all kinds of things — I used to think of the FBI 
as a terrible bunch, almost like a Gestapo or the Russian secret police. 
Those were all the impressions we were indoctrinated with. 

Mr. Doyle. I have no further questions. 

94784—57 11 



1520 coMMuisnsT penetration of communications facilities 

Mr. SciiERER. I liave no f urtlier questions. 

Mr. Doyle. I want to thank you, however, on behalf of the com- 
mittee for coming here and giving us the benefit of this testimony. 

Mr. Arexs. May the testimony show, Mr. Chairman, that the wit- 
ness is continued under subpena ? 

Mr. Doyle. The record will so show that. And the witness is fully 
aware now that you are under continued subpena. 

Mrs. Greenberg. I wish to state that I would have spoken years 
ago, only I did cooperate w^ith the FBI verbally, and they asked me 
to be quiet. But I would have said the same thing quite a long time 
ago, and I will continue to say it, so help me God. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. Arens. The next witness, if you please, Mr. Chairman, will 
be Mrs. Sarah Freestone. 

Mr. Scherer. Mr. Chairman, before we hear the next witness, I 
think the record should disclose that we have visiting us today Mr. 
Thomas Beale, who served as chief clerk of this committee for many 
years, now retired and living in Florida. We are happy to have him 
back. He is one of the men in tliis country who rendered a valuable 
contribution in the fight against subversive activities. 

Mr. Doyle. We are very glad to have you, Mr. Beale, and would 
like to have you sit right up here with the committee as long as you 
wish. 

Mr. Arens. Would you kindly stand while the chairman adminis- 
ters the oath to you. 

Mr. Doyle. Do you solemnly swear that you will tell the truth, the 
whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mrs. Freestone. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF SAEAH FREESTONE, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 
VICTOR RABINOWITZ 

Mr. Arens. Kindly identify yourself by name, residence, and 
occupation. 

Mrs. Freestone. My name is Mrs. Sarah Freestone. I live at 2810 
Mermaid Avenue, Brooklyn, N. Y. I work for the Western Union 
Telegraph Co. 

Mr. Arens. You are appearing today, Mrs. Freestone, in response 
to a subpena which was served upon you by the House Committee 
on Un-American Activities ? 

Mrs. Freestone. Yes. 

Mr. Arens. And you are represented by counsel ? 

Mr. Freestone. Yes. 

Mr. Arens. Counsel, would you kindly identify yourself ? 

Mr. Rabinoavitz. Victor Rabinowitz. 

Mr. Arens. Mrs. Freestone, do you know the person who just left 
the witness chair a few minutes ago ? 

Mrs. Freestone. Yes. 

Mr. Arens. What is her name ? 

Mrs. Freestone. Connie — Concetta Greenberg. 

Mr. Arens. Mrs. Greenberg testified a few moments ago that when 
she was a member of the Communist Party, she served in closed 
Communist Party meetings with you and knew you as a Communist. 
We would like to give you an opportunity now before we proceed 



COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 1521 

further to comment on that and to affirm or deny it if you care to 
avail yourself of that opportunity. 

(The witness confers with her counsel.) 

Mr. Eabinowitz. Is there a question pending ? 

Mr. Arens. Do you care to avail yourself of the opportunity of 
affirming or denying that Mrs. Greenberg ever knew you as a Com- 
munist ? 

Mrs. Freestone. No. 

Mr. Arens. You do not care to avail yourself of that opportunity ? 

Mr. Kabinowitz. That is what she said. 

Mr. Arens. Was Mrs. Greenberg mistaken when she said that you 
were a Communist ? 

(The witness confers with her counsel.) 

Mrs. Freestone. I refuse to answer on the grounds of the first 
and fifth amendments. 

Mr. Arens. Are you a Communist ? 

(The witness confers with her counsel.) 

Mrs. Freestone. I refuse on the same grounds. 

Mr. Arens. What grounds ? 

Mrs. Freestone. Of the first and fifth amendments. 

Mr. Arens. On the fifth amendment, are you availing yourself 
of the privilege accorded to a person not to give information or 
testimony which could be used against him in a criminal proceeding? 

(Witness confers with her counsel.) 

Mrs. Freestone. Yes. 

Mr. Arens. Do you honestly feel if you told this committee 
whether or not Mrs. Greenberg was telling the truth in her testimony 
about you, that you would be supplying information which might 
be used against you in a criminal proceeding ? 

(The witness confers with her counsel.) 

Mrs. Freestone. It might be used against me unjustly. 

Mr. Arens. Would it be unjustified if you were involved in a crimi- 
nal proceeding as a Communist ? 

Mr. Kabinowitz, Would counsel mind repeating that question? 
Would what? 

Mr. Arens. She said it might be used against her unjustly. I just 
want to make sure if it were used, it would be unjustified. 

If you were an object of a criminal proceeding now, madam, because 
of alleged Communist affiliations, would it be unjustified ? 

Mr. Kabinowitz. Would what be unjustified ? 

Mrs. Freestone. Would what be unjustified? 

Mr. Arens. The criminal proceeding. 

(The witness confers with her counsel.) 

Mrs. Freestone. I refuse to answer on the same grounds. 

Mr. Arens. Where are you employed ? 

Mrs. Freestone. GO Hudson Street. 

Mr. Arens. What firm ? 

Mrs. Freestone. Western Union. 

Mr. Arens. In what capacity ? 

Mrs. Freestone. As a route clerk. 

Mr. Arens. How long have you been so engaged ? 

Mrs. Freestone. Well, I was a route aid, and then I became a route 
clerk, but I worked with the company about 29 years. 



1522 COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 

Mr. Arens. During the course of your employment by the Western 
Union, liave you had access to confidential or restricted information ? 
(The witness confers with her counsel.) 

Mrs. Freestone. All messages are conlidential. 

Mr. Arens. Do you presently have access to any Government con- 
fidential messages ? 

Mrs. Freestone. All messages 

Mr. Arens. "Would you kindl}^ answer the question ? 

(The witness confers with her counsel.) 

Mrs. Freestone. Well, I route business and I have all messages 
coming in. 

Mr. Arens. You know what I am asking, and I respectfully and 
kindly ask you to respond to the question. Do you presently in your 
work have access to messages of the United States Government which 
are confidential or restricted? 

(The Avitness confers with her counsel.) 

Mrs. Freestone. Yes. 

Mr. Arens. Do you belong to the American Communications 
Association ? 

Mrs. Freestone. I do. 

Mr. Arexs. How long have you belonged to that organization? 

Mrs. Freestone. Ever since it started. 

Mr. Arexs. Have you ever held any posts or office in that organi- 
zation ? 

Mrs. Freestox^e. No. 

Mr. Arexs. Do you know the officers of that organization? 

Mrs. Freestox^e. Yes. 

Mr. Arexs. Have you ever served in closed Communist Party meet- 
ings with them? 

(The witness confers with her counsel.) 

Mrs. Freestone. I refuse to answer. 

Mr. Arexs. Why ? 

Mrs. Freestoxe. On the grounds of the first and fifth amendments. 

Mr. Arexs. Tell us the nature of your duties in your present job. 

Mrs. Freestoxe. Well, I am a route clerk, and business comes down 
on a belt, and as they come down I pick it up and route it and direct 
it to the offices. 

Mr. Arexs. What is the nature of the business that comes down on 
the belt ? 

Mrs. Freestoxe. All kinds of business. 

Mr. Arexs. Is it a message ? 

Mrs. Freestox^e. A message. 

Mr. Arens. Do you see coded messages of the United States Gov- 
ernment ? 

Mrs. Freestone. Well, I see messages, and I don't read them. 

Mr. Arens. Do you see coded messages of the United States Gov- 
ernment ? 

Mrs. Freestone. Well, yes ; I see coded messages. 

Mr. Arexs. Do you see messages of the United States Government 
which are confidential or restricted respecting the atom-bomb tests? 

Mrs. Freestoxe. I don't think. 

Mr. Arens. You do not recall that specific illustration ? 

Mrs. Freestone. No ; I don't, sir. 



COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 1523 

Mr. Arens. How long in the course of your work liave you been 
engaged in a type of work in which you have had access to confiden- 
tial or restricted Government messages ? 

Mrs. Freestone. Well, 29 years. Of course, as a route aid, I dis- 
tributed the business, and, as a route clerk, I route the business to be 
distributed by route aid. 

Mr. Arens. This Committee on Un-American Activities is develop- 
ing factual information with an end in view of such information 
as the facts may warrant in order to preclude from access to security 
or confidential information persons who are Communists or under 
Communist Party discipline. To that end we have asked you to come 
forward here to give us information. We would like to have you tell 
us if you know any persons w^ho are Communists who now have access 
to confidential or Government security information. 
(The witness confers with her counsel.) 

Mrs. Freestone. I refuse to answer. 

Mr. Arens. Why ? 

Mrs. Freestone. On the grounds of the first and fifth amendments. 

Mr. Arens. When you say "the grounds of the fifth amendment," 
are you referring to that part of the fifth amendment which gives you 
the privilege of declining to give information which might be used 
against you in a criminal proceeding ? 

Mrs. Freestone. Yes. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully suggest that will con- 
clude the staff interrogation of this witness. 

Mr. Scherer. Mrs. Freestone, you were in the room and heard the 
testimony of JNIrs. Greenberg, the witness who preceded you on the 
stand. 

Mrs. Freestone. Was I in the room ? 

Mr. Scherer. Yes. 

Mrs. Freestone. Yes. 

Mr. Scherer. Did you hear her testimony ? 

Mrs. Freestone. Yes. 

Mr. Scherer. Was there anything that she said in her testimony 
concerning you that was untrue ? 

Mrs. Freestone. I refuse to answer. 

Mr. Scherer. For what reason ? 

Mrs. Freestone. On the first and fifth amendments. 

Mr. Scherer. Where were you born ? 

Mrs. Freestone. Where w^as I born ? 

(The witness confers with her counsel.) 

Mrs. Freestone. London, England. 

Mr. Scherer. Are you a naturalized citizen ? 

Mrs. Freestone. My father's papers. 

Mr. Scherer. By derivation ? 

Mrs. Freestone. My father's papers. 

Mr. Scherer. About when was that ? 

Mrs. Freestone. About 1928. I am not sure. 

Mr. Scherer. You have been in the country since 1928 ? 

Mrs. Freestone. Me? 

Mr. Scherer. Yes. 

Mrs. Freestone. Well, I was before. 

Mr. Scherer. "Wlien did you come to the United States ? 



1524 coMMuisriST penetration of communications facilities 

Mrs. Freestone. I came to the United States about 1913 or 1914. I 
am not sure. 

Mr. SciiERER. Was your father an Englishman ? 

Mrs. Freestone. No. 

Mr. ScHERER. You say you ^yere born 

Mrs. Freestone. I was born in England. 

Mr. ScHERER. What country was he from ? 

Mrs. Freestone. He was from Poland, I think. I don't know. 

Mr. ScHERER. Poland? Was he just visiting in England at the 
time you were born ? 

Mrs. Freestone. No. He was on his way to America, and they 
stopped off in England. That is all. 

Mr. Doyle. INIay I inquire : Are you a Communist now ? 

(The witness confers with her counsel.) 

Mrs. Freestone. I refuse to answer on the grounds of the first and 
fith amendments. 

Mr. Doyle. Well, now, I make this remark which I frequently 
make : I do not understand how in the world persons claiming they are 
patriotic American citizens — since 1945, when Earl Browder was 
kicked out of the Communist Party leadership and it became perfectly 
clear what the issue was between our way of life and the Communist 
way of life — I don't understand why it is that a person like you, work- 
ing for the very responsible firm that you have for 29 years, keep your- 
self in such a position with reference to the Communist Party that 
you can't honestly come in here and say you are not a Communist 
today. 

Now I can understand how you might have been a Communist for 
ideological purposes some years ago. 

Wliy don't you get yourself in the position where you can come to 
Congress and say, "No ; I am not a Communist today" ? Why don't 
you put yourself in that atmosphere ? 

Mr. ScHERER. Mr. Arens, may I ask you a question. 

Is my understanding correct that the Western Union is not able to 
discharge these people who are handling confidential messages and 
who have been identified as Communists because of their contract with 
the union ? 

Mr. Arens. T am not too certain as to the specifics of the contractual 
arrangement, although I have had them explained to me. It is my 
understanding that the problem that the companies have is that Com- 
munists deny Communist Party membership unless they are sub- 
jected to possible pains and penalties of perjury — and then, of course, 
they would invoke the provisions of the Constitution — but that 
Western Union is presently bound to negotiate with this Communist- 
controlled organization because it has been certified by the National 
Labor Relations Board as the bargaining agent. I understand and 
have been told, if they would not negotiate with the Communist-con- 
trolled American Communications Association, Western Union would 
be in jeopardy of a finding that it, the Western Union, would be 
guilty of an unfair labor practice. 

Mr. Scherer. Does Western Union today have to keep these people 
in positions with the company where they can handle these messages ? 

Mr. Arens. As I understand it, those persons who have been identi- 
fied before this committee as members of the Communist Party and 



COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 1525 

who have, in turn, invoked the provisions of the fifth amendment 
are not, at the behest of this committee, but are, at the instance of 
the Western Union, suspended. 

The problem, as I gather, is that the Western Union, as well as 
these other companies, is presently obliged, first of all, to negotiate 
with the Communist-controlled union, and, secondly, they themselves 
cannot establish, because they do not have the facilities to do so, who 
are definitely Communists. 

That is the problem as I understand it. I believe the persons from 
Western Union, who have already appeared and testified, might 
perhaps give us further light on that. 

Mr. ScHERER. Is my understanding correct that if the Subversive 
Activities Control Board would find this particular union to be 
Communist-dominated, then Western Union would not have to bar- 
gain with them ? 

Mr. Arens. Under the Communist Control Act of 1954, if the Sub- 
versive Activities Control Board, upon petition of the Attorney 
General, finds that the American Communications Association or any 
group of comparable composition is Communist -infiltrated, then the 
National Labor Relations Board is precluded from certifying a Com- 
munist-infiltrated organization as a bargaining agency. Bat that, of 
course, has not been done. 

Mr. ScHERER. Now how has that provision of the law been affected 
by recent Supreme Court decisions, if you laiow ? 

Mr. Arens. I do not know. I have not made a. careful study of it. 

Mr. ScHERER. I think we should determine whether or not we need 
any corrective legislation in view of 2 or 3 of these Supreme Court 
decisions, which might prohibit the Subversive Activities Control 
Board making a finding as you just indicated. 

Mr. Arens. I am sure that Congress recognizes why we have been 
in this particular series of hearings with reference to Communist 
penetration and potential sabotage of the available communications 
facilities servicing the communications centers of this Nation. 

Mr. ScHERER. We must keep in mind one of the first witnesses 
who testified before this committee in this series of hearings — and 
I believe his name was Mignon — who was one of the leaders of the 
union of the Communications Workers of America, and was also at 
one time an active Communist. He testified that it was the object of 
the Communist Party to control the unions so that sabotage could be 
accomplished more easily if we should be at war with Russia. That 
points up the necessity of recommending legislation that might be 
needed to meet this situation. 

Mr. Doyle. May I inquire whether the witness, Mrs. Freestone, 
testified that she was a member of the union, the ACA union? 

Mr. Arens. This lady presently on the stand; yes; she testified 
that she is. 

Mr. DoTLE. Is that the union that was expelled from the CIO? 
Mr. Arens. Yes, sir. The American Communications Association 
is the name of it. 

Mr. Doyle. That was 5 years ago. 

Mr. Arens. I think it was 7 years ago, 1950. 

Mr. Doyle. Seven years ago. 

May I ask the witness this question : 



1526 coMMuisriST penetration of communications facilities 

Has your union, to your knowledge, made any effort to qualify 
again as a member of the CIO union in all these 7 years ? 

(The witness confers with her counsel.) 

Mrs. Freestone. I don't know. 

Mr. Doyle. You do not know anything about it ? 

Mr. ScHERER. Madam, you do know that your union, though, was 
expelled from the CIO ; do you not ? 

Mrs. Freestone. Pardon? 

Mr. ScHERER. You know that the CIO expelled your union approxi- 
mately 7 years ago, do you not ? 

Mrs. Freestone. Yes. 

Mr. ScHERER. Do you know why? 

(The witness confers with her counsel.) 

Mrs. Freestone. The CIO said that they followed the Communist 
line. 

Mr. Scherer. They were expelled because the CIO alleged that your 
union followed the Communist Party line. Do you know if there 
was any basis for that allegation on the part of the CIO? 

Mrs. Freestone. Not that I know of. 

Mr. SciiERER. You say not that you know of. Were any of the 
members of the union at that time members of the Communist Party ? 

Mrs. Freestone. I refuse to answer. 

Mr. Scherer. Why? 

Mrs. Freestone. On the grounds of the first and fifth amendments. 

Mr. Scherer. Is it a fact that practically all of the officers of the 
union at the time you were expelled from the CIO were members of 
the Communist Party? 

(The witness confers with her counsel.) 

Mr. Scherer. Don't you know that, as a matter of fact ? 

Mrs. Freestone. I refuse to ansvrer, on the same grounds. 

Mr. Scherer. Plow, then, can you say to me, in response to my ques- 
tion, that there was no basis for the CIO expelling your union because 
it was Communist dominated? How can you say there w^as no basis 
if you now refuse to deny that the members of the union were members 
of the Communist Party ? 

Mrs. Freestone. It was the CIO that said. 

Mr. Scherer. I understand that. You said there was no basis for 
the CIO expelling you on those grounds. Still you refuse to tell me 
now whether or not tlie leaders of your union at that time were mem- 
bers of the Communist Party. 

Mr. Eabinowttz. Is there a pending question ? 

Mr. Doyle. May I inquire, madam? Since you have testified that 
you knew that the CIO had expelled the union of which you were 
then and now are a member on the CIO claim tliat they were Com- 
munist, that your union was Communist controlled 

Mr. Rabinowttz. That wasn't what she said, sir. 

Mr. Doyle. What did she say ? 

Mr. Rabinowitz. She said 

Mr. Doyle. Let her answer. 

Mr. Rabinowttz. I thought you were asking me. 

Mr. Doyle. I meant to ask you. Witness. 

Mr. Scherer. That is what the witness said. 

Mrs. Freestone. On the grounds that the CIO said they followed 
the Communist line. 



COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 1527 

Mr. Rabinowitz. Not that they were Communist dominated. 

Mrs. Freestoxe. Xot tliat they were Communist dominated. 

Mr. DoTXE. Just a minute, CounseL Then you now testify that 
7 years ago when they expelled your union, you were a member of 
that then. 

Mrs. Freestone. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Doyle. And you learned then that the CIO said that your union 
was Communist dominated ? 

Mr. Rabixowitz. Xo, sir; that isn't what she said. She said that 
it followed the Communist Party line. 

Mrs. Freestone. Followed the Communist Party line. 

Mr. ScuERER. Just a minute. Let's not split hairs. Wliat is the 
diiference? 

Mr. Rabinowitz. I will explain the difference, if you want me to. 

Mr. ScHERER. You are in a position to explain the difference. I 
understand that. Counsel. 

Mr. Doyle. Let me rephrase it, then. I certainly do not intend to 
put words in your mouth. Then, as I understand it, madam, your 
testimon}' a few minutes ago was that you knew 7 years ago when your 
union was expelled from the CIO on the grounds that the CIO claimed 
your union, of which you were then a member, followed the Commu- 
nist Party line. Now^ is that correct ? 

Mrs. Freestone. Yes. 

Mr. Doyle. All right. Now do you know of any change in the 
party line followed by your union since it was expelled from the CIO ? 
Has it changed its line? 

Mr. Rabinowitz. Which ^ The union or the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Doyle. The union. Your union, madam. Do you know of 
any change in your union's line, so far as the Communist Party is 
concerned in the 7 years? 

(The witness confers with her counsel.) 

Mrs. Freestone. I don't understand the questions. 

Mr. Doyle. You don't. You have been in the union all these 7 
years. Let me see if this will help you. You were acquainted with 
your union policy 7 years ago ; were you not ? 

Mrs. Freestone. That is right. 

Mr. Doyle. Now do you know of any major change in your union 
policy since the union was expelled from the CIO ? 

(The witness confers with her counsel.) 

Mr. Doyle. Is tliat a hard question to answer? I think it is very 
simple. 

Mr. Scherer. I imagine, Mr. Doyle, there were some major changes. 

Mr. Rabinowitz. Of course, there were. 

Mr. Scherer. Because the Communist Party line changed. 

Mr. Doyle. Just a minute, Counsel. Let your wntness do the answer- 
ing; not you. She testified she was familiar with the policy of the 
union 7 years ago, and the CIO kicked it out because they claimed 
it was following the Communist Party line. I am asking this wit- 
ness, who has been in the union all these 7 years, and is still in it, 
whether or not her union has changed any major line or policy, 

(The witness confers with counsel.) 

Mrs. Freestone. Well, I know that the union's line has always been 
for better working conditions. 



1528 COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 

Mr. DoTLE. Yes; of course, that is tlie purpose of all patriotic 
American union ortjanizecl labor. I will stipulate to that. Work for 
better working conditions for all of their members and for the workers 
of America. 

Mrs. Freestoxe. And there hasn't been any change. 

]\Ir. Doyle. Thei-e hasn't been any change ? Were any of the present 
officers of the union members, or were they officers, 7 years ago when 
your union was kicked out of the CIO ? 

Mrs. Freestone. I think most of them were. 

Mr. Doyle. Yes. And who are the officers of that union now ? Your 
union. 

Mrs. Freestone. Jose])h Selly, Kehoe, Panza, Silberman, Sieben- 
berg, Domiiar, Weiners, Mollie Townsend. 1 think that is it. 

]Mr. Doyle. Are you aware of any move made by your union officers 
in the T 5^ears since the CIO kicked it out on the claim that it was 
following the Communist Party line, to investigate whether or not 
it was following the Communist Party line when it was kicked out 
of the CIO? 

]\Irs. Freestone. I don't know. 

Mr. Doyle. You don't know. You do not know of any, at any rate. 

]\Irs. Freestone. No. 

]\Ir. Doyle. Has that question ever come up in any union meeting 
when you were present? 

jNIrs. Freestone. I don't remember. 

Mr. Doyle. You do not remember ? 

Mrs. Freestone. I don't remember. 

Mr. Doyle. You would have remembered it, wouldn't you? 

Mrs. Freestone. I guess, but I don't remember it. 

Mr. Doyle. That is all. 

Mr. Scherer. Just one more question. 

How well did you know Josephine Timms? 

Mrs. Frp:estone. I wouldn't say too well. 

Mr. Scherer. You did know her? 

Mrs. Freestone. Well, not too w^ell. 

Mr. Scherer. Was she a member of the union ? 

Mrs. Freestone. Yes. 

Mr. Scherer. Did she work in the comnmnications field also? 

Mrs. Freestone. Yes. 

Mr. Scherer. What office did she hold in the union ? 

Mrs. Freestone. I don't remember. 

Mr. Scherer. Did you know her as a member of the Communist 
Party? 

Mrs. Freestone. I refuse to answer on the gTounds of the first and 
fifth amendments. 

Mr. Scherer. The fact is she was one of the leading Communists, 
both in the party and in the union, was she not? 

Mrs. Freestone. I refuse on the same grounds. 

Mr. Doyle. May I just ask one question there ? 

You knew her as a steward in your union, didn't you? You knew 
her as a steward of your union ? 

Mrs. Freestone. I don't remember. 

Mr. Scherer. Mrs. Greenberg testified that she was a steward of the 
union. 



COMMUNIST PENETRATION OF COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 1529 

Mr. Doyle. May I ask if you knew Mrs. Greenberg as a steward 
in your union? 

Mrs. Freestone. Yes. 

Mr. Doyle. And she was very active in the union, was she not ? 

Mrs. Freestone. Yes. 

Mr. Doyle. Now some of the union members had meetings, sort of 
caucuses, didn't they, outside of union meetings ? 

Mrs. Freestone. I don't know any. 

Mr. Doyle. You attended some meetings that were not union meet- 
ings with Mrs. Greenberg, did you not ? Do you remember that, that 
you sat in meetings concerning your union with Mrs. Greenberg that 
were not union meetings ? 

Mrs. Freestone. I refuse to answer on the grounds of the first and 
fifth amendments. 

Mr. Doyle. I haven't asked you anything about them being Com- 
munist meetings. 

Mrs. Freestone. I refuse to answer. 

Mr. Doyle. Yes, of course. In other words, you heard her testi- 
mony that you and she had been Communist Party cell mates in an 
effort to control the union. Didn't you hear her testify to that, madam ? 

Mrs. Freestone. I heard her. 

Mr. Doyle. Was that true or false ? 

Mrs. Freestone. I refuse to answer. 

Mr. Doyle. I want to renew my urge that you get out of the area 
from where you are not in a position to say to Congress, "No; I am 
not a Communist today." 

Why do you not put yourself in the position where you can say that 
honestly ? 

I have no further questions of this witness. 

Mr. SciiERER. I have no further questions. 

Mr. Doyle. The committee will stand in recess subject to the call 
of the chairman. 

(Whereupon, at 3 : 25 p. m., Friday, August 9, 1957, the subcom- 
mittee was recessed subject to the call of the Chair.) 

X 



INDEX 



Individuals 

Page 

Alberts, Edith 1513 

Beirue, Joseph A 1381, 1382 

Bender, William 1512 

Blatt, Ruth (See Bollinger, Ruth.) 

Bliss, Willard 1415 

Bollinger, Ruth (nee Blatt) 1510,1511 

Boothroyd 1419 

Boudin, Leonard B 1427 

Burke, William (Bill) 1416,1464 

Campbell, John 1514 

Chew, Willis Johnson 1419,1486-1496 (testimony) 

Cooke, Mary 1424 

Dall, Joe. (See Finsmith, Joseph.) 

Doumar, Alfred 1507, 1513, 1528 

Dowdey, Landon 1410 

Drieseu, Daniel 1418 

Edelstein (David N.) 1393 

Feller, Clair 1512 

Finsmith, Joseph (also known as Joe Dall) 1417, 

1423-1426 (testimony), 1478, 1485 

Fishgold, Betty 1515 

Freestone, Sarah Goldstein (Sally) 1509, 1510, 1512, 1520-1529 (testimony) 

Frunikin, Hyman 1419 

Goldstein, Michael 1512 

Greenberg, Concetta Padovani 1417, 

1505-1520 (testimony), 1521, 1523, 1529 

Greenberg, Harold 1514 

Grumman, Frank 1418, 

1427-1448 (testimony), 1463, 1471, 1489, 1490, 1493, 1498, 1512 

Halpern, Frances 1451, 1459 

Heller, Hy 1417 

Hobbs, Jewel 1419, 1424, 1452 

Hudson, Roy 1411, 1412 

lannucci, Antello Theodore 1417, 1448-1454 (testimony), 1478, 1486 

Jamason (Robert W.) 1488 

Jenkins, Louis 1424, 1452, 1459, 1469 

Jordan, Chester 1416 

Kaplan, Reuben 1452, 1459 

Kehoe, Joseph 1387, 1416, 1418, 1424, 1507, 1509-1511, 1528 

Kehoe, Lola (Mrs. Joseph Kehoe, nee Lagos) 1418, 1512 

Klein, Sol 1465 

Kotzun, Jeanette 1514 

Kyes, Roger M 1397 

Lagos, Frank 1417, 1512 

Lagos, Lillian (Mrs. Frank Lagos) 1424 

Lagos, Lola. (See Kehoe, Lola.) 
Leonard, Paul. (See Mignon, Michael.) 

Letts (F. Dickinson) 1397 

Margulis, Rose 1513 

McMakin, Wilson 1379, 1388 

Merlino, Charles 1514 



ii INDEX 

Page 

Mignon, Michael (also known as Paul Leonard) 1410-1422 (testimony), 

1425, 1423, 1432, 1436, 1440, 1445, 1451, 1478-1483, 1485, 1488, 

1489, 1491, 1492, 1525. 

Mulligan, Homer 1419 

Murray, Charles 1391 

Napoli, Tony 1515 

O'Keefe, Tommy 1515 

Ortner Rudy 1511 

Panza, Dominick 1387, 1513, 1528 

Parris, Harry 1417 

Pyle, Roy 1411, 1418 

Rabinowitz, Victor 1470, 1486, 1496, 1520 

Rathborne, Mervyn 1418, 1424, 1425 

Robitzer, Fred 1419 

Rosenberg, Ethel 1519 

Rosenberg, Julius 1519 

Rothbaum, Samuel 1461-1465 (testimony), 1513 

Salisbury, Oliver M 1418 

Selly, Joseph P 1387, 1416, 1418, 1424, 1507, 1510, 1411, 1528 

Shandros, Geraldine 1415, 1424, 1459 

Shapiro, Aaron 1511 

Shawn, Dave 1465 

Siebenberg, Louis 1387, 1418, 1425, 1507, 1513, 1528 

Silber, Bernard 1496-1503 (testimony) 

Silberman, Charles L 1387, 1417, 1424, 1513, 1528 

Solga, Mark Anthony 1455-1461 (testimony) 

Stalin, Joseph 1511 

Stallone, Louis J 1425, 1432, 1449, 1458, 1470-1486 (testimony) 

Stone, EUery W 1379-1400 (testimony), 1411, 1443 

Styles, Paul L 1391 

Taylor (H. C.) 1488 

Testa, Sam 1514 

Timms, Josephine 1416, 1425, 1514, 1528 

Townsend, Mollie 1416, 1463, 1507, 1513, 1528 

Trautman, Howard Vincent 1417, 1423, 1424, 1450, 1458, 1513 

Weiners, John 1507, 1528 

Wilcox, J. L 1400-1405 (testimony) 

Willis, Clarence Thomas 1405-1410 (testimony) 

Winocur, Jack 1514 

Winocur, Murray 1514 

Yewell, Helen 1517 

Loungdahl (Luther) 1422, 1435 

Organizations 

ACA. (See Communications Association, American.) 

ACA News 1417, 1513 

A. C. & R. (See American Cable & Radio Corp.) 

All America Cables & Radio, Inc 1379, 1384, 1388 

American Cable & Radio Corp. (A. C. & R.) 1379, 

1380, 1382, 1394, 1411, 1419, 1443 

American Radio and Telegraphers Association 1465, 1507 

CIO. (See Congress of Industrial Organizations.) 

Commercial Cable Co 1379, 1382, 1384, 1388 

Communications Association, American (ACA) 1381-1394, 

1398, 1402-1404, 1410, 1411, 1415, 1416, 1418, 1420, 1421, 1424, 
1425, 1431, 1442, 1443, 1450, 1451, 1459, 1460, 1463, 1477, 1482, 

1490, 1492, 1502, 1507, 1508, 1511, 1515, 1517, 1518, 1522, 1524, 
1525. 

Local 9 1418 

Local 10 1417, 1418, 1424, 1431, 14.32, 1451, 1463, 1477, 1484 

Local 40 1416, 1418, 1507, 1513 

Communications Workers of America (CWA) 1381, 

1382, 1384, 1392, 1394, 1397, 1410, 1419, 1479, 1480, 1492 



INDEX iii 

Page 
Communist Party, New York City : Cell within RCA Communications- 1423, 1449 
Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO)___ 13S3, 13S6, 1396, 1401, 1484-1486 

Executive board 1382 

CTU. (See Telegraphers' Union, Commercial.) 
CWA. {See Communications Workers of America.) 

French Cable Co 1382, 1885, 1388, 1401, 1477 

Globe Wireless, Ltd 1411, 1424 

International Telephone & Telegraph Co 1452 

Mackav Radio & Telegraph Co 1379, 1380, 1382, 1384, 1417, 1419, 1452, 1514 

Postal Telegraph Co 1416, 1417, 1425, 1461 

Press Wireless 1417 

Radio Corporation of America (RCA) 1382, 1385, 1401, 

1403, 1451, 1452, 1459, 1473, 1474, 1483, 1489, 1490, 1495, 1512-1514 
RCA. {See Radio Corporation of America.) 

RCA Communications Inc 1382, 1385, 1417-1419, 1423-1425, 

1430, 1431, 1444, 1449, 1450, 1452, 1455-1459, 1474, 1477, 1487, 1488 

Telegraphers' Union, Commercial (CTU) 1381, 1384, 1392, 1397, 1403, 1411 

Telegraphists Association, American Radio ^ 1401, 1410, 1411, 1415, 1416, 1418 

Teleregister 1401 

Ten Days That Shook the World (moving picture) 1516 

United States Government : 

Civil Defense Administration 1461, 1464 

Department of Defense 1397 

Department of Justice, Criminal Division 1391 

Department of State 1406, 1408, 1447, 1464 

Department of the Army 1406, 1408, 1447, 1456, 1464 

Department of the Air Force 1406, 1408, 1447, 1462, 1464, 1473 

Department of the Navy 1406, 1408, 1447, 1464 

National Labor Relations Board 1383-1385, 

1391-1393, 1397, 1398, 1403, 1524 

National Security Agency ' 1406, 1408, 1447 

Subversive Activities Control Board 1525 

United States Senate : 

Subcommittee To Investigate the Administration of the Internal 
Security Act and Other Internal Security Laws of the Commit- 
tee on the Judiciary 1382, 1386, 1388, 1391, 1393 

Western Union Telegraph Co 1382, 

1385, 1400-1405, 1408, 1409, 1418, 1419, 1423, 1424, 1461, 1462, 1496, 
1497, 1505, 1508, 1509, 1512, 1514, 1515, 1519-1522, 1524, 1525. 

Domestic Land Lines, Metropolitan Division 1382, 1385, 1401, 1417 

International division 1406 

Western Union cables 1385 



1 Sometimes referred to as the American Radio Telegraphers Association. 



BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY 



3 9999 05706 3172 



t^ 



I,. 



d 

c 

^^ 

tl 

I 









jm in