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

Full text of "Investigation of Communist infiltration of Government. Hearing"

HARVARD COLLEGE 
LIBRARY 




GIFT OF THE 

GOVERNMENT 
OF THE UNITED STATES 



INVESTIGATION OF COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF 
GOVERNMENT— PART 1 



Since these hearings are consecutively paged 
they are arranged by page number instead of 
alphabetically by title. 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES 
HOUSE OF EEPEESENTATIVES 

EIGHTY-FOURTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 



DECEMBER 13, 1955 



Printed for the use of the Committee on Un-American Activities 
(Index in Part 2 of this Series) 



HARVARD COLLEGE LIBRARY 

DEPOSITED BY THE 
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENF 



FEB 23 1956 




UNITED STATES 
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
70811 WASHINGTON : 1956 



INVESTIGATION OF COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF 
GOVERNMENT— PART 1 



HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES 
HOUSE OF REPEESENTATIVES 

EIGHTY-FOUKTH CONGKESS 

FIRST SESSION 



DECEMBER 13, 1955 



Printed for the use of the Committee on Un-American Activities 
(Index in Part 2 of this Series) 



HARVARD COLLEGE LIBRARY 

DEPOSITED BY THE 
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENF 



FEB231956 




UNITED STATES 
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
70811 WASHINGTON : 1956 



Public Law 601, 79th Congress 

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

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

PART 2— RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

Rule X 

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

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

Rule XI 

POWERS AND DUTIES OF COMMITTEES 

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

(A) Un-American Activities. 

(2) The Committee on Un-American Activities, as a whole or by subcommit- 
tee, is authorized to make from time to time investigations of (i) the extent, 
character, and objects of un-American propaganda activities in the United States, 
(ii) the diffusion within the United States of subversive and un-American propa- 
ganda that is instigated from foreign countries or of a domestic origin and attacks 
the principle of the form of government as guaranteed by our 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. 



RULES ADOPTED BY THE 84TH CONGRESS 
House Resolution 5, January 5, 1955 

Rule X 

STANDING COMMITTEES 

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

^ it Hi * * * * 

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

Rule XI 

POWERS AND DUTIES OF COMMITTEES 

17. Committee on Un-American Activities. 

(a) Un-American Activities. 

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

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

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

VI 



n A^. 



INVESTIGATION OF COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF 
GOVERNMENT— PART 1 



tuesday, december 13, 1955 

United States House of Representatives, 

Subcommittee of the 
Committee on Un-American Activities, 

Chicago, III. 
PUBLIC hearing 

A subcommittee of the Committee on Un-American Activities met at 
10 a. m., pursuant to notice, in the Federal courthouse, Chicago, 
111., Hon. Francis E. Walter (chairman) presiding. 

Committee members present: Representatives Francis E. Walter 
(chairman), Morgan M. Moulder, Edwui E. Willis, and Gordon H; 
Scherer. 

Staff members present: Frank S. Tavenner, Jr., counsel; and 
Thomas W. Beale, Sr., chief clerk. 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order. 

Let the record show that I, Francis E. Walter, of Pennsylvania, 
chairman of the Committee on Un-American Activities of the House 
of Representatives, Washington, D. C, pursuant to the provisions of 
law, have duly appointed a subcommittee for the purpose of conduct- 
ing this hearing, composed of Representatives Morgan M. Moulder of 
Missouri; Edwin E. Willis of Louisiana; Harold H. Velde of Illinois; 
Gordon H. Scherer of Ohio; and myself, as subcommittee chairman. 
The full membership of the subcommittee is present with the excep- 
tion of Representative Harold H. Velde, who has been unavoidably 
detained, but he assiu-ed me yesterday that he would be present dur- 
ing the course of these hearings. 

The Congress of the United States has imposed upon this committee 
the duty of investigating the extent, character, and objects of un- 
American propaganda activities in the United States, tlie diffusion 
within the United States of subversive and im-American propaganda, 
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 would 
aid Congress in the performance of its responsibility. 

In 1948, the Committee on Un-American Activities of the House of 
Representatives heard, for the first time, testimony of Communist 
cells within the Government. 

Whittaker Chambers, a contact for Soviet espionage agents as 
early as 1933, told of his liaison with the Hungarian born Communist, 
Alexander Goldberger, alias J. Peters, alias Alexander Stevens, a 
notorious Soviet espionage agent operating secretly out of New York 
City. Chambers identified a number of Government employees 

2955 



2956 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 

being used by the Soviet Union as contacts who furnished the Com- 
munist conspiracy with information regarding the operations of our 
Government. As a result of Chambers' testimony, Alger Hiss was 
convicted and sentenced to prison. 

Subsequently, Elizabeth Bentley testified that she had served as 
the liaison between certain Government employees and Jacob N. 
Golos, another Soviet espionage agent in New York City. The 
testimony of Miss Bentley revealed a second Soviet apparatus within 
the Government agencies, and as a result of her testimony, William 
Remington was convicted and sent to prison. 

From the testimony of these two former contacts for the Soviet 
espionage network in the United States, it was quite apparent that 
other organized cells of Communists within the Government agencies 
existed. This opinion was confirmed by the testimony of Mary 
Stalcup Markward who, at the request of the FBI, served as an 
undercover agent in the city of Washington for a period of 7 years, 
and eventually became the treasurer of the Communist Party for 
District No. 4, comprising the State of Maryland and the District of 
Columbia. Mrs. Markward testified before this committee that she 
was aware of the existence of a number of organized groups of the 
Communist Party within various agencies of the United States 
Government because of the payment of Communist Party dues from 
these groups to her. However, the identity of the individuals and of 
the gi-oups themselves were unknown to her because of the highly 
secret methods which the Communist Party used in protecting these 
groups. 

This committee has never relaxed for one moment in its efforts to 
determine if such cells did exist, who were the leaders, what were 
their objectives, and whether they are still operating. Our efforts 
have been rewarded, at least partially. The present investigation, 
resulting in this hearing in Chicago, and other hearings to be held 
throughout the United States, is expected to reveal the former ex- 
istence of at least 10 cells of organized, disciplined Communists, 
within several Government agencies and comprised wholly of Govern- 
ment employees. 

The Congress and the agencies involved must be made aware of 
the character, extent, and objects of Communist propaganda activ- 
ities when such activities are carried on by Government employees 
who are subject to the directives and discipline of the Communist 
Party, and that is the purpose of this hearing. 

The committee does not expect every witness who has been sub- 
penaed to appear to testify fully as to his participation in the attempt 
to undermine his Government. It is to be expected that the com- 
mittee will be told anew about the Constitution of the United States 
and particularly how the fifth amendment applies to them. 

But to the witness who has once been a part of that alien con- 
spiracy and who has seen the error of his ways and broken with the 
Communist Party, and is possessed of the fortitude to take the stand 
and relate his experiences and give the committee the benefit of his 
knowledge, the committee and the country owe a debt of gratitude. 
It is not an easy task to appear before a congressional committee 
and lay bare all of your shortcomings of years gone by. Such persons 
will be subjected to all the vituperations that can be heaped upon 
them by the well-organized smear bund of the Communist Party and 



COMMXJNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 2957 

its henchmen. To those witnesses who decide they will give us the 
benefit of their knowledge, I have this to say — you will have the heart- 
felt thanks of your fellow Americans and you will have made a worthy 
contribution to the cause of a free world. 

It is the standing rule of this committee that any person named in the 
course of a committee hearing as a member of the Communist Party, 
shall be given an early opportunity to appear before this comrnittee, 
if he so desires, for the purpose of denying or explaining any testimony 
adversely affecting him. Should such an occasion arise, the individual 
concerned should communicate with a member of the staff or with me. 

Those present in this hearing room are reminded that you are the 
guests of the committee. Disturbances of any kind or audible com- 
ment during the course of testimony, whether favorable or unfavor- 
able to any witness or the committee, will not be tolerated. For 
infractions of this rule, the offender immediately will be asked to 
leave the room. 

Call your first witness, Mr. Tavenner, 

Mr. Tavenner. Professor Fuchs. 

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

Mr. Fuchs. I do. 

The Chairman. Be seated, please. 

TESTIMONY OF HERBERT FUCHS 

Mr. Tavenner. Wliat is your name, please, sir? 

Mr. Fuchs. Herbert Fuchs. 

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

Mr. Fuchs. I was born on September 20, 1905, in the city of New 
York. 

Mr. Tavenner. Wliere do you now reside? 

Mr. Fuchs. In Washington, District of Coliunbia. 

Mr. Tavenner. What is your occupation or profession? 

Mr. Fuchs. I am a professor of law on terminal leave from the 
American University Law School. 

Mr. Tavenner. Have you engaged in the practice of law? 

Mr. Fuchs. I am an attorney. 

Mr. Tavenner. I believe the field in which you teach is that of the 
law? 

Mr. Fuchs. That is right, sir. 

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

Mr. Fuchs. I was graduated from the College of the City of New 
York, in 1924, with a degree of bachelor of science in social sciences, 
and from the New York University Law School in 1928 with the 
degree of doctor juris. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you outline to the committee, your employ- 
ment with the United States Government, beginnmg with your 
first position and the dates thereof. 

Mr. Fuchs. I entered Government employment in July of 1936, 
taking a position with, the so-called Wheeler committee, a subcom- 
mittee of the United States Senate Committee on Interstate and 
Foreign Commerce. 

70811 — 56— pt. 1 — —2 



2958 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 

Mr. Tavenxer. Was that subcommittee known as the Subcom- 
mittee to Investigate Railroads, Holding Companies, and Related 
Matters? 

Mr. FucHs. That is correct, sir. I transferred from the Wheeler 
committee in October of 1937 to the National Labor Relations Board. 
I was employed by that board as an attorney from October of 1937 
until sometime in the latter half of 1942, when I transferred to the 
Board of Economic Warfare, where I served very briefly as an eco- 
nomic analyst, transferring before the end of that year to employment 
with the National War Labor Board in. Washington, D. C. 

Mr. Tavenner. Can you give us the approximate date when you 
transferred to the National War Labor Board? 

Mr. FucHs. I believe I started workmg there around Thanksgiving 
Day of 1942. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long did you serve in Washington as an 
employee of that Board? 

The Chairman. I will have to remmd you of the rule about taking 
pictures during the course of hearings. 

Mr. FucHS. I believe it was January 26, 1943, that I transferred to 
the Denver Regional Office of the National War Labor Board. There 
I remained until December of 1945. At the turn of the year, the first 
working day of January 1946, I returned to the National Labor 
Relations Board in Washington and I continued there until October 
31, 1948, when I left Government employment. 

Mr. Tavenner. What was your employment upon completion of 
your Goverrment work? Were you employed in some capacity by an 
organization interested in lobbying against the Taft-Hartley Act? 

Mr. FucHS. I worked briefi}^ for the Public Affairs Institute, 
which was a research organization, and for 1 month for the United 
States Senate Committee on Education and Labor. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was that work done in preparation of a report 
that committee was interested in filing? 

Mr. FucHS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. How have j^ou been employed since that time? 

Mr. FucHS. I entered employment as a teacher on a part-time 
basis, and became a full-time teacher in 1950, and that brings it 
up to date. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you a member of the Communist Part}^ at 
the time you were first employed by the United States Government 
with the so-called Wheeler committee? 

Mr. FucHS. Yes, sir, I was. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will j^ou tell the committee where and under 
what circumstances 3'ou became a member of the Communist Party? 

Mr. FucHS. I became a member of the Communist Party to the 
best of my recollection in about November of 1934, in New York City. 

Mr. Tavenner. How were you employed at that time? 

Mr. FucHS. I was engaged in the practice of law with my father in 
Manhattan; I think that is the answer. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you proceed to tell the committee the cir- 
cumstances under which vou became a member of the Communist 
Party? 

Mr. FucHs. There was a very good friend of mine who interested 
me in some of the Marxist ideas, and ultimately persuaded me that if 
I was serious about my liberal proclivities, and if I wanted to actually 



COAOrUNIST ESTFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 2959 

effectuate them, the thing to do was to join the Communist Party, 
which was serious about bringing about the desired ends. Generally 
speaking, these ends were social reform, opposition to fascism, fighting 
against unemployment and bigotry, supporting the rights of labor 
and minorities. It was that kind of thing. 

Mr. ScHERER. Did your friend tell you these were the objectives 
at the time he enlisted you into membership? 

Mr. FucHS. He not only told me, sir, I believed it, and I guess he 
wasn't the only one who was saying it. These were the stated 
objectives; yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you later learn that that individual was a 
member of the Communist Party group to which you were assigned? 

Mr. FucHS. He was a member, and he in fact recruited me to 
membership in the party. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did that group of the Communist Party have a 
name, or a designation? 

Mr. FucHs. I am not sure it had a name. It was, however, a 
Communist Party group consisting of taxicab drivers working in a 
union of taxicab drivers. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you at that time practicing as an attorney? 

Mr. FucHS. That is right. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were there any other members of the legal pro- 
fession in that group? 

Mr. FucHS. There were not. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you assigned to that group because of the 
friendship of the person who recruited you? 

Mr. FucHS. Actually that was the reason for my assignment. It 
was my choice. I had a great deal of lilving and respect for this man 
and I wanted to join the Coromunist Party and I wanted to work 
where he was working. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was he the leader of this group? 

Mr. FucHS. I think not. He was a taxi driver. I don't think he 
was a leader. 

Mr. Tavenner. When you became a member, did you sign a card? 

Mr. FucHS. I believe so. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you use your own name? 

Mr. FucHS. No, I did not, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Wliat name did you use? 

Mr. FucHS. I used my own first name, and my mother's maiden 
name, "Hacker." 

Mr. Tavenner. That meant your Communist Party name was 
what? 

Mr. FucHS. Herbert Hacker. 

Mr. Tavenner. Why did you use this pseudonym? 

Mr. FucHs. Essentially for the purpose of protecting my anonym- 
ity. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did the other members of this group also use 
fictitious names? 

Mr. FucHs. I think the answer to that is that some did, and others 
did not. It was pretty much a matter of individual preference. 

Mr. ScHERER. Were the more prominent members the ones who 
used fictitious names? Is that about right? 

Mr. FucHS. That is right, Mr. Scherer, with respect to function- 
aries. They did, but in the ordinary group the practice varied, and 
I don't think it was uniform. 



2960 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 

Mr. ScHERER. Later in your experience in the Communist Party, 
did you find that the more prominent members in the community 
and in the professions were the ones who attempted to conceal their 
identity by the use of fictitious names? 

Mr. FucHs. No, sir. The greater part of my Communist Party 
membership was spent in Government employment, and there we 
concealed our party membership, bat we did not use fictitious names. 

Mr. ScHERER. Did you use another method to conceal your mem- 
bership rather than the use of fictitious names? 

Mr. FucHS. That is correct. 

Mr. ScHERER. Are you going to develop that later on, Mr. Taven- 
ner? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes, sir. 

How long were you a member of this taxicab group of the Com- 
munist Party? 

Mr. FucHS. I think about a year. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you then assigned to another group? 

Mr. FucHS. That is right. 

Mr. Tavenner. What was the type of the group to which you 
were then assigned? 

Mr. FucHS. That was a group that was concentrating on develop- 
ing Communists in industrial plants. The object was to attempt to 
recruit Communist Party members from among the workers of that 
plant. 

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

Mr. FucHs. It was the Consolidated Edison powerplant on East 
14th Street, I think. 

Mr. Tavenner. How many members of your group were employed 
at that plant? 

Mr. FucHS. One. 

Mr. Tavenner. What was his name? 

Mr. FucHS. James Stasinos. 

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

Mr. FucHs. S-t-a-s-i-n-o-s. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was he also the head of yoiu- group? 

Mr. FucHS. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. What you actually had was a Communist Party 
cell composed of one employee of this plant. Was the purpose and 
object of that cell to recruit members into the Communist Party from 
that plant? 

Mr, FucHs. That is correct. 

Mr. Tavanner. What was the purpose in having this group within 
that particular union of employees in that particular plant? What 
did the Communist Party hope ultimately to succeed in doing by 
organizing within that plant? 

Mr. FucHS. Well, I don't know. The line generally was the 
organization of the unorganized, and the line generally was that 
Communists took the line in organizing the unorganized. I would 
not like to make a retrospective appraisal of what the ultimate 
purposes were. At that time our pm-pose was simply to get a union 
started, and to get some more Communists in there to help start the 
union. 

Mr. Tavenner. How many persons were members of that group? 

Mr. FucHs. I don't rightly recall. I think there were about half a 
dozen. 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 2961 

Mr, Tavenner. Can you give us the names of other members of 
this group besides the leader? 

Mr. FucHS. No, sir; I cannot. I don't remember them. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you become acquainted at that time with a 
person by the name of Leah Robison? 

Mr. FucHS. Yes; I did. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was she affiliated with that group? 

Mr. FucHs. She was, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. How was she employed? 

Mr. FucHS. I am not sure she was employed; I do not recall. 

Mr. Tavenner. I may want to ask you an additional question 
relating to her later in your testimony. 

It is not my purpose, and I have no intention of asking you about 
members of your immediate famUy, and by that I do not mean to 
leave an mference that there was any situation that would require me 
to do it. I am not interested in asking you about any member of 
your immediate family. 

How long did you maintain yom* membership in the Communist 
Party in the city of New York? 

Mr. FucHS. Until I secured Government employment, which was 
in July of 1936. The total period therefore would be less than 2 years. 

Air. Tavenner. Did that Government employment take you to the 
city of Washington? 

Air. FucHs. That is right. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you aided in any way in obtaining that 
Government position, with the so-called Wheeler committee by any 
member of the Communist Party? 

Mr. FucHs. No, sir; that is not to my knowledge. I certainly 
couldn't say so. 

Air. Tavenner. What type of position did you have with that 
Senate subcommittee? 

Air. FucHs. I think its title was "Attorney," and it was of course a 
part of the investigating staff. 

Air. Tavenner. At the time you went to Washington, were you a 
member of the Communist Party in New York? 

Air. FucHs. Yes, sir. 

Air. Tavenner. Did you consult any functionary of the Communist 
Party regarding your new assignment prior to leaving for Washington? 

Air. FucHs. I reported to the head of the New York section of the 
Communist Party, that I had obtained a job in Washington, and I was 
going to be working for the Government and I would be leaving New 
York. He said to me, "in that case you must turn in your membership 
card to me." And I did that. 

Mr. Tavenner. Who was that organizer? 

Air. FucHS. My difhculty with that question is that there were two 
successive organizers of that particular section, and I don't remember 
which one of the two it was, but I shall name them both. There was 
Sam Brown, and there was Martin Chancey, and I think Air. Chancey 
succeeded Air. Brown in that post, and my chronology is just off there, 
and I don't know which one of the two it was. 

Air. Tavenner. When you arrived in Washington and took up your 
assignment on the Wheeler committee, were you reintegi-ated into the 
Communist Party? 

Mr. FucHS. Yes, sir. 



2962 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 

Mr. Tavenner. Who was the person who reintegrated you into 
the Communist Part7? 

Mr. FucHS. Arthur Stein. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you later learn whether or not he was a 
functionary in the Communist Party in the city of Washington? 

Mr. FucHS. He was the leader of a group. 

Mr. Tavenner. Where was Arthur Stein employed at that time? 

Mr. FucHS. At the Works Progress Administration. 

Mr, Tavenner. Do you know anything about the successive 
Government employment of Arthur Stein? 

Mr. FucHs. No; I don't remember. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know whether he was one of the founders 
of the United Federal Workers of America? 

Mr. FucHs. Yes, sir. I know that he was influentially active in 
that. 

Mr. Tavenner. During that period of time was he a member of 
the Communist Party? 

Mr. FucHs. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. At the time that you were reintegrated into the 
Communist Party in Washington, D. C., was there an organized group 
or cell of the Communist Party within the employees of the Wheeler 
committee? 

Mr. FucHS. I believe there was none until we formed one. 

Mr. Tavenner. When Arthur Stein reintegrated you into the 
Communist Party, what assignment did he give you? In other words, 
what did he tell you? 

Mr. FucHs. He told me that I and another employee of the Wheeler 
committee could be a group, or should get together and be a group. 
We did, and we also subsequently admitted two other persons to 
that group. 

Mr. Moulder. What were the functions of the so-called Wheeler 
committee? 

Mr. Tavenner. The Wheeler committee, as the witness testified, 
was a subcommittee of the committee of the whole. 

This subcommittee was the Subcommittee To Investigate Rail- 
roads, Holding Companies, and Related Matters, of the Senate Com- 
mittee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. 

You stated Arthur Stein at that time was an employee in WPA. 
Did you later learn that there was an organized group of the Com- 
munist Party within WPA at that time? 

Mr. FucHs. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Instead of Arthur Stein bringing you in as a part 
of his own group, did he suggest to you the formation of a cell of the 
Communist Party among the employees of the Wheeler committee? 

Mr. FucHs. That is right. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did he tell you why the Communist Party wanted 
that cell formed among the employees of that subcommittee? 

Mr. FucHs. I don't recall that he told me anything of that sort. 
I do recall that it seemed to have been the policy of the party to have 
groups limited to fellow employees as much as possible, and I believe 
that that was the reason. 

Mr. Tavenner. You stated you were directed to work with another 
person employed by that subcommittee, to form this group or cell. 
Who was that other person? 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 2963 

Mr. FucHs. James Gorham. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you spell that last name please? 

Mr. FucHS. Gorham, G-o-r-h-a-m. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Chairman, I thinlv out of fairness to James 
Gorham, that I should say that he has been interviewed by members 
of the staff, and has admitted his former Communist Party member- 
ship and has given a full and complete statement to the committee of 
his activities and his knowledge of Communist Party activities. He 
will in due time be called as a witness. 

You have said that after you and Gorham got together, you brought 
other persons into this group. Who were they? 

Mr. FucHS. Samuel Koenigsberg, and Ellis Olim. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was Koenigsberg also employed by the Wheeler 
committee? 

Mr. FucHS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. What was the nature of his employment? 

Mr. FucHs. He was an attorney. 

Mr. Tavenner. What was the nature of Mr. Gorham's employ- 
ment? 

Mr. FucHS. I think Mr. Gorham was an economist. 

Mr. Tavenner. In a general way, what were your duties and those 
of Mr. Koenigsberg as attorneys on this staff? What type of work 
were you doing? 

Mr. FucHS. I hardly remember, sir. I know that generally we 
analyzed Interstate Commerce Commission data involved in various 
railroad reorganizational activities. I remember on one occasion I 
went along with another attorney on a field trip to Pittsburgh to 
copy some data, and there was general investigational work, and I 
don't think that there was a very substantial difference in duties be- 
tween those who were on the staff as attorneys, and those who were on 
the staff as economists or investigators. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you spell the name Koenigsberg? 

Mr. FucHS. K-o- e-n-i-g-s-b-e-r-g. 

Mr. Tavenner. You named an additional person who became a 
member of this group. What was his name? 

Mr. FucHs. Ellis Olim, 0-1-i-m. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was Mr. Olim employed by the same Senate sub- 
committee? 

Mr. FucHS. No, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. How was he employed? 

Mr. FucHS. I believe he was employed by the Interstate Commerce 
Commission, and it so happens that the Senate committee staff was 
housed in the Interstate Commerce Commission Building. I suppose 
the reason Mr. Olim joined us was that his place of work was adja- 
cent to ours. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was he still a member of that group when you 
left it? 

Mr. FucHS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was Margaret Bennett Porter an employee of the 
committee at that time? 

Mr. FucHS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was she a member of your group of the Comrnunist 
Party while you were in the employment of the Senate subcommittee? 

Mr. FucHS. She was not in the group with us. 



2964 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you learn to know her as a member of the 
Communist Party? 

Mr. FucHS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was that in connection with other activities of 
yours somewhat later? 

Mr. FucHS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you have any knowledge whether she became 
a member of the Communist Party while employed by the Wheeler 
committee after you had left that committee? 

Mr. FucHS. I don't. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was she the wife of John W. Porter? 

Mr. FucHS. She became his wife. 

Mr. Tavenner. At the time that you were directed to form 
this cell of the Communist Party or during the time that the work 
of that cell was going on, did you discuss the work of the cell with 
any other functionary of the Communist Party, that is, any person 
other than Arthur Stein? 

Mr. FucHS. I don't recall that I did. We ourselves discussed the 
work to some extent, having difficulty finding any significant work to 
do, but I don't recall discussing the work with any functionary. 

Mr. Tavenner. Who was responsible for the guidance of the work 
of that cell from a higher level? 

Mr. FucHS. I don't know, it received no guidance. 

Mr. Tavenner. I understand then that your contact man was 
Ai-thur Stein? 

Mr. FucHS. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. For what purpose did you contact him? 

Mr. FucHS. The functions of any group would include the payment 
of dues and to some extent I suppose, to receive literature and one 
would contact a number of the unit heads of which Mr. Stein was one, 
and I became one for general purposes of organization. Actually, 
it was felt that one of the principal objectives of our group would be 
to do union work, but there wasn't any union among the employees 
of the Wheeler committee and as near as I know it didn't actually get 
underway, by the time I left that job. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you meet regularly dm-ing the period of time 
that you were active in the group? 

Mr. FucHS. Kather irregularly. 

Mr. Tavenner. How frequently did you meet? 

Mr. FucHS. It is very hard for me to recall. I know the objec- 
tive, or the ideal objective that I had in my head about meetings dated 
back to the New York period and it was that a weekly meeting was a 
good idea. I don't think that we achieved even fortnightly meetings, 
and I just don't remember. 

Mr. Tavenner. During those meetings, did you carry out the 
usual procedure to which you were accustomed in New York, with 
regard to the dispersmg of Communist Party literature? 

Mr. FucHS. I am not sure at what point in my Washington experi- 
ence Communist Party literature became unavailable, because it was 
either too difficult to purchase, or too risky to receive, so I don't 
know whether we did that throughout that time or not. Certainly 
we would have tried to. And we would pay dues, and we would 
discuss problems. 

Mr. Tavenner. What were the dues? 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 2965 

Mr. FucHS. I really can't tell you, sir. I can tell you of my own 
experience as a dues payer, but I can't tell you what the dues were 
at any particular scale. Here, too, I tend to think back to New York, 
and the dues were to be scaled to one's earnings and in Washington 
we paid higher dues than I had paid in New^ York. At some time, 
the dues I paid were as high as $30 a month, but it was sporadic, and 
it wasn't regular, and it wasn't consistent. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were your dues that high while you were em- 
ployed by that Senate subcommittee? 

Mr. FucHs. I don't think so. 

Mr. Moulder. You said that your objective with the subcom- 
mittee was in connection with union work. Just what union vvork was 
performed? What was the nature of the union activities? 

Mr. FucHS. In that period, Mr. Moulder, as I recall, in Washington, 
liberals as w^ell as people further to the left were attempting to de- 
velop a union of Government employees. There were existing unions 
but the more progressive or leftwdng people thought that they were 
not sufficiently militant and aggressive. 

Mr. Moulder. That is, the Communist Party did not think that 
they were? 

Mr. FucHs. The Commimist Part}^ did not think that they were, 
and I suspect that there were people who were not Communists who 
didn't think that they were. In any event, there was a movement, 
which I can't place in time, but it was around 1937, under w^hich a 
number of lodges of the American Federation of Government Em- 
ployees split off from that organization to the left and there was a 
great deal of union activity reminiscent of places other than the 
Government, that is to say milling about. 

Mr. Moulder. That is what I am asking, what union activities 
were actually practiced? Were you familiar with any other recognized 
union organization, or was it just the Communist group which they 
themselves referred to as union activities? 

Mr. FucHS. I wish that I w^ere better versed in the history of that 
movement. I am not really very well versed in it. I myself didn't 
get to be a member of the union. I am sorry not to be responsive, 
but I am not really able to describe this. But there was a movement. 

]VIr. Moulder. Then the primary objective was to organize a Com- 
munist cell group and not an organized union group in the Wheeler 
committee, and in other Government agencies? 

Mr. FucHS. But the ostensible objective was to organize the Gov- 
ernment employees into unions. 

Mr. Moulder. Now that is where I get the w^rong impression. I 
received the impression that inasmuch as there were no union activi- 
ties, legitimate affiliation with a union organization, that the objective 
really was to organize Communist Party cells. 

Mr. FucHS. Well, I am just afraid that I am not qualified to general- 
ize that, because I am sure that some had that purpose, and some 
others had the other purpose. 

Mr. Tavenner. I understood you to say a few minutes ago that 
you as the leader of this cell organized within the Wlieeler comLiittee 
attended meetings with Arthur Stein and leaders of other groups. 
Is that what 3^ou said? 

Mr. FucHS. That is correct. 

70811— 56— pt. 1 3 



2966 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 

Mr. Tavenner. What was the reason for having meetings of that 
description wliich you attended as a representative of your group? 

Mr. FucHS. This group of unit heads woukl act as a kind of pohcy 
or steering committee. I think that is a sufficient answer. That was 
its function. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were those meetings made up of representatives 
from other groups or cells of the Communist Party? 

Mr. FucHS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. In general, where were those? Were the repre- 
sentatives of those cells in every instance representatives of cells 
organized within the Government? 

Mr. FucHS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. In other words, this was a special group within 
Government, of which you are speaking? 

Mr. FucHS. That is right. 

Mr. Tavenner. Over how long a period of time did you attend 
such meetings? 

Mr. FucHS. I think that my attendance at that type of meeting was 
limited to the period of my employment with the Wheeler committee, 
and that it stopped when I transferred to the National Labor Relations 
Board. 

Mr. Tavenner. That was from July of 1936 to October of 1937? 

Mr. FucHS. Within that period. 

Mr. Tavenner. How many persons would normally attend those 
meetings? 

Mr. FucHS. About eight I should say. 

Mr. Tavenner. Would it be correct to refer to those meetings as 
section meetings of the Communist Party, within Government? 

Mr. FucHS. Yes, sir; I think so. 

Mr. Tavenner. Who was the section leader or organizer of the 
Communist Party who had control of these groups to which you 
referred? 

Mr. FucHS. I think of three people who successively held that 
position. I don't know whether they all held it mthin my term, or 
whether some of this is hearsay. There was Eleanor Nelson, and there 
was Henry Rhine, and there was Arthur Stein, the person I mentioned. 
I can't arrange those in proper chronological order. 

Mr. ScHERER. Eleanor Nelson — was that the name you gave us 
first? 

Mr. FucHS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ScHERER. In what agency was she employed? 

Mr. FucHS. She was employed in the Labor Department, and I 
think subsequently elsewhere in the Government. 

Mr. ScHERER. In what capacity in the Labor Department? 

Mr. FucHS. I don't know. 

Mr. ScHERER. Then the second one was who? 

Mr. FucHS. Henry Rhine. 

Mr. ScHERER. Where was he employed? 

Mr. FucHS. I just don't remember. 

Mr. ScHERER. Was he a Government employee? 

Mr. FucHS. Yes, at least part of the time he was. 

Mr. ScHERER. Where is Henry Rhine now? 

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

Mr. ScHERER. Do you know where Eleanor Nelson is? 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 2967 

Mr. FucHS. I understand she is dead, sir. 

Mr. ScHERER. What was your last contact with Rhine? 

Mr. FucHS. I don't beheve I have seen him at all in the past 14 
years. I don't think that I have seen him since I went to Denver 
in 1943. 

Mr. ScHERER. You haven't heard of him? 

Mr. FucHS. No. 

Mr. ScHERER. The third man was Stein. What was Stein's first 
name? 

Mr. FucHS. Arthur. 

Mr. ScHERER. Was he an employee of the Government at that time? 

Mr. FucHs. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ScHERER. In what department? 

Mr. FucHS. WPA. 

Mr. ScHERER. Do you know where Stein is today? 

Mr. FucHS. No; I don't know where he is today. 

Mr. ScHERER. What was your last contact with Stein? 

Mr. FucHS. I have seen him as recently as 1948. 

Mr. ScHERER. Wliere was he employed at that time? Was he still 
in Government? 

Mr. FucHS. No; I don't think so. I think that he was working for 
the union. 

Mr. ScHERER. What union was that? 

Mr. FucHS. Perhaps Mr. Tavenner will help me with its name. 
At some time it had the name United Federal W^orkers of America, 
but the name has changed so often I couldn't be accurate. 

Mr. Tavenner. I think that was correct. 

Mr. Scherer. Is that correct, that wStein was one of the organizers 
of the United Federal Workers of America? 

Mr. FucHS. That is right. 

Mr. Scherer. What office did Eleanor Nelson hold with that union? 

Mr. FucHS. I know she held a significant office, and I don't re- 
member what it was. 

Mr. Scherer. It may have been secretary and treasurer. Would 
that information be correct? 

Air. FucHS. Yes, sir; that sounds right. 

The Chairman. Proceed, Mr. Tavenner. 

Mr. Tavenner. That would indicate then that Eleanor Nelson 
represented a Communist Party cell organized within the Labor 
Department? 

Mr. Fuchs. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. And Stein represented a Communist Party cell 
within the WPA? 

Mr. Fuchs. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know whether Rhine was employed by the 
National Recovery Administration at that time? 

Mr. Fuchs. I really don't know. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you give us the names of other persons who 
attended those section meetings of the Communist Party? 

Mr. Fuchs. Yes, sir. There was Philip Reno. 

Mr. Tavenner, Let me stop there a moment. You saw a great 
deal of Mr. Philip Reno at a later period, didn't you? 

Mr. Fuchs. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. I will not go into that now. But at this particular 
time, how was he employed in Washington? 



2968 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 

Mr. FucHS. I think he worked for the Social Security Board. 

Mr. Tavenner. Would this indicate that there was a cell organized 
within the Social Security Board at the time that these section meet- 
ings were being held? 

Mr. FucHS. It would. 

Mr. ScHERER. May I ask a question? You mentioned the name 
of Philip Reno. Is that a different Reno from the one whose testi- 
mony we heard in executive session in connection with the (John A.) 
Hutchison case? 

Mr. FucHS. Yes; there is no relationship whatsoever. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know of any other Government positions 
he held in Washington? 

Mr. FucHS. No; I do not. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was he later employed by the National War 
Labor Board in Denver? 

Mr. FucHS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know whether he had other Government 
emplo3^ment in Denver prior to his employment by the National War 
Labor Board in that city? 

Mr. FucHS. I don't know. 

Mr. Tavenner. Can you recall any others? 

Mr. FucHS. Yes, sir. Sidney Katz and Julia Katz. 

Mr. Tavenner. K-a-t-z, is that the spelling? 

Mr. FucHS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Is that husband and wife? 

Mr. FucHS. Yes, su". 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know whether they were employed by the 
Government and if so, where? 

Mr. FucHS. I believe they both were, and I don't know by whom. 
I am sure that at least one of them was, and I believe both were, but I 
don't remember. 

Mr. Tavenner. Can you recall others? 

Mr. FucHS. Bernard Stern. 

Mr. Tavenner. S-t-e-r-n? 

Mr. FucHS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. How was Bernard Stern employed? 

Mr. FucHS. I believe he was employed at the Labor Department 
at some time and ultimately, I think, by the National Labor Relations 
Board. 

Mr. ScHERER. In what capacity with the National Labor Relations 
Board? 

Mr. FucHS. Mr. Stern was an economist. 

The Chairman. Did he get his job because he was a Communist, 
or was that incidental? 

Mr. FucHS. I don't know. I don't remember when he got it nor 
do I know how he got it. 

Mr. ScHERER. Do you know where Stern is today? 

Mr. FucHS. I don't know. 

Mr. ScHERER. When did you last see him? 

Mr. FucHS. I should say not in the last 10 years, but I just don't 
remember when I last saw him. 

Mr. ScHERER. What was he doing when you last knew of him? 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 2969 

Mr. FucHs. It may be that he was then employed at the National 
Labor Relations Board. 

Mr. Tavenner. What about his wife? 

Mr. FucHS. Yes; she was also at such meetings, and her name was 
Janet Buck Gaines before she became Mrs. Stern. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know what employment she had? 

Mr. FucHS. I did know, and I don't know now, but it^was Govern- 
ment employment. 

Mr. Tavenner. You mentioned Henry Rhine. He was one of the 
first three that you mentioned. What about his wife? 

Mr. FucHS. Jessica Rhine, also. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know where she was employed at the 
time? 

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

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know whether she was employed by the 
Government? 

Mr. FucHs. I am pretty sure she was. 

Mr. Tavenner. You say it was at section meetings held by these 
persons where the policy of the party was laid down. Did you^take 
back to your own group the Communist Party section decisions? 

Mr. FucHs. I presumably did, because that was my role. That^is 
what I was supposed to do. The decisions made by this group, 
however, were heavily centered on what policy should be pursued in 
anion activities. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are we confining our consideration now to^the 
time when you were employed by the Senate subcommittee? 

Mr. FucHs. That is right. 

Mr. Tavenner. Who brought down the policies to this group from 
a higher level? That is, a level higher than the section? 

Mr. FucHs. I don't know. 

Mr. Tavenner. W^ho was the contact individual from the section 
to a higher level? 

Mr. FucHs. I really don't know. I would be guessing if I tried 
to answer that, and I would rather not. 

Mr. Scherer. There was a higher level, was there not, Professor? 

Mr. FucHS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Scherer. Do you know whether that higher level was in 
Government or outside of Government? 

Mr. FucHS. I would be guessing there, and my guess would be that 
at that time the higher level there was outside of Government, but I 
don't really know. 

Mr. Tavenner. I understand that you left your employment with 
the Wlieeler committee in October of 1937, and went to the NLRB? 

Ml. FucHS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Wliy did you make that change? 

Air. FucHS. There was gomg to be a staff reduction on the Wheeler 
committee, and it was suggested to me by Lawrence Brown, the 
head of our office, that it would be well if the staff reduction 
could be made among people who could be placed, and that he felt 
that I could probably be placed, and that he had made a telephone 
call to arrange an interview for me at an agency which might place 
me. I kept that interview, or I telephoned and confirmed the inter- 
view, and got a job at the National Labor Relations Board. 

Mr. Tavenner. There should be no connotation to the use of the 
name Brown, I believe? 



2970 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 

Mr. FucHS. Definitely not. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you just describing an event that occurred? 

Mr. FucHS. Yes. He lias nothing to do with communism as far as 
I know. 

Mr. Tavenner. With what individual at the National Labor 
Relations Board did you confer? 

Mr. FucHS. Nathan Witt. 

Mr. Tavenner. What position did Nathan Witt hold at the Na- 
tional Labor Relations Board at the time of your interview? 

Mr. FucHS. I think he was Assistant General Counsel. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you know him as a member of the Communist 
Party? 

Mr. FucHS. I did not. 

Mr. Tavenner. Had you been advised at that time that he was a 
member of the Communist Party? 

Mr. FucHS. I had not. 

Mr. Tavenner. Ai'e you now acquainted with the testimony of 
Lee Pressman, before our committee, identifying Nathan Witt as a 
member of the Communist Party? 

Mr. FucHS. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you subsequently employed by the NLRB? 

Mr. FucHS. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. As far as you know, did Nathan Witt know of 
your party membership? 

Mr. FucHS, Not to my knowledge. 

Mr. Tavenner. You did not identify j-ourself to him? 

Mr. FucHS. No. 

Mr, Tavenner. That would not be the practice in the Communist 
Party anyway; would it? 

Mr. FucHS. No. 

Mr. Tavenner. There would have been no difficulty in Nathan 
Witt knowing or finding out your Communist Party affiliation had he 
desired to do so? 

Mr. FucHs. I think that is quite right, assuming he was a Com- 
munist. I think that that is so. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you aware of whether or not your Communist 
Party membership played any part in your employment with the 
National Labor Relations Board? 

Mr. FucHS. No; I am not. 

Mr, Tavenner. You do not know? 

Mr, FucHs, No. 

Mr. Tavenner. You were employed as an attorney? 

Mr. FucHS. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. At the time you became a member of the staff of the 
NLRB, was there an organized cell of the Communist Party among 
its staff? 

Mr. FucHs. Not as far as I knew. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you continue to maintain your party mem- 
bership in the Wheeler Committee cell? 

Mr. FucHS. Oh, no. When I transferred to the National Labor 
Relations Board, I was instructed to get in touch with tlu-ee persons 
who were Communists. 

Mr. Tavenner. Who gave you those instructions? 

Mr. FucHS. Arthur Stein, 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 2971 

Mr. Tavenner. For what reason did he say you shoidd get m 
touch with these three persons? 

Mr. FucHS. To join them in forming a group at the Board. There 
may ah-eady have been a group, but in any event, I was told to get 
in touch with them. 

Mr. Tavenner. Wiio were those tlu-ee individuals? 

Mr. FucHs. Allan Rosenberg, Martin Kurasch, and Joseph Robison. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you spell those names, please? 

Mr. FucHs. Rosenberg, R-o-s-e-n-b-e-r-g; Kurasch, K-u-r-a-s-c-h; 
and Robison, R-o-b-i-s-o-n. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Chairman, Allan Rosenberg has appeared 
before the committee, and refused to answer questions, relying on 
the fifth amendment. 

Did you see these three individuals? Explain what occurred after 
you received those directions. 

Mr. FucHS. I met them, and we formed ourselves into a unit. 

Mr. Tavenner. It appears from the testimony of Allan Rosenberg, 
when he appeared before this committee on June 23, 1952, that he 
had been employed by a subcommittee of the Committee on Educa- 
tion and Labor of the United States Senate. This subcommittee 
was known as the La Follette Committee. That was in June of 1936, 
up until April of 1937, and in April of 1937 he was transferred to the 
NLRB. That would have been some months prior to your employ- 
ment there. 

Mr. FucHS. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you acquainted with Allan Rosenberg prior 
to his assignment to the NLRB? 

Mr. FucHS. No, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Rosenberg's superior on the Senate committee 
staff was John Abt, as counsel. Did John Abt, as far as you know, 
ever become employed by the National Labor Relations Board? 

Mr. FucHS. Not to my knowledge. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you acquainted with John Abt? 

Mr. FucHS. I had met him once or twice. 

Mr. Tavenner. Under what circumstances? 

Mr. FucHS. I don't know, and I just recall being introduced to him, 
and I don't think that I had any dealings with him. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was it at a Communist Party meeting? 

Mr, FucHS. No, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Or function? 

Mr. FucHS. No, sir. 

Mr. ScHERER. For the record, John Abt has been identified as a 
member of the Communist Party has he not, Mr. Tavenner? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes, sir. 

Do you know what other Government employment Allan Rosenberg 
has had? 

Mr. FucHs. No; my recollection is — oh yes, he was employed by 
the Board of Economic Warfare. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know anything about the circumstances 
under which he became employed there? 

Mr. FucHs. No. I know who his boss was. His boss was Max 
Lowenthal, but I don't know anything more about the circumstances. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know why he transferred out of the 
NLRB? 



1972 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 

Mr. FucHS. No, sir. 

Mr. ScHERER. You have mentioned Max Lowenthal. If he was 
not a member of the Communist Party, we will not want it to be 
inferred that he was. I think we should know whether the witness 
knows whether Lowenthal was a member of the party or not. 

Mr. FucHS. He was not a member of the party to my knowledge. 

The Chairman. Actually, this committee has never had any evi- 
dence presented to link him with the Communist Party. 

Mr. Tavenner. No, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was Allan Rosenberg a lawyer at the NLRB? 

Mr. FucHS. Yes; he was a lawyer at the NLRB. 

Mr. Tavenner. TMiat other positions did he hold on the Board 
ultimately? 

Mr. FucHS. There were times when he worked in the Secretary's 
office, and I don't know what position that was. 

Mr. Tavenner. That is Nathan Witt's office? 

Mr. FucHS. Nathan Witt who had been Assistant General Counsel, 
became Secretary of the Board, and at some time or other, Rosenberg 
worked in his office. 

Mr. Tavenner. Actually, the Secretary of the Board practically 
ran the operations of the organi^iation, did he not? 

Mr. FucHS. I couldn't say. 

Mr. Tavenner. That is, whUe Witt was Secretary of the Board? 

Mr. FucHS. I think that office was the administrative head, yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was Martin Kurasch another person you men- 
tioned as being 1 of the 3 who should unite in forming this cell within 
the Board? 

Mr. FucHS. Yes, sh. 

Mr. Tavenner. What position did he hold at that time? 

Mr. FucHS. He also worked out of the Secretary's office, at some 
time. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was that whUe Witt was Secretary? 

Mr. FucHS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did Martin Kurasch also get his job through Witt? 

Mr. FucHS. I don't know how he got his job. I assume he got it 
through Witt, but I don't know. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know whether Kurasch and Witt were 
acquainted prior to his employment with the Board? 

Mr. FucHS. I don't know. 

Mr. Tavenner. Had you been acquainted with Martin Kurasch 
prior to your employment with the Board? 

Mr. FucHS. No. 

Mr. Tavenner. The thhd person that you mentioned, as forming 
the nucleus of this cell, was Joseph Robison; was he a lawyer? 

Mr. FucHS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. What assignment did he have with the Board? 

Mr. FucHS. I think that he worked as a lawyer exclusively. 

Mr. Tavenner. As far as you know, did he work out of Witt's 
office at any time? 

Mr. FucHS. Not to my recollection. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know anything about how he obtained his 
position with the NLRB? 

Mr. FucHS. No. 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 2973 

Mr. Tavenner, Did you know him at any time before your em- 
ployment? 

Mr. FucHS. I knew his family in New York, very slightly socially, 
and I think his elder brother was a classmate of mine at college, and I 
had met his family at a party or two. I didn't know him. 

Mr. Tavenner. I told you earlier that I wanted to ask you another 
question about Leah Robison. She was a member of your cell in the 
Communist Party in New York City. Is there any relationship 
between Leah Robison, and Joseph Robison? 

Mr. FucHS. I think that they are cousins. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was this organized group of the Communist Party 
within the NLRB, known by a name or a number? 

Mr. FucHs. Not to me, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. You said you signed a card when you joined 
the Communist Party in New York City? Did you also have a card 
showing your membership in the NLRB group? 

Mr. FucHS. I have never had a Communist Party card showing my 
membership in the party at any time from the beginning of my 
Government employment. 

Mr. Tavenner. Wliy was that? Was there a different policy 
followed by the Communist Party as to its members employed by the 
Government, and non-Government employees? 

Mr. FucHs. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. Wliat was the reason for that? 

Mr. FucHS. The undesirability of exposure. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was it a matter of security? 

Mr. FucHS. Exactly. 

Mr. Tavenner. From the standpoint of the Communist Party, that 
has turned out to be a pretty wise policy. We have been able to 
produce a great many Communist Party cards before this committee, 
but never the Communist Party card of a member of the Communist 
Party who was employed by the Government. 

If there were no cards to indicate membership in the Communist 
Party how were the records kept to show membership? 

Mr. FucHS. I don't know. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you keep any records of the members in the 
groups of which you were actually in charge? 

Mr. FucHS. No, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you explain to the committee, please, just 
how people were recruited into the Communist Party, from within 
Government, or what procedure was followed to the best of your 
recollection? 

Mr. FucHS. Well, one of the obligations of Communists, assumed 
by Communists as such, was to recruit worthy members to the organ- 
ization. This was regarded as particulaily a difficult chore in Govern- 
ment because of the security problem, as you state it. 

My recollection of what happened was this: If a particular group 
or members of it were favorably disposed toward some fellow em- 
ployee and thought that he might, or that he was sufficiently like- 
minded with the group to make a good member of it, and a useful 
member of it, they would, after a period of associating with this 
person, suggest his name to the group. That was for consideration 
or ultimate recruitment. The group would discuss the matter and 
perhaps reject the proposal, but if the group was favorably disposed 

70811— 56— pt 1—4 



2974 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 

toward the proposal, it was not free to pop the question imtil'it 
checked with higher authority and received a favorable report back. 

Mr. Tavenner. That is, authority higher than your particular cell? 

Mr. FucHS. That is right. If favorable word came back, the group 
then had control of the question of asking the person or not. And 
assuming that favorable word did come back, it would then assign 
one or more of its own members to talk to the prospect in terms of 
party membership. By that time, if the prospect accepted, he would 
be welcomed to a meeting and would take part in the life of the group. 
I must say that m m}^ enth'e time in the Government as a Communist, 
there wasn't ver}^ much recruiting, because these restrictions were 
rather sharp. 

Mr. Tavenner. Would it be correct to say that you were very 
cautious in recruiting? 

Mr. FucHS. Yes, and there were long periods in which there would 
just be a ban on it, and no recruiting. 

Mr. Tavenner. When you say a "ban" do you mean from higher 
authority? 

Mr. FucHS. Yes, from higher authority, and sometimes even self- 
imposed by the group. If there had been some particular scare, or 
some scandalous talk, or accusations, we might stop all action. 

Mr. Tavenner. Might I ask you if this would be an example? 
Back in 1952 this committee heard testimony of a person formerly 
employed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in Washington to 
work within the Communist Party. That was Mary Stalcup Mark- 
ward. At that time she testified very fuUy regarding the activities of 
the Communist Party in the District of Columbia. Now, would the 
fact that she had so testified be likely to result in one of these periods 
when you would not attempt to recruit members in the party? 

Mr. FucHS. I should certainly think it would. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you recall whether it actually did? 

Mr. FucHS. I wouldn't know anything about what happened in 
1952. 

Mr. Tavenner. Her membership was during your period, but 
actually her testimony was in 1952. 

Mr. FucHS. I would have no idea what the effect of that was. 

Mr. Tavenner. After the procedure which you have just described, 
that is, when a person is notified that he would be received into the 
Communist Party, is any ceremony of any kind resorted to when that 
person is first brought to a Communist Party meeting? 

Mr. FucHS. Not in my experience. 

Mr. Tavenner. The individual just comes in and is made one of 
the group, and considered one of the group? 

Mr. FucHs. And he has been expected, you see, and perhaps until 
he actually arrives, he is not told all of whom he will meet, but he is 
told some of whom he will meet, and so he says, "Hello," and that 
is it. 

Mr. Tavenner. Is it as simple as that? 

Mr. FucHs. That is m^^ experience, which is a very limited one 
numerically. I am not qualified as an expert in this subject, I can 
only talk about my own experience. 

The Chairman. I think we will take a recess of 5 minutes at this 
point. The committee will stand in recess for 5 minutes. 

(Thereupon a brief recess was taken.) 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 2975 

The Chairman. The committee will be in order. 

Proceed, Mr. Tavenner. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Fuchs, you stated that a higher authority- 
would have an opportunity to pass upon the eligibility of prospective 
members. Were you advised at any time whether the higher authority 
made any type of investigation of the individual before approving 
membership? 

Mr. Fuchs. I just assumed that. That is the only possible assump- 
tion in the circumstances. I don't recall being advised. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know what type of investigation was 
conducted? 

Mr. Fuchs. I don't know what type. 

Mr. Tavenner. At times was the report delayed a period of time 
so as to indicate that investigation was being conducted? 

Mr. Fuchs. Yes indeed. 

Mr. Tavenner. You formed the nucleus of a cell within the em- 
ployees of the NLRB composed originally of four persons — yourself, 
Allan Rosenberg, Martin Kurasch, and Joseph Robison. After the 
formation of that group, did you then begin the program of recruiting 
members? 

Mr. Fuchs. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were persons brought into this group who were 
already members of the Communist Party, or were they freshly 
recruited into it? 

Mr. Fuchs. Both, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. What procedure was followed when a person w^as 
already a member of the Communist Party when employed by the 
NLRB, but who just wanted to pick up his membership, as dis- 
tinguished from recruiting him freshl}' into the Communist Party? 

Mr. Fuchs. Well, it would depend on where the initiative came 
from. Sometimes the initiative would come from the fact that some- 
body already in the group knew the newcomer and would recommend 
through channels that it be permissible to take him into the group. 

Mr. Tavenner. What do you mean "through channels"? 

Mr. Fuchs. Well, through authority. That is, first asking the 
group, and then asking the higher authority. 

Mr. Moulder. What year was this? To what period of time are 
you now referring? 

Mr. Fuchs. Mr. Tavenner is now asking me about the National 
Labor Relations Board group in my first period of service there, in the 
period from 1937 to 1942, Mr. Moulder. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were there occasions when directions came down 
from a higher authority to take so and so into the Communist Party 
as he was a good member at some other place? 

Mr. Fuchs. Yes; it would initiate that way sometimes. 

Mr, Tavenner, It did sometimes? 

Mr, Fuchs, Yes, su\ 

Mr. Tavenner. On other occasions was it initiated by your own 
group? 

Air, Fuchs. That is right. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee, please, about how 
many persons became members of the Communist Party group 
in NLRB, between 1937 and 1942, which was your first period of 
employment? 



2976 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 

Mr. FucHS. Additions beyond the four that we have discussed? 
Mr. Tavenner. Let us include the four. 
Mr. FucHS. I make it about 17. 

Mr. Tavenner. Does that mean 17 that you can recall, or were 
there other persons whose names you do not presently recall? 

Mr. FucHS. I think that is probably complete as to that period, 

1 think it is pretty complete, as to that period. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you give us the names, please? That is, the 
names of the persons you can recall who were members of this group 
of the Communist Party within the NLRB, between 1937 and 1942. 

Mr. FucHS. At some time during that period? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes, at some time during that period. In giving 
us information as to those individuals, give us all of the facts you can 
of an identifying character, as to the type of employment at the 
Board, and any other Government employment the person may have 
had. 

Mr. FucHS. Lester Asher; he was an attorney at the Board in 
Washington and subsequently transferred to one of the field offices 
of the Board and I think ultimately left the Board and went into 
private practice. Mr. Asher was a member of our group for a very 
short time. He was recruited and he didn't stay. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you recruit him? 

Mr. FucHS. As I recall, I participated in recruiting him. 

Mr. Moulder. What do you mean by "he didn't stay"? 

Mr. FucHS. He didn't stay in the Communist Party more than 

2 or 3 meetings, Mr. Moulder. He just didn't hke it. 
Mr. Moulder. Did he pay dues? 

Mr. FucHS. I guess he did for those 2 or 3 meetings, but he with- 
drew very promptly. He was not impressed. 

Mr. Tavenner. As far as you know, then, he withdrew from the 
Communist Party. Have you knowledge of any reaflBliation on his 
part? 

Mr. FucHS. I have no knowledge of it, and I should very much 
doubt that there was. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Chairman, I think I should say that Mr. 
Asher has indicated a desire to cooperate completely with the com- 
mittee, and expects to testify. 

The Chairman. I know about Mr. Asher, and his activities on 
behalf of some legitimate labor union. I am thoroughly convinced 
that the man has never been a Communist, that he has been a good 
citizen, and he has done some ver^^ constructive work. 

Mr. Tavenner. What is the spelling of the name Asher? 

Mr. FucHS. A-s-h-e-r. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you proceed, please? 

Mr. FucHS. David Rein, R-e-i-n. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was he recruited into your group, or was he 
already a member when he came to the NLRB? 

Mr. FucHS. I believe he was already a member, and he came into 
the group and I think our relations with him were interrupted by his 
war service, and it is really all I can say. I know at some point in 
that time he left the Government and went into private practice in 
Washington. 

Mr. Tavenner. Private practice of law? 

Mr. FucHS. Yes, sir. 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 2977 

The Chairman. Where? 

Mr. FucHS. In Washmgton, D. C. 

The Chairman. Is he practicmg law in Washington, D. C, now, 
and is he the David Rein I know? 

Mr. FucHs. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. He has appeared before this committee represent- 
ing witnesses, hasn't he? 

Mr. Tavenner. Many times. 

The Chairman. And was he a Communist? 

Mr. FucHs. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Scherer. Do you know whether or not he is a member of the 
Communist Party today? 

Mr. FucHs. No. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know where he was a member of the 
Communist Party before he came to the NLRB? 

Mr. FucHS. Not for certain; I think that he comes from New York, 
but I don't reall}^ know. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you know him before he came to the NLRB? 

Mr. FucHs. No, sir; I did not. 

Mr. Tavenner. Proceed with the next one. 

Mr. Scherer. Do you remember whether an}^ of the witnesses who 
appeared before our committee represented by this man Rein ever 
did anything except plead the fifth amendment? 

Mr. Tavenner. There is one possible exception, which I believe 
was not full compliance with what you have in mind. But there may 
be one case. 

Mr. Scherer. I know the gentleman, and I remember his repre- 
senting many Communist witnesses before the committee. I do not 
know of any instance in my knowledge where they have done anything 
except invoke the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you ever hear a discussion or participate in 
any discussion among the Communist Party lawyers regarding the 
use of the fifth amendment? I am not speaking of it in conversations 
but am asking about it in Communist Party meetings. 

Mr. FucHS. I do recall early discussions of that, in which it was 
observed that the fifth amendment was an available obstacle to self- 
revelation, and that was away back in those days, and I don't remem- 
ber what kind of conversation it was, but it is true that Communists 
were as early as that concerned with the question of how we could 
maintain our refusal to testify about communism. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were Communist Party members advised within 
the party that they should rely on the fifth amendment? 

Mr. FucHS. I don't know. 

Mr. Tavenner. I am not speaking of the relationship of attorney 
and client outside the Communist Party. I am talking about what 
happened within the Communist Party groups. 

Mr. FucHS. I don't know whether I can say that that was official 
doctrine of any kind. There was discussion to that effect, and we were 
told from time to time that the fifth amendment was available. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you told that from a higher echelon of the 
Communist Party? 

Mr. FucHS. No, I wasn't, or we were not. 

The Chairman. It certainly seems to me, Mr. Tavenner, in view of 
this testimony and other testimony, that has been adduced by this 



2978 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 

committee, that we ought to recognize the fact that when certain 
lawyers appear before this committee with chents, the chents are 
going to invoke the fifth amendment on the advice of Communist 
lawj'^ers. That being the fact, we should look into the advisability of 
promulgating an additional rule under which it would be required that 
a lawyer appearing before this committee file a simple little statement 
(1) to the effect that he is a member in good standing of the court 
of last resort in the State in which he practices and (2), that he is 
not a member of the Communist Party. 

I am sure that that isn't going to work any great hardship, and that 
does not even go as far as some of the executive agencies in their require- 
ments for practitioners before these agencies. We will look into that, 

Mr. ScHERER. Often they are representing the interests of the 
Communist Party rather than the interests of their clients. 

The Chairman. There is no doubt about it. 

Mr. ScHERER. And sometimes they have been employed or paid by 
the Communist Party rather than by the client. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you proceed? 

Mr. FucHS. Woodrow Sandler, S-a-n-d-1-e-r. 

Mr. Tavenner. Wliat was the nature of his employment on the 
Board? 

Mr. FucHS. He was a lawyer. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you know him prior to his employment? 

Mr. FucHS. No, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know whether he has had any other 
Government employment? 

Mr. FucHS. No, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Proceed, please. 

Mr. FucHS. J. H. Krug, K-r-u-g. 

Mr. Tavenner. What was his first name? 

Mr. FucHS. Jacob. 

Mr. Tavenner. What type of employment did he have? 

Mr. FucHS. He was a lawyer. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did vou know him prior to his coming to the 
NLRB? 

Mr. FucHS. No, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Is there any other information that you can give 
us in regard to him, or his activities as a member of the Communist 
Party? 

Mr. FucHS. No, sir. Shall I proceed? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes. 

Mr. FucHS. Mortimer Riemer, R-i-e-m-e-r. 

Mr. Tavenner. M-o-r-t-i-m-e-r, is that the spelling of his first 
name? 

Mr. FucHS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did vou know him prior to his coming to the 
NLRB? 

Mr. FucHS. I believe that I knew who he was. I think that he 
was an employee, or executive secretary of the National Law^'^ers 
Guild prior to that time. I am not sure of my chronology, but I 
think that thereafter he came to the Board. 

Mr. Tavenner. I think that I should state for the committee 
that Mr. Mortimer Riemer has appeared before the staff, and has 
fully cooperated with the committee. He will be heard at a later 
time. 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 2979 

The Chairman. I think the thing to do is to hear him immediately 
after Mr. Fuchs' testimony. We will try to arrange our agenda. 

Mr. Tavenister. Very well, sir. 

Will you proceed, please? 

Mr. Fuchs. John W. Porter, and Margaret Bennett Porter. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were they husband and wife? 

Mr. Fuchs. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was John W. Porter a lawyer within your group? 

Mr. Fuchs. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was he a member of the Communist Party before 
he came to the NLRB, or was he freshly recruited? 

Mr. Fuchs. I don't tlihik that he was a member before that, and 
I think he was recruited. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do 3^ou know what Government employment he 
had had prior to this time? 

Mr. Fuchs. I believe that he was in the Department of Justice, 
in the Antitrust Division. 

Mr. Tavenner. I should state to the committee that Mr. Porter 
in the past few years has been called as a witness in Los Angeles, and 
he refused to answer any material questions, reiving upon the fifth 
amendment. 

You mentioned his wife. What was his wife's name? 

Mr. Fuchs. Margaret Bennett. 

Mr. Tavenner. Wliat was the nature of her employment? 

Mr. Fuchs. She was a lawyer. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know whether she was recruited at the 
time her husband was, or whether she was already a member of the 
Communist Party? 

Mr. Fuchs. I think that her membership antedated his, I am 
pretty sure of that. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know when she transferred to NLRB from 
the Wheeler committee? Was it before or after you? 

Mr. Fuchs. I believe it was after me. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know of any other Government employ- 
ment of either of them? 

Mr. Fuchs. Mrs. Porter had had Government employment before 
her employment by the Wheeler committee. 

Mr. Tavenner. Wliat was that? 

Mr. Fuchs. I am not sure I know. I think that it was in the Agri- 
culture Department or in the three A's, I am not too sure. Mr. 
Porter subsequently had employment with the Regional War Labor 
Board. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you proceed? 

Mr. Fuchs. Ruth Weyand, W-e-y-a-n-d. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was she an attorney? 

Mr. Fuchs. Yes, sii*. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was she freshly recruited or was she a member 
prior to joining this group? 

Mr. Fuchs. I don't believe she was recruited, and I think the latter. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know of any other Government employ- 
ment she has had? 

Mr. Fuchs. I don't, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know when she left the NLRB? 

Mr. Fuchs. I don't know that. 



2980 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 

Mr. Tavenner. Proceed. 

Mr. FucHs. Allen Heald. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you spell the last name? 

Mr. FucHs. H-e-a-1-d. I clon't recall his recruitment and I don't 
know what subsequent Government employment he had, and I 
believe he went to the regional office of the Board before he left it. 

Mr. Tavenner. I should also state that Mr. Heald has been in 
touch with the staff of the committee, and will be heard later, and he is 
expected to cooperate with the committee. 

The Chairman. It certainly is refreshing to find that there are 
people who have the courage to do what Professor Fuchs is doing now, 
and what these other people have indicated they will do. Certainly 
it seems to me that these people are indicating to the scoffers that this 
was a serious thing, and that the American people are determined now 
to put the bright light of publicity on it; do something about it and 
prevent the same thing from, happening here that has happened in 
manj' places in the world. I am certainl}- glad that these people are 
cooperating. 

More and more I think this Burdett disclosure had a very salutary 
effect on people who hesitated. It was largely because he didn't 
lose his employment. 

In that regard, I do not think the American University did a service 
to the work of this committee by putting Professor Fuchs in the 
position that he is now in. I think it is a very reprehensible thing 
to dismiss a man who has done what he has done, and who has made 
the great contribution he has made toward carrying out the work that 
the Congress has imposed upon this committee. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you continue, please? 

Mr. Fuchs. Harry Cooper, C-o-o-p-er. He was a lawyer. I don't 
know whether he had any other Government employment. He left 
the Board during my first tour of duty. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know whether he was a member of the 
Communist Party when he came to the Board? 

Mr. Fuchs. I would like to answer that by saying that I don't 
recall his recruitment. 

Mr. Tavenner. Proceed, please. 

Mr. Fuchs. Frank Donner, D-o-n-n-e-r. He was a lawyer. I 
don't know whether he had any other Government employment. He 
left the Board, I believe, to accept employment at the CIO office. 

Mr. Tavenner. When he was working at the CIO office, do you 
know whether his supervisor was Lee Pressman or if he worked in 
the office of Lee Pressman, general counsel of the CIO at that time? 

Mr. Fuchs. He did work, I believe, in the office of Mr. Pressman, 
and I think also he worked there a substantial period of time after 
Air. Pressman left, but I th.ink he started out with Mr. Pressman. 

Mr. Tavenner. Then subsequently his services were terminated by 
the CIO? 

Air. Fuchs. That is right, sir. 

Air. Tavenner. Proceed, please. 

Mr. FiTCHs. Edward Scheunemann, S-c-h-e-u-n-e-m-a-n-n. 

Air. Tavenner. Do you recall whetlier he was recruited? 

Air. Fuchs. Well, I thought that I recruited him. 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 2981 

Mr. Tavenner. By stating it that way, do you mean that you 
heard he had been a member prior to that time, but you thought that 
he was a freshly recruited member? 

Mr. FucHS. That is right. I did in fact ask him to join, and he did 
join. 

Mr, Tavenner. What Government emplojnnent had he other 
than the NLRB? 

Mr. FucHS. The only other Government employment that I 
know of that he had was in the Office of Price Administration in 
Denver. 

Mr. Tavennfr. Are there any others? 

Mr. FucHs. There was Bert Diamond. I don't recall his recruit- 
ment. I don't recall any other Government employment on his part. 
He was a lawyer. 

Mr. Tavenner. That makes 17. Are there any others that you 
can recall? 

Mr. FucHS. That exhausts my recollection of the members of my 
group during the first period. 

Mr. Tavenner. If the names of any other persons come to your 
mind who were members of this group, will you advise the staff? 

Mr. FucHs. Yes. 

Mr, Tavenner. Will you tell us please whether all of these 17 
lawyers worked within one group or how they were dispersed in 
employment? 

Mr. FucHS. Well, you know, calling a man a lawyer didn't really 
peg his job at the NLRB in those days. There were a number of 
different assignments to which lawyers were assigned. 

The Chairman. Do you mean members of the bar? 

Mr. FucHS. I mean members of the bar, sir. 

The Chairman. Most of these Government lawyers are members 
of the bar. 

Mr. Tavenner. I think that this would be a very good place for 
you to give the committee briefly, an idea of the organizational setup 
of the NLRB at that time, 

Mr. FucHs. It is going to be rather difficult at this time, but I will 
try it. 

Mr, Tavenner. I realize that. 

Mr. FucHs. The Board had two functions, as I recall. There was 
the settlement of representation questions, that was one, and the 
prevention of unfair labor practices of employers was another. The 
Board was organized in a decentralized way, and it had regional offices 
around the country, and in each of the regions, hearings would be 
scheduled in cases involving questions concerning representation 
on the one hand, or alleged unfair labor practices on the other. These 
hearings were held before a staff of trial examiners so-called, and later 
known as hearing examiners, I think. Some of the cases could also 
be heard before ordinary regional staff members, but the point was 
that these cases had to reach the decisional level in some way. In the 
cases involving unfair labor practices the trial examiner made a 
recommended decision in the form of his report, which was then sent 
to the Board for decision in Washington. 

The parties were given an opportunity to except to the report and to 
request oral argument before the Board, and ultimately the case 
would be in the Board's lap for decision. 

70811— 56— pt. 1 5 



2982 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 

That meant the transcript of testimony was assigned to a so-called 
review attorney for analysis and report. The review attorneys were 
a stable of attorneys under an Assistant General Counsel. Originally 
that General Counsel was Witt, and thereafter Emerson, and there- 
after a whole succession of people, and I was the last one. So one legal 
staff of the Board was the review staff. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you in the Review Section? 

Mr. FucHS. I was in the Review Section for the entire duration of 
my emplo}Tnent b)^ the Board, except after the Review Section was 
abolished. 

Mr. Tavenner. Then you became Solicitor of the Board? 

Mr. FucHS. That is right. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was that during the period of your second 
employment? 

Mr. FucHS. Yes, sir; that is right. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you become supervisor of this review section? 

Mr. FucHS. I did, sir. I first was a review attorney and later I 
became one of several supervisors, and it was from the supervisors 
job that I left the Board in 1942. I should also say to you that there 
was an entirely separate staff, and perhaps even two more staffs of 
lawyers employed by the Board. One of them was called the Appel- 
late Briefing Section, and its function was to support the Board's de- 
cision before appellate courts, either on petitions by the Board for en- 
forcement or on petitions by an aggi'ieved party for review. Tiiese 
were brief writers, litigation lawyers, and there were also field at- 
torneys — attorneys assigned to field ofl5ces. 

The Washington legal staft' was basically divided between review, 
and appellate briefing, wdtb miscellaneous lawyers also in the Secre- 
tary's Office and at a later date the Office of the Director of the Field 
Division. That was something that was an outgrowth of the Secre- 
tary's Office. 

Mr. Tavenner. I ask you to allocate these 17 lawyers you men- 
tioned to the various positions, or various types of employment. That 
is, we want to know whether they were concentrated in one review sec- 
tion, or another, or dispersed over the entire area you have described. 

iSIr. FucHS. Wliat you have said just now brmgs to mind a policy 
that I recall now that existed — a hiring policy. That was to the effect 
that the Review Section would be the section mto which most hiring 
would be done, and then employees showing talents in one direction 
or another would be assigned to other jobs, but the Review Section 
was like mcoming labor in the legal field. That just occurred to me 
at this moment. Would you like me to take these people in the order 
discussed and put a tag on each of them? Is that the best way to 
do it? 

Air. Tavenner. Yes; but before doing that, \\all you tell us whether 
there was more than 1 reviewing section, or would there have been 
more than 1 group to which these recruits were first assigned? 

Mr. FucHS. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. How many? 

Mr. FucHS. That varied all of the way from 4 to as much as 12 
supervisors, and each supervisor was a kind of a suboperating group, 
within the Review Section. 

Mr. Tavenner. You mean there would be as many as 12 at one 
time? 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 2983 

Mr. FucHS. Well, maybe 12 is high, but I am sure that it went 
as high as 9 or 10. 

Mr. Tavenner. How many lawyers did one supervisor have under 
him? 

Mr. FucHS. This was also an accordion proposition, and it would 
be from as few as 4 to as many as 12 or 15, and sometimes when the 
actual employment of review attorneys became astronomical, people 
would just be assigned under supervisors and would not have very 
much reality. When a fellow was ready to report a case and his 
supervisor was tied up, the Assistant General Counsel would transfer 
him into another section. 

Mr. Tavenner. Normally, what would be the size of the combined 
staff of those lawyers assigned to the Review Section in Washington? 

Mr. FucHS. I think if you will check, you will find that it ranged 
all of the way from 25 in lean years, to over 115 in years of maximum 
employment. Bear in mind one of the things the Board had was 
appropriation troubles, and when it ran into appropriation troubles, 
it accumulated a backlog, and when it had a bacldog, that was 
ultimately broken by hiring an awful lot of people. 

Mr. Tavenner, So that out of this group, which varied between 
25 and 115, there were 17 who were members of the Communist 
Party? 

Mr. FucHs. Except for this: Accuracy requires me to say that 
some of those people were never in the Review Section. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will that be disclosed by j^our testimony? 

Mr. FucHs. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. However, most of them were in it at one time or 
another? Will you proceed? 

Mr. FucHs. Allan Rosenberg was in the Review Section before my 
time, and also worked for the Secretary at some time, and I think also 
went into appellate briefing at one time — I am not absolutely sure of 
that. 

The Chairman. To what extent did Witt participate in the selection 
of this personnel? 

Mr. FucHs. I think this: I am not sure of it, but I think that as 
long as he was Assistant General Counsel in charge of the Review 
Section, he participated very heavily, but shortly after my arrival at 
the Board, he became Secretary and at that point I think that his 
successor did the hiring, and I am not able to say to what extent he. 
was influenced by Witt. 

Mr. Willis. Who was his successor? 

Mr. FucHs. Thomas Emerson. 

Mr. Tavenner. Since his name has been mentioned, I should ask 
you the question: Do you have any knowledge of whether or not he 
was a member of the Communist Party? 

Mr. FucHS. No; and I also feel impelled to say that I don't believe 
he ever was one. 

Mr. Tavenner. I should make it plain, too, that by asking that 
question, I was not indicating that we had information to that effect. 

Proceed. 

Mr, FucHS. Martin Kurasch was a review attorney, and worked in 
the Secretary's Office. 

Joseph Robison was a review attorney, and later became a briefing 
attorney. 



2984 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 

Lester Asher was a review attorney for a brief period and later, I 
think, went to a regional office and served as an attorney in the 
regional office, 

David Rein was at some time a review attorney, and I don't know 
what other jobs he may have had. 

Woodrow Sandler, I believe, was a review attorney and later a 
briefer. 

Jacob Krug was a review attorney. 

Mortimer Riemer, it seems to me, was never a review attorney. 
I think that he was a trial examiner. 

John W. Porter was never a review attorney at the Board. Mrs. 
Porter, his wife, was. 

Miss Ruth Weyand was not. 

Allen Heald was not. 

Mr. Tavenner. To what branch was Miss Weyand assigned? 

Mr. FucHS. Miss Weyand and Mr. Heald were briefing attorneys 
when I knew them, and I think that Mr. Heald had some regional 
experience before coming to Washington. When I knew them, they 
were in Appellate Litigation, and then- jobs were to defend the Board's 
orders in com'ts of appeals, straight advocacy job. 

Mr. Tavenner. Isn't it true that Miss Weyand argued all of the 
cases involving the decisions of your Board which went to the Supreme 
Court of the United States including the NRA case and others? 

Mr. FucHS. I do believe there was a period of time when she ex- 
tensively argued in the High Court. I don't know more than that. 

Anyway, I think she was not a review attorney, nor was Mr. 
Heald. 

Mr. ScHERER. Where is Miss Weyand now? 

Mr. FucHS. I understand she is in Washington. 

Mr. ScHERER. Is she a practicing lawyer, or still in Government 
service? 

Mr. FucHS. I am pretty sure she is not in Government service, and 
I don't know what she is doing actually, Mr. Scherer. 

Mr. Scherer. When was your last contact with her? 

Mr. FucHS. I haven't seen her in a number of years. I got a 
phone call from her about a year ago when she either inquired about 
some point of law, or offered to send me a copy of some article she had 
written, and that is the best of my recollection. 

Mr. Scherer. Was she stiU a member of the Communist Party at 
the time you left the party? 

Mr. FucHS. Yes, sir; I think that is right. 

The Chairman. Has she been subpenaed? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Scherer. Did she indicate that she is going to cooperate? 

The Chairman. We do not know. 

Mr. Scherer. Did you say she is a practicing lawyer? 

Mr. FucHS. I don't know; I think she has been a practicing lawyer. 

Mr. Scherer. Do you know how long she remained in Government 
service? 

Mr. FucHS. I don't know that either, sir. 

Mr. Scherer. Did she have Government service other than with 
the NLRB? 

Mr. FucHS. I don't think she did. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 2985 

Mr. FucHS. Harry Cooper was a review attorney. 

Frank Donner, to my best recollection was not a review attorney, 
but a briefing attorney. 

Edward Scheunemann was a review attorney. 

Bert Diamond was a review attorney and became a briefing 
attorney. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were these review attorneys confined to any one 
group of the Review Section, or were they dispersed through various 
review groups? 

Mr. FucHS. They were dispersed, but I don't want to give the 
impression that these subgroups in the Review Section were admin- 
istrative groups. They were not. In those days, if you were a member 
of the Review Section, you worked for the Assistant General Counsel; 
you were assigned individual cases under individual supervisors, and 
then later, I think, there was a tendency to stratify that, but I don't 
know when. 

Mr. Moulder. I suggest that inasmuch as the 17 persons have 
been named and identified as members of the Communist Party, 
that more elaborate and definite testimony could be presented as to 
the activities of this particular group, which led you to the conclu- 
sion that they were Communists. Also what you did as Communists, 
and so on. 

The Chairman. I thmk that that is a good suggestion. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you the head of this group in the Communist 
Party? 

Mr. FucHS. Yes, sir; I was. 

Mr. Tavenner. How frequently did you meet? 

Mr. FucHS. I think that we aimed at fortnightly meetings; some- 
times achieved them, and sometimes failed to achieve them. 

Mr. Tavenner. What was your position in this group? You stated 
you were the head of it. Did you have a title? 

Mr. FucHS. "Leader" I think we called me. 

Mr. Tavenner. How were the dues paid, and to whom? 

Mr. FucHs. This all goes back pretty far. I should suppose they 
were paid to me or to someone else in the group, then turned over to 
me, and by me to my contact above. 

Mr. Tavenner. Who was the contact above you at that time? 

Mr. FucHs. From the beginning of the organization of this group 
at the National Labor Relations Board until a time before the end of 
the group, it was Victor Perlo, P-e-r-1-o. 

Mr. Tavenner. So you remitted the dues collected to Victor Perlo? 

Mr. FucHS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know who succeeded Victor Perlo as a 
contact with this group? 

Mr. FucHS. Yes; it was Arthur Stein again. 

Mr. Tavenner. So that the responsibility for this group was 
transferred from Arthur Stein to Victor Perlo, and from Victor Perlo 
back to Arthur Stein? 

Mr. FucHs. Yes; I think that is right, except it might be said that 
Arthur Stein didn't have it in the first instance, that is, he never took 
it for the group. 

Mr. Tavenner. However, you received your directions from Arthur 
Stein? 

Mr. FucHs. Yes, and I was introduced by him to Perlo. 



2986 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know who the educational director was 
of the group? 

Mr. FucHS. No, sir; I am not sure that we made that office. We 
may well have done so, but I don't recall. 

Mr. Tavenner. What was the nature of the meetings held? 

Mr. FucHS. We would discuss Communist Party issues, the line in 
relation to what was going on in the world and what was going on in 
Washington, and the like. We would pay dues, and I am not sure 
but what in the early days we discussed problems of how we should 
comport ourselves in the union at the NLRB, and there was one 

Mr. Moulder. May I ask this question? Did your group ever 
discuss in those meetings, any of the policies, functions, or duties of 
the official positions which you held with the Government? 

Mr. FucHS. I think we did, Mr. Moulder; what we discussed were 
the good solutions and the bad solutions of things, but I don't want 
to give the impression that we were extralegal in this respect. That 
is to say, we told ourselves, and were told that to be good Communists 
at the National Labor Relations Board the better job we did for the 
Board and for the Government, that was it. That was the best thing, 
and to do a good trustworthy job was a good Communist job in that 
area. Now, I know that this doesn't correspond to present-day no- 
tions of the Communist Party and it does not correspond to my present 
day notions of the Party, but that is the way it was. 

Mr. Moulder. Were the meetings regular meetings, and if so, 
where were they held? 

Mr. FucHS. We attempted to have a meeting every couple of 
weeks, and I think later we cut it back to every month, and they were 
held in the homes of members. That group, I think I said, was 
limited to lawyers employed by the NLRB. 

The Chairman. Was it ever indicated that the best thing for the 
benefit of the Communist Party was to decide cases in such a manner 
as to cause dissatisfaction and a class consciousness? 

Mr. FuCHS. I don't think that we thought that way, Mr. Walter. 
I think that we thought we were doing a patriotic duty by partici- 
pating in the enforcement of the Wagner Act, and we were zealous 
in belief that it was a good thing. I guess it was a good thing within 
limits, and we were imbued with that. 

The Chairman. Not imbued were you to the extent that you would 
distort the plainly expressed intent of Congress in order to get a 
Communist slant to your decision? 

Mr. FucHS, I like to think we were not doing that, but I don't 
think that I am the one to ask. I think that becomes a question of 
an objective reappraisal of what was done. I don't want to be im- 
modest about it. 

Mr, Tavenner. In other words, it would be pretty hard to over- 
look the ideological bias that a dedicated Communist would have in 
administering the duties of positions of that kind? 

Mr. FucHS. Yes; I think that is exactly right, and that is perhaps 
why I hesitated to respond more directly to the chau-man's question. 
I would like to point something else out too that is probably true, 
and that is that although I believe the Communist Party to be 
motivated by ulterior designs, there were times when it would take 
positions which are in fact parallel to positions that non-Communists 
conscientiously took. So that the chairman's question is all the more 



COAIMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 2987 

difficult for me to answer from a vantage point of more than 10 years 
later. I would just like to be let off on that one. 

The Chairman. The committee wUl stand in recess at this point 
until 2 o'clock, 

(Thereupon, at 12:25 p. m., the hearing was recessed, to reconvene 
at 2 p. m., the same day, Tuesday, December 13, 1955.) 

AFTERNOON SESSION — DECEMBER 13, 1955 

(The hearing reconvened at 2 p. m., Chairman Walter presiding. 
Present at the convening of the afternoon session were Representatives 
Walter, Moulder, Willis, and Scherer.) 

The Chairman. The committee will be in order. 

Will you proceed Mr. Tavenner? 

TESTIMONY OF HERBERT FUCHS— Resumed 

Mr. Tavenner. If I understood you correctly, Mr. Fuchs, at the 
meetings of the NLRB cell of the Communist Party, you discussed the 
procedures in which its various members were engaged in their work 
for the NLRB? 

Mr. Fuchs. I think so; yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Is it also true, that from time to time the members 
of that cell discussed the decisions of the Board? 

Mr. Fuchs. Yes; that is true. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was the purpose of that to determine whether 
those procedures as well as the decisions of the Board were in accord- 
ance with what your particular group felt that they should be? 

Mr. Fuchs. I guess so; yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. At the time that you were the leader of the 
NLRB group of the Communist Party, did you continue to attend the 
section meetings which you described were held while you were the 
leader of the Senate Wheeler committee group? 

Mr. Fuchs. No, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know whether any other member of your 
group attended those section meetings? 

Mr. Fuchs. I believe that none did. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know whether those section meetings con- 
tinued to be held? 

Mr. Fuchs. I am pretty sure that they continued to be held. 

Mr. Tavenner. Can you give us any reason for your group of the 
NLRB not being represented at those section meetings? 

Mr. Fuchs. It will have to be my reconstruction of what hap- 
pened, but I believe that the object of not having us represented was 
twofold: First, it was because of security, and perhaps that was the 
more important reason. The second reason was that if I recall cor- 
rectly, all of the groups whose leaders met in that way were groups 
whose principal activity was activity in trade unions, and at the 
National Labor Relations Board, although there was a union, it could 
not be part of any affiliated union. So there was no functional reason 
for our continued connection. 

Mr. Tavenner. In other words, the problems were not common 
problems? 

Mr. Fuchs. That is right. 



2988 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 

Mr. Tavenner. As far as secrecy is concerned, which you thought 
may possibly be the major reason, isn't it true all of the Government 
cells were secret in the sense that theu- membership and even their 
existence was not supposed to be known by rank and file members of 
the Communist Party generally? 

Mr. FucHs. That is true. 

Mr. Tavenner. But with the NLEB, you have a supersecret cell, 
in the sense that employees in the Government did not even know who 
the members were of the NLRB cell? 

Mr. FucHs. That is true, sir, but you can put it another way, too, 
and perhaps the other way adds up to the same thing. The argument 
might be made that exposure should be kept to a minimum consistent 
with functioning. Now, if a number of these groups were going to 
function in a union, they would have to have some integration. If 
our group was not going to, there is no reason why we ought to be 
integrated and exposed. I think that is the way it is. 

Mr. Tavenner. When did you terminate your employment with 
the NLRB? 

Mr. FucHS. Actually in 1942. 

Mr. Tavenner. What month? 

Mr. FucHs. It was during the late summer of 1942, as I recall, 
and then for about a month I worked at the Board of Economic 
Warfare. 

Mr. Tavenner. Why was 3^our employment terminated? 

Mr. FucHs. It was voluntary on my part. 

Mr. Tavenner. It was voluntary? 

Mr. FucHs. Yes. It was out of a sense that the work of the 
Board was of less importance during this preparation for war period, 
or I guess we were already in the war. It was a desire to get into 
something that was more directly and vitally connected with the war 
effort. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was that suggestion made to you from any Com- 
munist Party source, that 3'ou change 3'our employment to something 
of greater importance during that general period? 

Mr. FucHs. No; it was not. There was a general restlessness 
among the emploj^ees of the Board, characterized also by many who 
were not Communists to get into something that was closer to the 
civilian firing line. 

Mr. Tavenner. Is that what motivated you to make a change? 

Mr. FucHs. That is right. 

Mr. Tavenner. What change did you make? 

Mr. FucHs. I got a job with tlie Division of Reconstruction and 
Reoccupation at the Board of Economic Warfare. 

Mr. Willis. Before we come to his next employment, I would like 
to ask permission of the Chair to place in the record an editorial 
which appeared in the Saturday Evening Post on December 10, 1955, 
giving very cogent reasons why, as stated by the chairman of our 
committee, the press, other media of information, and the public in 
general should stand by people such as the witness who is now testify- 
ing. I read it a few minutes ago and I left my glasses at the hotel, 
but I wonder if someone would read it? 

Mr. Tavenner. The editorial from the December 10, 1955, issue 
of the Saturday Evening Post reads as follows: It is entitled, "Why 
No Fuss When a Helpful Ex-Red Professor Is Fired?" 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 2989 

Prof. Herbert Fuchs, ex-Communist, has lost his job. In this respect his 
experience differs from that of Winston Burdett, commentator for the Columbia 
Broadcasting System. 

Burdett testified publicly before the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee 
last June, telling of his experiences when he had been a Communist Party member, 
and naming some former comrades. The subcommittee praised his moral courage, 
and urged CBS to stand by him. CBS did so. It declared he had been a loj-al 
and honest citizen since his break with the Reds, and it kept him on its staff. 

At about the same time, Herbert Fuchs — not to be confused with Klaus Fuchs, 
the Red purloiner of our atomic secrets — a professor of law at American University 
in Washington, testified in closed session before the House Committee on Un- 
American Activities. He told of his experiences when he had been a Communist 
Party member, but at first refused to name any others. On July 10 the university 
president anounced that the university would stand by Fuchs: "He is known in 
our Washington College of Law as an intelligent, loyal, and devoted teacher. 
He made a serious mistake in the past, which he has recognized and declared. 
The American University therefore would support his right as a citizen to pursue 
his chosen professional activities." 

Meanwhile the House committee and some of Fuchs' colleagues were urging 
him to testify more freely. He did so on July 16 naming many of his former 
comrades. Next day, he says, the university required him to take a leave of 
absence. He has not been allowed to teach since then. The trustees decided 
not to renew his contract when it expires next June. 

What had happened to change the university's attitude? No explanation was 
offered. The public was not told whether the Fuchs case differed in any essential 
way from that of Burdett. Fuchs, when a Communist, was employed by the 
Government, Burdett by a newspaper and two radio organizations. Fuchs' 
testimony had not been released by the House committee at the time he lost his 
job. Burdett testified that, as an obedient Communist, he committed espionage 
in several foreign countries for the Soviet Government. 

Congressman Gordon H. Scherer, a member of the committee, said the ousting 
of Fuchs "will be a serious blow to future investigations." Many university 
teachers who have refused to cooperate with congressional committees have been 
retained in their jobs. For example, as Congressman Scherer pointed out. Har- 
vard has retained Prof. Wendell H. Furry, who admitted he was an ex-Communist, 
but refused to name his comrades. "Furry was one of the most contemptuous 
witnesses I ever saw but Harvard kept him on," said the Congressman. Fuchs, 
who testified freely, now loses his post. "The contrasting action in these two 
cases would appear to inform future witnesses before the committee that coopera- 
tion will lose them their jobs, while contemptuous conduct will insure their con- 
tinued employment." 

If there is any significant fact that would explain the dropping of Fuchs, it 
should be made public. For otherwise the impression will be created that it is 
dangerous for a professor and for many other witnesses to testify candidly about 
their Communist activities, and that it is safer for ex-Communists to refuse to 
help their Government against the conspiracy than to come clean. 

There are several hundred thousand former members of the Communist Party. 
A great many of these are still friendly to the Communist Party. Only a relatively 
few ex-Communists have ever told their stories to congressional committees or 
even in secret to the FBI. However, many others are privately anti-Communist, 
but publicly keep their mouths shut. They do not want to be smeared, as cooper- 
ative ex-Communist witnesses always are, or to lose their jobs, or to suffer in their 
businesses or professions. Naturally the Communist Party is pleased by any 
action that discourages repentant ex-Communists from helping the United States. 

Mr. Scherer. Mr. Chairman, a number of newspapers throughout 
the United States have written similar editorials. I do not have 
all of them with me, but I would lilve to ask leave to insert in the 
record at this point, an editorial from the Cincinnati Enquirer. 

The Chairman. I might add that I wrote a letter to the American 
University the moment I heard, or as soon as there was any intinia- 
tion at all that Professor Fuchs was to be suspended. I do not think 
that I have even received a reply to my letter, which I would like to 
incorporate in the record at this point. 



2990 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 

So without objection, the editorial mentioned by Mr. Scherer and 
the letter I wrote to the university will be made a part of the record 
ut this point, and identified as "Fuchs Exhibits Nos, 1 and 2." 

FucHS Exhibit No. 1 

Congress of the United States, 

House of Representatives, 
Committee on Un-American Activities, 

Washington, September 16, 1955. 
Hon. Hurst R. Anderson, 

President, The American University, 

Washington 16, D. C. 
Dear Mr. Anderson: I was disappointed to learn of the action taken by 
American University with respect to Prof. Herbert Fuchs. 

If repentant Communists are to be punished because of their cooperation with 
committees of Congress charged with the responsibility of exposing the Communist 
conspiracy, these committees will not be able to get the kind of help that is so 
vital, if the committees are to carry out their functions. 

I respectfully request that you take another look at this matter in order to 
determine whether or not the recent action was in the best interest of the United 
States. 

Thanking you, I am, 
Sincerely yours, 

Francis E. Walter, 
Chairman, Committee on Un-American Activities. 



Fuchs Exhibit No. 2 

[The Cincinnati Enquirer, Sept. 29, 1955] 

The Fuchs Case 

A onetime solicitor for the National Labor Relations Board, i. e., the board's 
chief prosecuting officer, by name Herbert Fuchs, testified some time back that 
he had belonged to three Communist cells in the Government. Mr. Fuchs, who 
broke with the party in 1948, according to his testimony, named names, dates, 
and places before the House Un-American Activities Committee. 

A good many Americans, including Representative Gordon L. Scherer (Repub- 
lican, Ohio), a committee member, believe that Mr. Fuchs performed a laudable 
and valuable service to his country. 

Mr. Fuchs is a law teacher at American University in Washington, has been 
since 1949. That university's president, Hurst R. Anderson, encouraged Mr. 
Fuchs to come clean with the committee. Now Dr. Anderson insists upon firing 
Fuchs, who does not have the privilege of tenure. There is no intimation that 
the lawyer is less competent or desirable as a law professor than when President 
Anderson counseled him to testify fully. 

The American Civil Liberties LTnion, Mr. Scherer, and others, including the 
Washington Post and Times Herald, deplore President Anderson's decision on 
varying grounds. 

As it happens, American University is affiliated with the Methodist Church. 
Bishop G. Bromley Oxnam administers the Washington area of his church. The 
bishop has had a great deal to say about the disabilities suffered by witnesses 
before congressional committees inquiring into Communist activities. It seems 
unlikely that he will view the penalty visited upon witness Fuchs with approval. 

Mr. Scherer. While we are on this subject, Mr. Chairman, may 
1 ask a few questions in an effort to clarify what happened? 

Professor, when was the first time that you testified before the 
committee? 

Mr. Fuchs. I testified for the first time in executive session on 
June 13 of this year, before a subcommittee composed of Mr. Doyle, 
chairman, and Mr. Willis and Mr. Velde. 

Mr. Scherer. What date? 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 2991 

Mr. FucHS. That was Monday, June 13, 1955. 

Mr. ScHERER. At your first appearance before the committee, on 
June 13, I understand that you admitted your membership in the 
Communist Party, but refused to tell the committee about other 
individuals whom you knew in Government to be members of the 
Communist Party, and their activities; is that right? 

Mr. FucHS. That is true. 

Mr. ScHERER. Then it was after your refusal to tell the committee 
about these other individuals that President Anderson, of American 
University, issued this highly laudatory statement about you? That 
is, it was issued following your refusal to testify; isn't that right? 

Mr. FucHS. Yes; that is so. 

Mr. ScHERER. Part of it was read by Mr. Tavenner as it appeared 
in the editorial in the Saturday Evening Post. The actual statement 
made by the president of the university, after the professor had 
refused to testify about his associates, reads in part as follows: 

Professor Fuchs is known in our Washington College of Law as an intelligent 
loyal, and devoted teacher. He made a serious mistake in the past which he has 
recognized and declared. The American University therefore would support his 
right as a citizen to pursue his chosen professional activities, to take any other 
position at this time would be beneath the dignity of the institution with a 
Christian relationship and commitments. 

Now then, subsequent to your first appearance before the com- 
mittee, and subsequent to this statement by President Anderson, you 
again appeared before the committee in executive session, did you not? 

Mr. Fuchs. That is right, sir. 

Mr. ScHERER. And what was the date of that appearance? 

Mr. Fuchs. July 15, 1955. 

Mr. ScHERER. And at that appearance before the committee, you 
told of the activities of others in Government who were also members 
of the Communist Party at the time that you were, did you not? 

Mr. Fuchs. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Scherer. You named names, did you not? 

Mr. Fuchs. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Scherer. In substance, your testimony in that executive 
session was such as you are giving here today? 

Mr. Fuchs. Yes, sir; that is right. 

Mr. Scherer. Immediately after it was revealed through the press 
that you had testified fully and completely, I beheve you were called, 
by the president of the university to his office; were you not? 

Mr. Fuchs. I was called by the president to his office on the same 
day. 

Mr. Scherer. On the same day? 

Mr. Fuchs. Yes. 

Mr. Scherer. At that time were you asked to appl}^ for leave of 
absence or you would be suspended? 

Mr. Fuchs. Yes, that is right. 

Mr. Scherer. Were you given any kind of a hearing by the uni- 
versity after your testimony before this committee? 

Mr. Fuchs. I was given an interview before the chairman of the 
board and the president on the day on which they asked me to take 
the leave of absence. 

Mr. Scherer. Who is the chairman of the board? 

Mr. Fuchs. Mr. R. V. Fletcher. 



2992 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 

Mr. ScHERER. They interviewed you? 

Mr. FucHs. Yes; and that interview resulted in their insistence on 
a leave of absence. 

Mr. ScHERER. .Did you tell them on that day that'you had testi- 
fied fully and freely before the committee earlier that, day? 

Mr. FucHS. Yes; I think they knew the same thing from Chairman 
Walter. 

The Chairma;:. Actually didn't they suggest to you^that you ought 
to testify? 

Mr. FucHS. Oh, yes. The president urged me to. 

Mr. ScHERER. And subsequently, I understand, 3"ou were sus- 
pended or your contract is not to be renewed? 

Air. FucHS. That is correct. 

Mr. ScHERER. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that they praised 
this witness and said that they would keep him on at the institution 
immediately after he had refused to testify, when they perhaps 
should have condemned him, and then after he does cooperate with 
the congressional committee ihej fire him. I am at a loss to under- 
stand that action on the part of the universit}^. 

I understand from a reliable source that the president in asking 
the board of trustees to fii"e the professor made three points. No. 1, 
the universit}^ did not know whether he svas still a Communist, 
although in his original statement after he had testified initially the 
president said : 

The question raised in the Mr. Herbert Fuchs case was: "Was he a party 
member or worker when employed by American University, and is he now a 
member of the party, or in any way related to the Communist Party when 
employed by this university, or since has he been a member or worker in the 
Communist Party?" 

Well, that is certainh' inconsistent with the president's statement to 
the board at the time he asked the board to suspend Professor Fuchs. 
I would say that the universit}^ didn't take the trouble to inquire of 
this committee as to what his testimony was, or whether Mr. Fuchs 
was a member of the Communist Party. 

The Chairman. You are mistaken there, because I told the presi- 
dent myself that he was not. 

Mr. ScHERER. You told him he was not? Then it makes it so much 
the worse. I didn't know that. Then they still gave as one of the 
grounds for asking for his dismissal that the}^ didn't know at the time 
whether he was still a member of the Communist Partv. 

The second reason they gave for recommending his dismissal was 
that the college had no idea what the professor had told the committee. 
There was a third reason, about which I am not so sure. 

Let me ask you, Professor, is Bishop Oxnam a member of the board? 

Mr. Fuchs. Yes, sn. 

Mr. ScHERER. Is it a Methodist college? 

Mr. Fuchs. It is affiliated with the Alethodist Church. 

Mr. ScHERER. Is he the bishop of the Methodist Church in 
Washington? 

Mr. Fuchs. Yes, sh. 

Mr. ScHERER. I have no further questions. 

Mr. Tavenner. I have not asked you the question yet, but I think 
that I should now. 

Are you noAV a member of the Communist Party? 



COMJVIUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 2993 

Mr. FucHS. Thank you, Mr. Tavenner. No; I am not. 

Mr. Tavenner. When did you termmate your membership in the 
Communist Party? 

Mr. FucHS. I have not been a member of the Communist Party 
since about the middle of 1946. 

Mr. Tavenner. I will want to ask you more about that at a later 
time. 

The Chairman. There has never been any question about that cut- 
off date. You were not a member of the Communist Party when you 
went on the faculty of American University? 

Mr. FucHs. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you still employed by the NLRB at the time 
that you terminated your membership in the Communist Party? 

Mr. FucHS. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. Let us return to your employment by the Board 
of Economic Warfare. 

What contact did you make within the Board of Economic Warfare 
as a means for procuring ^pointment? 

Mr. FucHS. Allan Rosenberg who was then working there, and 
I guess knew I was anxious to get away from the Labor Board, called 
me up and said, "Come on over, I think that perhaps I can get you a 
job." 

Mr. Tavenner. And did he get you a job? 

Mr. FucHS. I got a job; yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. And you went to work there? 

Mr. FucHS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. What was the general nature of vour employment 
with the BEW? 

Mr. FucHS. It was very rudimentary research for a project which 
at that tune didn't have any immediately foreseeal^le future, as to 
how were we going to govern territory that we regained from the 
enemy. We were at war and we at that point were losing the war 
and this was a long-range project about reoccupation of territory. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was it the planning of military government in 
reoccupied countries? 

Mr. FucHS. Yes; that is right. It was one of several outfits that 
was interested in that area. I thinlv ultimately it lost out. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long did you remain with the Board of 
Economic Warfare? 

Mr. FucHS. I was there only a month. 

Mr. Tavenner. Why did you leave? 

Mr. FucHS. Because I learned that I might get a job in my own 
field, which was labor, in an agency that was a war agency, namely, 
the National War Labor Board. 

Mr. Tavenner. During the period that you were in the Board of 
Economic Warfare, did you learn whether or not there was an organ- 
ized group of the Communist Party within that organization? 

Mr. FucHs. No, sir; I did not. 

(At this point, Chairman Walter left the hearing room.) 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you retain your membership in your old 
group in the NLRB during that month's period? 

Mr. FucHs. There is no question in my mind but what I retained 
my membership in the Communist Party. I do not recall whether 
I continued to meet with that group or just stopped meeting with it 
as it were, temporarily. 



2994 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 

Mr. Tavenner. Did Allan Rosenberg in offering you this chance 
of employment in the Board of Economic Warfare, know at that 
time that you were a member of the Communist Party? 

Mr. FucHS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you ever in a group or cell of the Communist 
Party at any later time with Allan Rosenberg? 

Mr. FucHs. No. 

Mr. Tavenner. When you say you saw an opportunity to become 
employed in the field of labor, what did you do? 

Mr. FucHS. I made application for employment or I sounded out 
some people who were not Communists, but who had worked at the 
National Labor Relations Board and were now einployed at the 
National War Labor Board. They told me that there was a freeze, 
and that the National War Labor Board would not continue to hire 
employees away from the National Labor Relations Board. I then 
pointed out to them that I had already left the National Labor 
Relations Board, and they said, "Well, in that case there is no freeze 
applicable to you, and it may be that you can be employed." ^^Tiere- 
upon, they referred mo to an executive of the National War Labor 
Board who did employ me. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was your first employment in the city of Wash- 
ington? 

Mr. FucHS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long did you remain there? 

Mr. FucHS. I calculate that I remained in Washington from 
around Thanksgiving Day of 1942 until January 26 of the following 
year. It was just about 2 months. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you aware of the existence of an organized 
group of the Communist Party within the National War Labor Board 
in Washington? 

Mr. FucHS. No, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. During that 2-month period, what were your 
Communist affiliations? 

Mr. FucHS. They either were continuing with the Labor Board 
crowd, or else they were suspended animation, and I rather think that 
by that time I had stopped going to meetings, and I just had no 
affiliations. 

Mr. Tavenner. I understand that at the end of that 2-month 
period, 5^ou were transferred to Denver? 

Mr. FucHS. That is correct. 

Mr. Tavenner. How did that come about? 

Mr. FucHS. The National War Labor Board had resolved to em- 
bark upon a program of decentralization, and the establishment of 
regional offices. Up to that time it just had the Washington office. 
There was considerable scramble for posts in the regional offices, in 
which I did not participate. But there was also a promotion in my 
shop, which I was not going to get, with a consequence that when 
Mr. Charles Graham approached me 

Mr. Tavenner. What position did he hold? 

Mr. FucHS. He was the projected chauman of the Denver regional 
board. Wlien he approached me with a proposition that I might be 
interested in being the Disputes Director in Denver, I discussed it for 
a considerable time with my wife and family and decided that that 
was an opportunity I would accept. 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 2995 

Mr. Tavenner. Do 3^011 know wliethor Phil Reno, whose name 
you mentioned earher as having been a representative from the 
Social Secm-ity Board on the section group of the Communist Party 
in the District of Columbia, played any part in your recommendation 
for employment hi Denver? 

Mr. FucHS. I don't know that he pla^^ed any part, but certainly 
it isn't unlikely that he played a part. He was friendly with Mr. 
Graham, and I believe he was in Colorado when this staffing was 
underway. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you accept this assignment in Denver? 

Mr. FucHS. Yes, sh. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was that in the days of the formation of the staff 
of the National War Labor Board in Denver? 

Mr. FucHS. Yes, I think so. There had been a rudimentary office 
staff at the close of 1942. I think it consisted solely of a wage stabili- 
zation group. The actual organization of the Board as a Board I 
believe was perfected in February. That means that I arrived in 
Denver just a few days before the regional board constituted itself, 
and I was hired in connection with the staff of the regional board. 

Mr. Tavenner. ^^Tiat was your position on the staff? 

Mr. FucHS. Dhector of the Disputes Division. 

Mr. Tavenner. Wlien you arrived in Denver, did you learn of the 
presence there of other persons who had been associated with you in 
the Communist Party in Washington? 

Mr. FucHs. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Tell us about that. 

Mr. FucHS. Well, when I arrived, Reno and Scheunemann were 
alread}^ in Denver and within a few days of my arrival, Kurasch ar- 
rived. Some time later the Porters came to Denver, he taking a post 
with the Board. 

Mr. Moulder. Did you say the head of the Denver ofl&ce ap- 
proached you about this appointment as dhector? 

Mr. FucHS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Moulder. What was his name? 

Mr. FucHS. Mr. Charles A. Graham. 

Mr. Moulder. Do you know whether or not he had any knowledge 
or information as to your leadership or membership in the Communist 
Party at that time? 

Mr. FucHS. No, I do not know. 

Mr. Tavenner. Have you any knowledge of Communist Party 
membership or affiliation on his part? 

Mr. FucHS. No, I want very emphatically to say that I do not. 

Mr. Scherer. Of course we have no such information, and we don't 
pretend to have. 

Mr. Tavenner. That is correct. 

Was, Martin Kurasch one of those who had assisted jou in the 
organization of the Communist cell at the NLRB in 1937? 

Mr, FucHS. He and I had done it; yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. What position did Kurasch hold with the National 
War Labor Board in Denver? 

Mr. FucHS. He came on to be regional attorney. 

Mr. Tavenner. Had he discussed the assignment with you, or you 
with him prior to your meeting him in Denver? 



.2996 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 

Mr. FucHS. No. I recall the circumstances which helps me to be 
certain. He was not in Washington when this thing happened. He 
was somewhere else, and I think he was in St. Louis, and now it occurs 
to me that Martin Kurasch put in some time with the Rural Elec- 
trification Administration. I believe he was stationed in St. Louis. 
In any event he and I arrived at Denver from different parts of the 
United States. 

Mr. Tavenner. You stated another present at Denver with whom 
jou had worked in the Communist Party was Edward Scheunemann? 

Mr. FucHs. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was he with the WLB in Denver or some other 
Government agency? 

Mr. FucHs. No, he was physical!}' in Denver but working for OPA. 

Mr. Tavenner. You stated John W. Porter arrived from what 
place? 

Mr. FucHs. I think the west coast, and I don't remember exactly 
how early in the history of the Denver Board he arrived. 

Mr. Tavenner. By whom was he employed? 

Mr. FucHs. I think he became an attorne}' in the office of the 
regional attorney. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did his wife come with him? 

Mr. FucHs. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. That is Margaret Bennett Porter, whom you said 
was an attorney with the NLRB? 

Mr. FucHs. She had been. 

Mr. Tvvenner. And a member of your Communist Party cell? 

Mr. FucHs. Yes. sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was she employed by the War Labor Board in 
Denver? 

]Mr. FucHs. No, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was she employed by the Government in Denver? 

Mr. FucHS. I believe she was not emploj'-ed at all in Denver. 

Mr. Tavenner. Have you said Phil Reno was one of those you 
found present in Denver when you arrived? 

Mr. FucHS. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. How was he employed? 

Mr. FucHs. I think he was then already an employee of the regional 
office. 

Mr. Tavenner. Of the National War Labor Board? 

Mr. FucHs. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. So you found in Denver many of this same group 
with which you had worked before in the Communist Party. On 
ascertaining that these people were present, what did you do? 

Mr. FucHS. We coalesced into a group. 

Mr. Tavenner. In a Communist Party group or cell? 

Mr. FucHS. Yes, su*. 

Mr. Tavenner. Composed chiefly of employees^of the National 
War Labor Board? 

Mr. FucHS. That is right. I should say that it was composed or 
the communitj^ of interest was employment with the National War 
Labor Board, but it was organized to include spouses of employees 
who happened to be Communists. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was the wife of Martin Kurasch a member of 
that group affiliated with the Communist Party? 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 2997 

Mr, FucHS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. What was her name? 

Mr. FucHs. LiUian. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was the wife of Edward Scheunemann a member 
of your group? 

Mr. FucHS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. What was her name? 

Mr. FucHS. Ceceha. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know how Ceceha Scheunemann was 
employed? 

Mr. FucHS. She came to be the secretary to the Chairman of the 
Board. 

Mr. Tavenner. Of the National War Labor Board? 

Mr. FucHS. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know from what part of the country she 
came before arriving in Denver? 

Mr. FucHS. No; I am not sure, and I don't know where she came 
to Denver from. She had at one time been the secretary to one of 
the National Labor Relations Board members. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you loiow in what area that was? 

Mr. FucHS. That was in Washington. It was rather early in my 
employment by the Board. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know whether she was recruited into the 
Communist Party in Denver, or whether she had been a member 
prior to her arriving there? 

Mr. FucHS. I believe she was recruited in Denver. 

Mr. Tavenner. When you formed this group of the Communist 
Party in Denver, did you have a higher authority to which you had 
to report? 

Mr. FucHS. The best of my recollection of that is that Phil Reno 
was our contact with higher authority, and to the best of my recol- 
lection the constitution of higher authority in Denver was that it 
was the local party office. 

Mr. Tavenner. Then I understand you to say it was Phil Reno 
who was in contact with that authority? 

Mr. FucHs. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you at any time in contact with that 
authority? 

Mr. FucHS. No, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did the superior authority in Denver appear before 
your group at any time? 

Mr. FucHS. My embarrassment in answering that is that I have 
been assurred that it did, and I don't have a clear independent 
recollection of it. 

Mr. Tavenner. Don't testify to something on which you are not 
clear in your own mind. 

Mr. FucHS. I just don't recall. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you recall whether functionaries on a higher 
level of the Communist Party did appear before your group from time 
to time? 

Mr. FucHS. I recall, it would not be from time to time in any peri- 
odic sense, but I recall one instance in which somebody relatively 
high did appear before our group. I think that it was on the occa- 
sion of the attack on the American Communist Party by Mr. Duclos, 



2998 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 

and I think it was around that time where there was one of the 
changes in Une. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you talking about the issue that arose from 
the Duclos letter? 

Mr. FucHS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you remember who that functionary was? 

Mr. FucHS. It was a lady, and I think her name was Betty Gan- 
nett. 

Mr. Tavenner. How many persons composed that group of the 
Communist Party? 

Mr. FucHS. Well, the number varied, and I think of 12 people, in 
addition to Phil Reno who have been members of it, and I don't 
know that they were all members at the same time. 

Mr. Tavenner. How many of the 12 were employees of the War 
Labor Board? 

Mr. FucHS. I think, just about seven. 

Mr. Tavenner. How many employees were there in the National 
War Labor Board in Denver at the time of the membership of these 
seven people? 

Mr. FucHS. I don't think that I could even make an intelligent 
guess. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was there more than one organized group of the 
Communist Party within the staff of the National War Labor Board 
in Denver? 

Mr. FucHs. Yes; there were two. 

Mr. Tavenner. Two cells? 

Mr. FucHS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you ever attend a meeting of the other cell? 

Mr. FucHS. No, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was there more than one cell organized within the 
National Labor Relations Board during your first employment, from 
October 1937 to 1942? 

Mr. FucHS. Yes; there were two that I know of. 

Mr. Tavenner. Going back for a moment to your National Labor 
Relations Board experience, did you attend the meetings of the 
second cell? 

Mr. FucHs. No. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know to what higher authority that second 
cell was required to report? 

Mr. FucHs. Well I actually don't. I could speculate but I don't 
think that I should. I don't know. 

Mr. Tavenner. Coming back to this group of old associates you 
found in Denver, didn't you think it more than just passingly strange 
that you should find yourself in this new employment surrounded by 
so many persons who had been active in the Communist Party with 
you before that time? 

Mr. FucHs. It wasn't strange under the circumstances. It would 
follow, I suppose, that if people who were living or working in Denver 
thought well of one, they would recommend one, and so it didn't 
seem strange, no. There were not so many either initially. There 
were about four that I had been working with, plus Mr. Reno. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you responsible in any way for recommending 
any of the Communist Party members for employment in Denver? 

Mr. FucHs. Recommending them for employment? 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OP GOVERNMENT 2999 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes, for encouraging them to seek employment 
there. 

Mr. FucHS. I don't think so. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did Phil Reno to your knowledge? 

Mr. FucHs. Well, I don't know. If he did, you see, he did it in 
Denver, and it resulted in invitations, but I don't know. 

Mr. Tavenner. After your arrival in Denver, did Phil Reno take 
an active part in staffing the board? 

Mr. FucHS. I think that he made a number of recommendations. 

Mr. Willis. Is there any question about that in your mind that 
he did? 

Mr. Tavenner. No; not at all. 

Mr. W^iLLis. Not in mine either from what we developed in 
Denver. 

Mr. Tavenner. That is based on testimony which has not been 
made public. 

Will you tell us at this point the names of the other persons who 
became members of your group in Denver in addition to the original 
nucleus from which you started? 

Mr. FucHs. Gerald Matchett, G-e-r-a-1-d M-a-t-c-h-e-t-t, and his 
wife Margaret. 

Mr. Tavenner. What was Gerald Matchett's position? 

Mr. FucHs. He was an economist and I think he achieved the 
post of Wage Stabilization Director. 

Mr. Tavenner. I believe he achieved the post of the head of the 
Economics Division. Do you know whether he was a member of 
the Communist Party before coming to Denver or was he recruited 
there for the first time? 

Mr. FucHs. No; I do not know. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was his wife an employee of the War Labor 
Board? 

Mr. FucHs. No, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you proceed, please? 

Mr. FucHS. Raymond LaVallee, L-a V-a-1-l-e-e, and his wife, 
Corina, C-o-r-i-n-a. 

Mr. Tavenner. How was Raymond LaVallee employed? 

Mr. FucHS. He was an economist. 

Mr. Tavenner. At the WLB? 

Mr. FucHS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. In Denver? 

Mr. FucHS. Yes, sir. He may technically have been on the staff 
of the Nonferrous Metals Commission which was housed in the 
same place and had the same chairman, but actually I think most of 
those people served both agencies. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was he a new recruit into the Communist Party 
while there, or was his membership picked up? 

Mr. FucHS. I don't know, and with respect to both the Matchetts 
and the LaVallees, I don't recall their recruitment. There may be 
an inference from that that they were members before I met them. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were vou acquainted with a person by the name 
of Robert W. Williams? 

Mr. FucHs. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was he a member of your group of the Communist 
Party? 



3000 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 

Mr. FucHs. He was not. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you proceed, please? 

Mr. FucHs. Dwiglit Spencer, and Mary Spencer, his wife. 

Mr. Tavenner. How was Mr. Spencer employed? 

Mr. FucHs. He may have started as an economist but he came 
into the Disputes Division as a disputes officer, that is to say, in my 
Division, and I believe he ended or he was the last disputes director 
the Board had. That is my recollection. He went up the line then. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was he freshly recruited in the Communist Party 
at Denver? 

Mr. FucHS. I don't know of his recruitment. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are there others? 

Mr. FucHS. Yes. Don Plumb, P-1-u-m-b, and his wife, Arlyne, 
A-r-1-y-n-e. 

Mr. Moulder. May I interpose a question? Why is the wife 
mentioned? None of the wives was employed? 

Mr. FucHs. Curiously, I just came to the family in which the 
wife was employed at the agency and the husband was not, as in 
the case of the Plumbs; she worked at the agency, and he was a 
physician. 

Mr. Moulder. Were the other wives you mentioned employed? 

Mr. FucHS. In all of the other cases, it seems to me, or in most of 
the other cases, the husband was employed at the agency, and the 
wife was unemployed. An exception is the Scheunemanns, where 
Mrs. Scheunemann was employed at the agency and her husband at 
OPA. 

Mr. Tavenner. I think you testified earlier' that in contrast to the 
situation in Washington, the wives belonged with their husbands in 
this group in Denver? 

Mr. FucHS. That is right. 

Mr. Tavenner. How was Ai-lyne Plumb employed? 

Mr. FucHS. She was a wage analyst. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you acquainted with a person by the name 
of Glen Earle? 

Mr. FucHs. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was he a member of your group? 

Mr. FucHS. No, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know the names of any of the members of 
the second group? 

Mr. FucHs. No. I don't want to speculate. 

Mr. Tavenner. That is all right. 

Was the activity of the Communist cells in Denver rather open in 
the sense that their existence in the National War Labor Board was 
notorious? 

Mr. FucHS. I don't loiow — I really don't. I certainly didn't 
want it to be notorious, and how notorious it was I can't tell you. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you recall whether the Daily Worker was 
distributed among the staff on their desks in their offices? 

Mr. FucHs. This did not occur. I didn't observe it occurring and 
I have heard this kind of story. I can neither affirm or deny it and 
it didn't happen in my presence. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you recall that during the time you were in 
Denver a complaint was made to the Director of the Board of the 
existence of Communist cells and Connnunist activity within the 
staff? 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 3001 

Mr. FucHs. I knew about a complaint that had been made to 
Mr. Graham, the subject of which was communism, yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did that occur before your arrival or after your 
arrival? 

Mr. FucHs. I am not right sure. I know it wasn't settled until 
after my arrival because I was m Denver when the Chairman of the 
new Board and his two Vice Chairmen heard and considered the 
matter. I think it originated, or the complaint originated before my 
arrival. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you recall the nature of the complaint that 
was made? 

Mr. FucHs. Yes, and I would be glad to tell you about it, but I 
don't think I want to go into names in this connection because it is 
pure hearsay. 

Someone complained that an effort had been made to recruit him 
into the Communist Party, and he apparently didn't want to be 
recruited into the Communist Party and he also thought that there 
was a wrong involved. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was it a complaint made by this one individual 
that there had been an effort to recruit him into the Communist 
Party? 

Mr. FucHS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you recall whether the complaint also was that 
there had been discrimination against him both as to his salary, and 
as to his work assignment because he had not joined the Com- 
munist Party? 

Mr. FucHS. No; I don't recall that. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you recall whether the complaint also included 
the delivery and distribution of the Daily Worker? 

Mr. FucHS. No; I don't. You see the complaint didn't actually 
come to me, and I just knew about it and I don't recall any of the 
details. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know whether there was an investigation 
based on charges or complaints? 

Mr. FucHS. Yes; based on a complaint. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did anything happen as a result of the investi- 
gation? 

Mr. FucHS. As far as I laiow, there were no dismissals. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you promoted during the course of your 
employment at Denver to a higher position than you had first occupied? 

Mr. FucHS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. What was that position? 

Mr. FucHs. In August of 1944, I was promoted to the position of 
vice chairman and public member of the regional board, and vice 
chairman and public member of the Non ferrous Metals Commission. 

Mr. Tavenner. As head of the Disputes Division, and also as 
vice chairman of the Nonferrous Metals Commission, were you 
required to deal rather closely with different trade unions? 

Mr. FucHs. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. In the performance of your duties, what luiion 
would you say required most of your attention? 

Mr. FucHS. That is an almost impossible question for me to answer. 
The two agencies had slightly different clientele. The regional board 
was purely geographic and it involved I think, six Mountain States, 



3002 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 

We had all kinds of little business and medium-sized business as our 
customers in the regional board. Actually the bulk of our business 
was the city of Denver, because we would catch business right near 
where our office was. In there, I would suppose that some of the 
AFL craft unions and the like, were probably our most active labor 
customers. On the other hand, when you turn to the Nonferrous 
Metals Commission, its jurisdiction being the 13 Western S'tates, we 
would handle labor disputes between employers and essentially one 
important CIO union, which was the International Union of Mine, 
Mill, and Smelter Workers, and then there would also be in verj' 
many of these places craft groups of importance and interest. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was Nathan Witt counsel for the Aline, Mill, and 
Smelter Workers Union? 

Mr. FucHS. I think he was but I am not sure. I think as a matter 
of fact they had a general counsel called Willard Morris, and I think 
Witt became or had some business with them, but there were others, 
too. 

Mr. Tavexner. Did Nathan Witt personally conduct any business 
before you? 

Mr. FucHS. Not to my recollection at any time in Denver. I think 
it might be well to say that this promotion to public membership was 
not something that could be achieved without at least the consent of 
the industry and labor interests, on the regional board. 

Mr. Tavenner. The consent of what groups? 

Mr. FucHs. The respective partisan groups, industry and labor. 
These were tripartite boards and while staff was pretty much up to 
the chairman to hire, membership on the board could not be achieved 
without the consent of the interest groups. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell us please whether or not this group 
of the Communist Party organized principally within the staff of the 
National War Labor Board functioned in about the same manner as 
your cell within the NLRB, as to its work, what it considered in its 
meetings, and as to what it did? 

Mr. FucHs. That is my recollection; yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long did you remain with the National War 
Labor Board? 

Mr. FucHs. Until its separation. It expired the end of the calendar 
year 1945. In anticipation of its separation, I exercised reemploy- 
ment rights with the National Labor Relations Board in Wasliington, 
with a consequence that I drove back East with my family around the 
middle of December. 

Mr. Tavenner. You again became employed with the NLRB? 

Mr. FucHs. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. In what position were vou emploved bv the 
NLRB? 

Mr. FucHs. I came back to a position of supervisor in the Review 
Section. By this time the Review Section had gotten itself further 
organized with a consequence that there was a kind of head supervisor 
for representation cases, and a head supervisor for complaint cases, 
and I filled that spot, head supervisor for representation cases. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long was 3'our second emplovment bv the 
NLRB? 

Mr. FucHs. Until October of 1948. 

Mr. Tavenner. When you came back to the NLRB in 1946, did 
you find a cell of the Communist Partj still functioning? 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 3003 

Mr. FucHs. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was it the same cell which you had left as far as 
3^011 could tell? 

Mr. FucHs. I think of it as the same cell, because some of the same 
people were still around and still in it. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were there some new people in it? 

Mr. FucHS. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you reafRliate with it? 

Mr. FucHS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. How did you happen to reafRliate or in other words, 
what were the mechanics for your reaffiliation? 

Mr. FucHS. I am not sure there were any mechanics. I don't 
know. I think perhaps what happened was that I simply found some 
of the same people and proceeded to start meeting with them. 

Mr. Tavenner. What was your first contact with the group? 
That is, do you recall with whom? 

Mr. FucHS. No, I don't remember. I think that in that period — 
we are now reaching the period where my membership in the Com- 
munist Party is rapidly growing to a close. This was early 1946. I 
do know that I did return to some fragmentary contact with the 
group, and I am not sure I met more than twice with it, and I am pretty 
vague on the details of that period. It is the most recent but it is 
the vaguest, but that is the way it is. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you give us the names at this time of those 
who still remained in that group of your earlier cell, and any new 
members of it? 

Mr. FucHS. I am pretty sure that Frank Donner and David Rein 
and Ruth Weyand were still around and were still meeting. I think 
of two new people with whom I had not met before. Selma Rein 

Mr. Tavenner. Was she employed by the NLRB? 

Mr. FucHS. I think not. I am pretty sure Selma Rein was not 
and Helen Hill, H-i-1-1, who was employed by the NLRB. 

Mr. Tavenner. In what capacity was she employed? 

Mr. FucHS. I think she was a statistician. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was she known by any other name? 

Mr. FucHS. Her maiden name was Roark, and her husband's name 
was Himmelfarb. Her name is Helen Roark, and she married a Mr. 
Himmelfarb, and they changed their names to Hill. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you give the spelling of Himmelfarb? 

Mr. FucHs. H-i-m-m-e-1-f-a-r-b. 

Mr. Tavenner. Wliat was her participation in the Communist 
Party activities? 

Mr. FucHS. You know, I really can't tell you. I know that I met 
her at a meeting. As to the extent of her participation or what this 
group was doing in that 3"ear, I just don't know. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did vou meet in Communist Partv meetings with 
her? 

Mr. FucHS. At least one; yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was it at a closed Communist Party meeting? 

Mr. FucHS. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were there others? 

Mr. FucHS. I don't think of any others. 

Mr. Tavenner. If in reflecting on this matter the names of other 
persons are recalled by you to the point where you are definitely 
certain of their membership, would you advise the staff? 



3004 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 

Mr. FucHS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Moulder. The committee will stand in recess for a period of 
o minutes. 

(A short recess was taken.) 

Mr. Moulder. The committee will be in order. 

It has been necessary for Mr. Walter to leave the hearing at this 
point, and he has designated a subcommittee consisting of myself as 
chairman, and Mr. Willis and Mr. Scherer. All of the members of 
the subcommittee are present, and we will proceed. 

Mr. Tavenner. During the time of your first experience in the 
NLRB, that is from 1937 through 1942, did your contact, Victor 
Perlo, ever attend any of your Communist Party meetings? 

Mr. FucHS. Yes, he did; but not at first. At first he didn't come 
into the group at all. I would meet with the group and then with 
him and be the bridge between him and the group. 

Mr. Tavenner. The committee's investigation reflects that from 
time to time during this period that I mentioned, when certain prob- 
lems arose which your Communist Party group was unable to resolve, 
that on occasions you would say you had to consult "Mike" and on 
other occasions "the chief." Were "Mike" and "the chief" higiier 
autliorities within the NLRB? 

Mr. FucHS. No; Mike was Perlo; and the chief was Perlo. The 
consultation was simply with constituted authority in the party. 

Mr. Tavenner. By referring to "Alike" and "the chief" you meant 
Perlo? 

Mr. FucHS. That is right. I intended Perlo. His name was not 
known to the group, and his identity was not known to the group. 
Then after awhile, the group as I recall it, chafed with impatience at 
being kept so very much under wraps, and wanted to engage in some 
of the more usual mass organization type of activity. I became the 
go-between, between the group and Perlo, carrying these protests to 
him, and his negative resolution of the protests back, untU finally I 
told him that I couldn't satisfy them. As a matter of fact, I tended 
to agree with them, and so he then agreed to meet with the group and 
did on a number of occasions. He also failed to persuade us, and as a 
consequence of his failure to persuade us he gave up ultimately, and 
we were returned to contact with Stein. 

Mr. Tavenner. Let us have a little clearer understanding of what 
that issue was. After you were first assigned the job of organizing this 
cell within the NLRB, what Communist Party direction were you 
given regarding the way in which the members should conduct them- 
selves? I want to go back to the origin of this problem. 

Mr. FucHS. My present recollection of that is that we were told to 
be extremely inconspicuous in respect of our political beliefs, and in- 
active in organizations, and we were to stay out of them. 

Mr. Tavenner. You were to stay out of mass organizations? 

Mr. FucHS. Yes. I think an exception was always made for the 
local union on the theory that everybody ought to belong to a union 
if there was one. 

Mr. Tavenner. Then a person could be a member of a union and 
not arouse any suspicion? 

Mr. FucHS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. But you were told to keep out of mass organiza- 
tions? 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 3005 

Mr. FucHS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. By mass organizations do you mean the ordinary 
front organizations as they are generally referred to? 

Mr. FucHS. Yes, and it would also include organizations that were 
not front organizations. 

Mr. Tavenner. But any organization in which your participation 
would arouse suspicion that you were a member of the Communist 
Party would be the type of an organization that you were told to 
keep away from? 

Mr. FucHs. That is right. 

Mr. Tavenner. Why was it that the Communist Party felt it 
necessary to advise this group of people to sta}" out of mass organiza- 
tions? Wliat reason did it give you? 

Mr. FucHS. Again the reasons seem too obvious that I am not sure 
they gave it. But the reason I recall it was to avoid exposure. That 
could be the only reason. 

Mr. Tavenner. The reason is quite obvious. But it occurred to 
me that some language which would be of importance may have been 
used in discussing that matter with you. 

Mr. FucHS. I don't remember any. 

Mr. Tavenner. For instance, were you told that this group of 
people, with their philosophical training, were too valuable to the 
Communist Party to jeopardize their disclosure? 

Mr. FucHS. I suppose that would be what would be meant by "we 
desire to avoid exposure." 

Mr. Tavenner. Aside from your own desire individually as mem- 
bers of this group, wasn't it the Communist Party view — that you 
people, all of you lawyers, and trained individuals, many of you coming 
into this group of the Communist Party with prior Communist Party 
experience and training — that you were too valuable to run any risk 
of exposure? 

Air. FucHS. I think that is right. 

Mr. Tavenner. Isn't that a fair statement? 

Mr. FucHS. Yes. 

Mr. Moulder. You mean too valuable to the Communist Party 
philosophy and its functions. Is that what you mean by "too 
valuable"? 

Mr. FucHS, I would put it slightly differently, and I don't think it 
adds up to a difference. I think that the Communist Party felt that 
the job we were doing on our job was more valuable to the party than 
any amount of mass organization activity we could engage in. It 
didn't think that it wanted to jeopardize our jobs at the Board for 
whatever value might be in what we would do in a union or a club. I 
think that that is it. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you not thinlv it would also follow that the 
Communist Party did not want to jeopardize your possible usefulness 
to it in the future by having you exposed? 

Mr. FucHS. I don't know, I just don't know. 

Mr. Tavenner. When did you first become acquainted with Victor 
Perlo? 

Mr. FucHS, I became acquainted with him around the time I went 
to the NLRB. I was told that I ought to break my contact with the 
Stein group and meet individually with a man who would be intro- 
duced to me and who was introduced to me as "Mike." It was not 



3006 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 

very long, really, before his real name was made known to me. There 
was no tremendous effort to keep that from me, and pretty soon I 
knew it. As I say, after the passage of a period, and I can't even 
estimate the length of it — I know it was during that first period — he 
came to the group still as "Mike" and it appeared that some of the 
members of the group had known him, knew him as a human being 
with a name, and others didn't. Ultimately, as I say, he departed. 

Mr. Tavenner. Can you tell us who in the group knew Victor 
Perlo as a name or as an individual? 

Mr. FucHs. No; I can't. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know whether Allan Rosenberg did? 

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

Mr. Tavenner. Was Victor Perlo the one who gave the direction 
that you were not to join mass organizations? 

Mr. FucHs. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. You have already indicated that the membership 
of your group chafed under that directive and it was a constant 
source of dispute and disagreement? 

Mr. FucHs. That is right. 

Mr. Tavenner. Wliat position did he take when he appeared 
before your group to discuss that issue? 

Mr. FucHs. My recollection is that he simply reiterated the posi- 
tion that we had already discussed. Many of the members felt that 
their lives as bookworms — on the books of the job, to the exclusion 
of a more social kind of activity, were sterile, and they objected. 
This was a continuing thing, and I don't recall any particular expan- 
sion of the argument. 

Mr. Tavenner. As a result did you join a mass organization 
yourself? 

Mr. FucHS. Actually so; yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Several of them? 

Mr. FucHS. Yes, sir. You see, none of these things was absolutely 
recognized one way or the other. I recall that even though there 
was this interdiction against activity, some of us were unquestion- 
ably members of the lawyers guild, but it was after we won that 
argument that some of us became members of the Washington 
Committee for Democratic Action. 

Mr. Tavenner. How many of these lawyers who were members 
of the Communist Party became members of the National Lawyers 
GuUd? 

Mr. FucHS. May I be permitted to guess? Because I don't know. 

Mr. Scherer. He can give us an opinion. 

Mr. Tavenner. Let me put the question a little differently. Were 
they encouraged as a result of your meetings to become members of 
the National Lawyers Guild? 

Mr. FucHS. Yes, I think they probably all did, that was going to 
be my guess. 

Mr. Tavenner. Have I asked you about Robert J. Silberstein? 

Mr. FucHS. I think that you did, and I think that I said I don't 
recall him. 

Mr. Tavenner. He was the national secretary of that organization. 

The committee's investigation has shown that there was published 
inaDecember 1940 issue of the Washington Star Newspaper an adver- 
tisement regarding a mass meeting of the Washington Committee for 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 3007 

Democratic Action, which was to be held in Washington for the pur- 
pose of condemning the Government loyalty program. This adver- 
tisement announced that a committee had been appointed on that 
matter, and that the committee consisted, among others, of these 
persons*. Arthur Stein, Helen Miller, Edward Scheunemann, Eleanor 
Nelson, and yourself. Do you recall serving on such a committee? 

Mr. FucHS. I recall a meeting held in a hotel, at which there was 
a forum discussion, which I participated in. Yes, that is right. And 
the date also corresponds to my recollection. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was the Washington Committee for Democratic 
Action one of the mass organizations in which you did become inter- 
ested and take an active part? 

Mr. FucHS. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was not one of the purposes of that meeting to 
launch a movement for the protection of members of the Communist 
Party who had been employed by and then expelled from Govern- 
ment employment? 

Mr. FucHS. I don't know if I can answer that. I should suppose 
that objectively the answer should be "yes." That is to say, the 
activities of the group centered on protection of people or the attempt 
to protect people who had been discharged for communism. 

Mr. Tavenner. And also to protect members of the Communist 
Party from dismissal who were employed by the Government? 

Mr. FucHS. Yes; that is correct. I suppose that the committee 
would not have been averse to protecting someone who had not been 
a member of the Communist Party, 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you recall whether Helen Miller, one of the 
members of that committee, had been discharged from the Labor 
Department? 

Mr. FucHS. Yes. I don't know whether she had been discharged 
before this meeting. I know she was, and that she became, a famous 
case. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was the committee organized for the purpose of 
restoring her job to her? 

Mr. FucHS. There was such an activity, and I don't know whether 
that was directly related to the Washington committee or not. There 
was a notorious Helen Miller case in which a great deal of effort was 
devoted to getting her reinstated. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was the Edward Scheunemann who was active 
in that organization the same Edward Scheunemann who was with 
you in your Communist Party cell at the NLRB? 

Mr. FucHS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were there any other members of your cell at the 
NLRB who were active in this organization? 

Mr. FucHS. I don't recall offhand, and I imagine there were. 

Mr. Tavenner. Let me ask you about Frank Donner. Do you 
recall whether he was active in that? 

Mr. FucHS. I know he was interested in the organization, and 
sympathetic toward it, but I don't remember what he did. 

Mr. Tavenner. You are aware of the fact now, are you not, that 
this organization was cited by the Attorney General in 1947, and 
again in 1948, as subversive and Communist? 

Mr. FucHS. Yes. 



3008 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Fiichs, the committee has heard many wit- 
nesses who have had Government employment at some time in the 
past. A great many of those who testified were required at one 
time or another to file Government form 57 or some other form of 
statement of their history, in which a question was asked as to whether 
or not they had been a member of the Communist Party. Almost with- 
out exception those witnesses answered those questions by stating that 
they were not members of the Communist Party, although at the 
time they were either members or had been members. Did that 
occur in your case? 

Mr. FucHS. Yes, sir. 

Air. Tavenner. Were you interviewed at one time or another by 
members of the NLRB and asked questions which would call for your 
statement that you were or had been a member of the Communist 
Party, and you did not tell them that you had been a member? 

Mr. FucHS. That is right. 

Mr. Tavenner. That has been of such frequent occurrence that I 
think I should ask you the question: How does the Communist Party 
explain the action of its members which is as I say, almost a universal 
rule, when seeking Government employment, to deceive the Govern- 
ment about their Communist Party membership? 

Mr. FucHS. I certainly don't propose to tell you how the Com- 
munist Party explains it, because I don't know how it explains it 
and I am not a spokesman for it. I can tell you what happened in 
my case, if you want me to. 

Mr. Moulder. I can't hear you. Professor. 

Mr. FucHS. I said I couldn't answer for the Communist Party in 
explaining what it does. 

Mr. Tavenner. What I had in mind more than anything else was 
how the Communist Party could reconcile denial of Communist Party 
membership with the sanction of an oath by its members, or whether it 
attempts to reconcile it. 

Mr. FucHS. I can't reconcile it and I can't condone it on my owti 
part. I think I can explain what my feelings were when I did it. I 
don't know whether that would be characteristic or not. 

Mr. Tavenner. I am not so much interested in the matter as it 
applies to you as I am in the overall picture of it. What might be 
true in the case of one individual might be different with another. 
But it is the overall picture in which I am interested. In a matter of 
that kind, it must have been discussed in party councils. Every 
means of security have been thrown by the Communist Party around 
its members in Government. Do you agree to that? 

Mr. FucHS. They try to, yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. It must certainly have anticipated that every 
employee would have to answer the questions on form 57. Was it 
just taken for granted that the members who were applicants for 
employment by the Government would just falsify that form or were 
they told to falsify it or how was the matter considered in Com- 
munist Party councils? 

Mr. FucHS. The scope of the question is bigger than I am. I 
cannot answer it for the party. I can tell 3^ou what happened to me 
and what may have happened to some of the people around me without 
wanting to excuse it or condone it. I think that I know what happened. 
But I can't speak for the Communist Party on this question. I just 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 3009 

can't. I could say to you very glibly that it was a part of the Com- 
munist doctrine that the ends justify the means, and that if j'-our sub- 
stantive purposes were good then any means you resorted to, to 
accomplish them were thereby sanctified. You are familiar with that. 
I think it is a very misguided notion, and it was one of the central 
theses of Communists. I think maybe there is a shorthand explana- 
tion of it, if you would like. 

There were also aspects of the thing, the way it developed, that 
made us feel, or made me feel a little bit sore at being confronted 
with prohibitions where theretofore I hadn't been. I had come into 
the Government lawfully, and I had been a Communist, and I had 
not disclosed it but I hadn't been asked. It was not unlawful for 
me to be a Communist in the first few years of my employment. It 
later became increasingly unlawful. I don't excuse wliat I did when 
I say to you that there was an element of resentment or an element 
that "they can't do that to me," and I am in this job and I have a 
right to it, and now they are just making it illegal. I just hope that 
no member of the committee will construe any of this as justification — 
it isn't. I don't mean it as justification. 

Mr. Moulder. Was it your reasoning at that time? 

Mr. FucHS. Yes, sir, and when I think back, what do I really 
regret about all of this? Wliat shames me? 

It appears to me that the only thing that I was impelled to do 
that I can't stand behind is this deceit, this deceitfulness of which 
Mr. Tavenner has been talking. It was not good; it was bad. It 
troubles me very much. 

Mr. Tavenner. The point I make is that the Communist Party 
functionaries knew that a person could not get Government employ- 
ment without doing that very thing. 

Mr. FucHS. Retrospectively, Mr. Tavenner, it seems to me that 
there is an advantage to the Communists and this is the trap of 
communism in their own illegality, because as thej^ are a conspiracy 
and secret, then every member is involved in a kind of trap, poten- 
tially a blackmail trap or perhaps onlj^ a trap with respect to his 
sentimental desire not to involve other people in trouble. As soon 
as he has engaged in one or more violations of the law, he is in a hostage 
to this conspii-acy to which he perhaps altruistically lent himself in 
the first instance. But I don't know if it is worth anything to the 
committee to hear these speculations and perhaps I should drop them. 

Mr. Moulder. I think it is an explanation of your conduct, because 
as I understand you, 3^ou did not consider yourself involved in a 
conspiracy at that time. 

Mr. FucHS. Only to this extent, Mr. Moulder, that if a group 
denies its existence and lies about its identity, it is a conspiracy then. 

Mr. Moulder. Was it a philosphy, or did a^ou feel yourself a 
member of a conspiracy to overthrow the Government by force and 
violence? 

Mr. FucHS. No, sir, that isn't the conspiracy I meant. 

Mr. Moulder. Or to commit any act of disloyalty to the country? 

Mr. FucHS. No, you are making the distinction that I meant to 
make. I think not only of myself but all of the people I worked with 
as Communists and I don't think any of us ever willingly were disloyal 
to the United States, or would willingly bring any injury to our 
country. 



3010 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 

Mr. ScHERER, Eventually you got out of the Communist Party 
because you found that the objectives of the party were to do just 
those things that you say you did not do. 

Mr. FucHS. That is right, Mr. Scherer. I think everybody 
gets out at a different time and everyone thinks his time was the 
right one, and the right one came for me when the United States and 
Russia were at the parting of the ways, and began to separate. Up to 
that time I had had no problem of loyalty. It just so happens I 
hadn't had. During the war period the Communist Party line and 
American policy were almost exactly identical in many areas, and 
certainly in the area in which I worked. I had no problem of loyalty 
then. But after the war with the breaking up of this alliance, it 
became evident that the two horses that I had been riding were now 
going in different directions, and I had to choose, and that is when I 
chose. 

Mr. Moulder. The question propounded to you by Mr. Tavenner 
was concerning your answering the question on form 57 as to whether 
or not you were a member of the Communist Party, when interro- 
gated, or when signing an oath to that effect. Did I understand that 
you did not receive instructions to falsify or make the denial from 
higher officials in the Communist Party but it was a result of your own 
studies and your group meetings that led you to that conclusion and 
to that action? 

Mr. FucHS. Yes, I think that is the answer, but you should also 
bear in mind that conclusions were reached by Communist Party 
groups as a result of discussion which included the above discussion, and 
so forth, so that it is hard for me to give you an unequivocal answer. 

Mr. Scherer. You said that when the United States and Russia 
started to or decided to part company as cobelligerents, you realized 
you were riding two horses. Therefore to continue, I infer naturally 
that you felt that you might have to have divided loyalties, is that 
right? 

Mr. FucHs. Yes. 

Mr. Scherer. You knew that you couldn't be loyal to the 
Communist Party or the Communist conspiracy, and the United 
States subsequent to that date at least? 

Mr. FucHs. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. If there is anything else that you want to teU the 
committee about the oath that would apply to yourself, you are 
perfectly free to state it if you so desire. You may have covered 
everything that you had in mind. 

Mr. Scherer. Will you repeat that question after I get through, 
Mr. Tavenner? 

Mr, Tavenner. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Scherer. There is no question in your mind, in view of what 
you have just said that the Communist Party is under the direc- 
tion and control of a foreign power, that is, Soviet Russia? 

Mr. Fuchs. This first broke through me in the immediate postwar 
period, and now there are times people tell me when I should have 
been aware of that in 1939, and that a lot of people were. I was not. 
This struck me toward the close of World War II, not simply that the 
two foreign policies diverged, but also that the American (Commun- 
ist) Party was being pushed around pretty obviously to a position of 
opposition which it had substantially abandoned during the war, you 
see, and I just couldn't take it. 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 3011 

Mr. Moulder. What was the year when you first became asso- 
ciated or afliliated with the Communist Party? 

Mr. FucHS. I got into the Communist Party in 1934, and that was 
a depression year. 

Mr. Moulder. What was the inducement or attraction that led 
you to become a member of the party? 

Mr. FucHS. My belief about that is that I was genuinely interested 
in being active in social reform of one sort or another. 

Mr. Moulder. I believe that has been covered. 

Mr. Tavenner. I am not certain whether you have covered all you 
had in mind about your individual situation. You may have covered 
it, and if you have, we will go on to something else. 

Mr. FucHS. I don't know. Shall we go to something else? 

Mr. Tavenner. Ultimately you were given a loyalty hearing, and 
cleared by your loyalty board; is that right? 

Mr. FucHS, That is true, sir. 

Mr. Moulder. What loyalty board was that? 

Mr. Tavenner. That was the loyalty board of the National Labor 
Relations Board. 

Mr. Willis. But now in fairness to the decision and to you as an 
individual, part of the evidence upon which they had to act was your 
own denial of your membership? 

Mr. FucHs.' Emphatically so, Mr. Willis. Yes, I think that the 
Board could not conceivably have reached a different conclusion on 
the record that was made. 

Mr. W^iLLis. Mr. Tavenner, you used a word that he had been 
cleared. He had been cleared on the basis of the evidence presented 
to the Board. 

Mr. FucHs. By me. 

Mr. Willis. That is right. 

Mr. Tavenner. At the time you formed this cell within the NLRB, 
were you advised by either Arthur Stein, Victor Perlo, or anyone else 
just what the interest of the Communist Party was in having this 
cell organized within NLRB? 

Mr. FucHs. I think I have answered that a couple of times. At 
least I think that it is the same question. 

Mr. Tavenner. I think you have, but perhaps not fully. 

Mr. FucHs. I think that the interest of the Communist Party was 
to have a group working in a professional area in which the party 
was enthusiastically in sympathy with the program of the Govern- 
ment. 

Mr. Tavenner. This committee has conducted very extensive 
investigations into the field of entertainment and particularly in the 
Hollywood area, and into the screenwriters. Investigation has 
disclosed very pointedly that the Communist Party believed that if it 
could concentrate its efi^orts in Communist indoctrination of the screen- 
writers that would necessarily effect the product of those wi'iters. 
Now, that appears time and again throughout the testimony. That 
gets very close to what you have said earlier this morning, and again 
this afternoon, that you had to take into consideration the ideological 
bias that a person would have in a position like that you and others 
had. 

Mr. FucHS. You said it, and I agreed with you. 

Mr. Tavenner. Actually, that is generally true in all phases of 
activity, isn't it? It would be true in the schools and it would be 



3012 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 

true in the churches, and it would be true in labor, and every other 
field? 

Mr. FucHS. I think so; yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. Where a dedicated Communist subject to the 
directives and discipline of the Communist Party was in a sensitive 
position, his zeal for the party would necessarily affect him in his work, 
just lil<:e the screenwriters and the product of their work. Do you 
agree that that is right? 

Mr. FucHs. I think a zealous anything is affected in his work, 
whether he is a Communist, a vegetarian, or anything else. 

Mr. Willis. If that is not so, Mr. Tavenner, then we would say 
that the Communists plan is purposeless, and I am sure it is purposeful. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you not also agree that the Communist Party 
in its effort to accomplish its ideal of bringing about a dictatorship 
of the proletariat has as its prime target, trade unions? That is 
recognized in Communist Party history, is it not? 

Mr. FucHS. Trade unions, yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. That is the principal field in which it has been 
active, as a guiding star of its operations. There are many state- 
ments that Lenin has made regarding the interest of communism in 
the field of labor and I have selected one here which I think points 
up an important feature of this activity. 

Lenin in his work involving trade unions said this: 

Of course, the entire reformist officialdom must be driven out of the trade 
unions, but they should not be given the pleasure of our voluntary withdrawal. 
We must remain in the reactionary unions, work there, conquer the masses, 
drive out the leaders, and turn the unions into organs of the revolution. 

In other words, the point I am trying to demonstrate is that the 
Communist Party had a special stake in the field of labor. 

Mr. Moulder. A special ambition in the field of labor. 

Mr. Tavenner. Well, its whole plan was based on its being able to 
gain strength and help there. 

We are faced with this situation, where employees of the National 
Labor Relations Board were dealing constantly with labor unions, and 
some of which have been successful in fighting off communism and 
Communist influence and control, and some of which have been 
subservient to their control. 

I am not asking you to judge yourself according to the situation 
that you were confronted with at that time. I am asking you to 
look at this matter objectively, on the basis of what you now know 
from your own experience within and without the party; and I want 
to ask you if you don't think it is an intolerable situation to permit 
dedicated and ideologically trained Communists who are subject to 
the directives and disciplines of the Communist Party to sit in judg- 
ment on the rights of labor unions or to administer the laws relating 
to labor unions? As I said, some of them are absolutely free of 
Communist control or domination, while others may be engaged in a 
terrific struggle to throw off that effort of domination and still others 
are subservient to it. 

Isn't that an intolerable situation? 

Mr. J ucHs. If I get the question correctly, my answer would be 
that it would be an intolerable situation. I think that the qualify- 
ing clauses or phrases in your question make it unnecessary to answer 
whether or not it was or is an intolerable situation, because I don't 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 3013 

think that the kind of dedicated Communist that you describe sat in 
judgment on labor unions at any time. 

Mr. Tavenner. That would be a matter of degree as to the dedica- 
tion of the Communist. 

Mr. FucHs. And the amount of sitting in judgment, and the like. 
You had a lot of qualifications in that statement, and I was trying to 
listen to it. I am perfectly willing to agree that it would be an 
intolerable situation, but I don't think that that situation can be 
reproduced in history, the one that you gave. 

Mr. Willis. I think that you would admit, though, that there was 
an effort higher up, maybe at a higher echelon than you ever reached, 
to create just such intolerable situations, and that was part of their 
goal if they could have done it. 

Mr. FucHs. I think so; yes, sir. 

Mr. Moulder. May I say at this point, the statement I intended 
to make is that this committee has assisted and cooperated with 
organized labor in every way possible to help them in our mutual 
objective to rid themselves of Communist domination and Communist 
control and exploitation. 

Mr. Tavenner. You have mentioned the fact several times during 
the course of your testimony of the interest of this Communist Party 
group within the NLRB in certain union activities within the NLRB. 
To what were you referring? 

Mr. FucHs. There were two miions at the NLRB and I don't 
know, but I think they ultimately amalgamated. Originally there 
was a lawyers union and a nonlawyers union at the NLRB. These 
people that came to work at the NLRB were being very enthusiastic 
about labor's new bill of rights, as expressed in a national statute, and 
were purer than the pure, and they very quickly decided that nobody 
who held any kind of supervisory rank could possibly be eligible for 
membership in any union, and so it wasn't very long before I myself 
became ineligible for membership in the union. Now, there was a 
lot of union discussion, both in the lawyers miion and in the non- 
lawyers union and I think they ultimately amalgamated, and issues 
were raised on the floor of those unions, some of which were not strictly 
trade unionism and some of which were political and perhaps even 
international in context, and there was activity. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was there a contest waged among the employees 
of the NLRB between Communist members and non-Communist 
members to control the policies of those unions? 

Mr. FucHS. I think that is a fair statement. I must say that I 
don't have any very active present recollection of it, but I clearly 
recollect that that was a fact. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was there a movement undertaken to attempt to 
affiliate those unions with the CIO? 

Mr. FucHS. Yes; that was really very absurd. 

Mr. Tavenner. The CIO was one of the unions with which 
you had to pass judgment and against which you had to apply and 
administer the law? 

Mr. FucHS. Yes. I think that movement was indeed scotched but 
it was very absurd, a very absurd proposal. 

Mr. Tavenner. Wliich would have put you in the position of 
passing judgment on your own union group, would it not? 

Mr. FucHS. Yes; it would have been so. 



3014 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 

Mr. Tavenner. Did the Communist members of the group advo- 
cate that type of affihation? 

Mr. FucHS. You know I really don't know. I think that our group 
was clear that that would be nonsense. I don't know whether there 
were other Communist groups that were not so clear. One thing that 
occurs to me that apparently isn't uniformly recognized or maybe 
looks different to different people, is this: You haven't really covered 
the subject when you say "Communist," and Communist groups 
actually have been in dispute with each other and Communist judg- 
ments are not uniformly sound in terms of their own ultimate objec- 
tives. I can recall instances within Communist groups in which 
there was a sharp disagreement as to what was the right thing to do. 

Mr. Tavenner. When that happened, you went to "Mike," 
didn't you? 

Mr. FucHS. Yes, but I should also say that we not only went to 
see him but we persuaded him of the wisdom of our view, and so you 
have this problem, then, and this is one of the nearly insoluble problems 
of organization, the extent to which there is any democracy. I have 
seen line changes that come like a bolt of lightning, and I have seen 
also situations in which a group persistently arguing with the boss, 
finally has its way. 

Mr. Tavenner. During the period of time that Victor Perlo was 
the authority to whom your group reported and the authority who 
passed down the directives to your group, do you know whether he was 
employed by the United States Government and how? 

Mr. FucHS. I don't remember his job history. I know he had some 
Government job at some time, but I don't remember when. I think 
that it was War Production Board. 

Mr. Scherer. Wliat does the record show with reference to Perlo's 
employment? 

Mr. Tavenner. From September of 1933 until June of 1935, 
Victor Perlo was employed by the NRA; from June 1935 until October 
of 1937, Mr. Perlo was employed by the Federal Home Loan Bank 
Board; from October 1937, until 1939, Mr. Perlo was associated with 
the Brookings Institution. That of course was not Government 
employment. 

Mr. 1^ ucHs. I met him during his Brookings period. 

Mr. Tavenner. From September of 1939 until September of 1940, 
he was employed by the Department of Commerce. From November 
15, 1940, until February 17, 1943, he was employed by the Advisory 
Council of National Defense of the OPA. 

From February 17, 1943, until May 1, 1945, he was employed by 
the Civilian Production Administration, and beginning December 14, 
1945, he was employed by the Treasury Department, Office of 
Monetary Research. 

Mr. Scherer. Until how long? 

Mr. Tavenner. I don't know. That is a record our committee 
made — it is an excerpt from our committee hearing in 1948 or 1949. 

Mr. Scherer. When did he finally get out of the Government? 

Mr. Tavenner. That is what I am trying to recall. It will be 
developed in the testimony, but I do not recall. 

Mr. Scherer. He was working with Harry Dexter White, wasn't 
he? 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 3015 

Mr. Tavenner. The Monetary Research was set up under White, 
at the time that Perlo was employed there. Were you acquainted 
or did you ever meet EHzabeth Bentley? 

Mr. FucHs. No, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. EHzabeth Bentley identified before this committee 
two groups of individuals who were referred to by her as espionage 
groups. One was the Nathan Gregory Silvermaster group, and the 
other the Victor Perlo group. She identified certain members of the 
Victor Perlo group and testified before this committee that that 
group through Victor Perlo delivered documents and information to 
her which she in turn delivered to Jacob Golos who was an espionage 
agent of the Soviet Union. 

Here are the names of the persons she identified as members of the 
Victor Perlo espionage group: Allan Rosenberg, the man that you were 
directed to contact to form this group in the NLRB; Donald Niven 
Wheeler; Charles Kramer, whose real name was Charles Krevitsky; 
Edward Fitzgerald; Harry Magdoff; and Harold Glasser. 

I asked you earlier in your testimony whether or not Allan Rosen- 
berg knew Victor Perlo by his name and I believe you said you did 
not know. Did you ever see them in conference with each other? 

Mr. FucHs. No. I wonder, if it would help me, if Miss Bentley 
dates this. 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes; it was in 1944, that was the date at which she 
collected material from Victor Perlo. 

Mr. FucHs. In 1944 I was in Denver, Colo. And I had been for 
a year and a half, so that this is not in my period, and I don't know 
anything about it. I don't know whether Rosenberg knew Perlo or 
not. He obviously met him in our group. 

Mr. Scherer. Have you identified Allan Rosenberg as a Com- 
munist? 

Mr. FucHS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Scherer. And this at least confirms Miss Bentley's testimony, 
as far as Rosenberg is concerned. 

Mr. Tavenner. I might say to you that although Elizabeth 
Bentley's work began with Victor Perlo about 1944, she testified that 
Jacob Golos for whom she was working had been collecting material for 
a considerable period of time. That was from 1937 until 1942. 

Mr. Scherer. I don't remember, Mr. Tavenner, but were there 
others than Rosenberg in this group about which Elizabeth Bentley 
testified who have been identified by this witness? 

Mr. Tavenner. Not as members of any cell of the Communist 
Party of which he was a member. Were you acquainted with these 
other people whose names I have mentioned? Let us take them 
individually. Donald Niven Wheeler? 

Mr. FucHS. No. 

Mr. Scherer. Just for the record, where is Wheeler now? 

Mr. Tavenner. Donald Niven Wheeler was brought before the 
committee in Seattle about a year ago, and refused to answer any 
material questions, relying on the fifth amendment. He is living in 
the State of Washington ; that is my recollection. 

Charles Kramer? 

Mr. Fuchs. I met him once or twice on an introduction-only basis. 

Mr. Tavenner. Edward Fitzgerald? 

Mr. Fuchs. I knew him socially. 



3016 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 

Mr. Tavenner. Harry Magdoff. 

Mr. FucHS. I kQew him socially. 

Mr. Tavenner. Harold Glasser? 

Mr. FucHS. I kaew Glasser not as well as the other two, but 
casually. 

Mr. ScHERER. Would you say, Professor, you did not know these 
latter individuals mentioned as members of the Communist Party? 

Mr. FucHS. That is right, sir. I did not know. 

Mr. ScHERER. When did you know these people socially? 

Mr. FucHS. I don't know how long I knew Fitzgerald and Magdoff. 

Mr. ScHERER. About when was it? 

Mr. FucHs. It seems to me that I knew both of them at some 
time before and after my departure for Denver. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you acquainted with Jacob Golos? 

Mr. FucHs. No. 

Mr. Tavenner. During the period of your acquaintanceship with 
the individuals mentioned, including Allan Rosenberg, did you observe 
or learn of the furnishing of any information to either Victor Perlo 
or Elizabeth Bentley for transmission to any Communist Party 
sources? 

Mr. FucHs. No, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. In j'^our Communist Party conferences, did you 
learn of any effort being made to assemblf information for that pur- 
pose? 

Mr. FucHs. No, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you ever attend a Communist Party meeting 
at which any of the persons mentioned other than Allan Rosenberg 
was present? 

Mr. FucHs. No, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you yourself make available to Victor Perlo 
any information designed for Communist Party uses? 

Mr. FucHS. No, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was any effort made at any tune to secure informa- 
tion from you regarding any action of the NLRB or any of its pro- 
cedures under chcumstances that would indicate an improper use of 
that information? 

Mr. FucHS. I can think of only one instance of that, and I ask to 
be excused from talking about it. The committee has my testi- 
mony on it, and I am not at all sure that it has anything to do with 
communism. It was an attempt to get advance information on a 
decision of the Board, which failed, and I ask to be excused from 
talking about it. 

Mr. Moulder. You say the committee does have the infonnation? 

Mr. FucHS. Yes, Mr. Moulder. 

Mr. Moulder. Very well, you may proceed. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was it a Communist Party member who sought 
to arrange for the obtaining of that mformation? 

Mr. FucHS. Yes; it was a person whom I knew to have become a 
party member, and I knew it by general repute, I believe. 

Mr. Scherer. Was he a Government employee or on the outside? 

Mr. FucHS. He was on the outside at the time of the effort. He 
had been a Goveinment employee. 

Mr. Tavenner. Can you fix the approximate date of the incident? 

Mr. FucHS. I have tried to in my responses to the committee staff, 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 3017 

and I thought it was early in 1946. That is an estimate, and I don't 
know if it is right or not. 

Mr. Tavenner. I want you to make it clear as to whether or not 
you ultimately gave the information that was requested. 

Mr. FucHS. I did not give it, as my testimony shows. 

Mr. ScHERER. Ai-e you refusing to testify or asking not to be 
compelled to testify about it because in your opinion you feel that 
it didn't have anything to do with Communist Party activity or is it 
because you don't know whether or not it had anything to do with 
Communist Party activity? 

Mr. FucHS. This was an effort on the part of somebody to get some 
advance dope which was not proper for them to get, and there was 
nothing subversive about his getting it, but it would give him an 
advantage. He didn't get it, and I would like to spare him if I may; 
that is all. The committee has the information. 

Mr. Tavenner. I think that that is right. 

Mr. ScHERER. I agree, but I just wanted to know. 

Mr. Tavenner. I might say that that would have been pertinent 
information for Congressman Smith's investigation of the NLRB 
which was conducted back in 1940, and which does show a great 
many irregularities and breakdowns in administration of that organi- 
zation. But that is a separate thing from our field. 

Mr. ScHERER. I concur in the witness' feelings, but I would like to 
ask if of your own knowledge this attempt to obtain advance informa- 
tion was a result of Communist Party activity or a result of some other 
interests wanting that information? 

Mr. FucHS. Mr. Scherer, I don't even know well enough that the 
individual involved was a Communist to be willing to testify that he 
was, although I believe he would be one. This embarrasses me now 
because having gone this far in my request to the committee, for me 
to reveal his name would be unconscionable. 

Mr. Scherer. I didn't want you to do that. 

Mr. FucHS. You see, it was simply a matter of trying to get a 
decision that was about ripe, maybe get it a day before the other side 
got it; something of that sort. 

Mr. Moulder. I think that has been practiced since time 
immemorial. 

Mr. FucHS. I am not sure it is communistic. 

Mr. Scherer. That is all I wanted to know. 

Mr. Tavenner. You have told us that j^ou were through as a 
member of the Communist Party in 1946? 

Mr. FucHS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you give any official of the Communist Party 
notice of your withdi'awal? 

Mr. FucHS. No. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you just quit? 

Mr. FucHS. I said I wasn't coming around any more. I didn't 
do it in any official way, and I didn't do it in writing. I stopped 
coming around. 

Mr. Tavenner. After that time, did you engage in any Communist 
Party activities? 

Mr. FucHS. No, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were yo.u solicited at any time after leaving the 
Communist Party to come back to it? 



3018 coMMinsriST infiltration of government 

Mr. FucHS. No, sir, I was not. 

Mr. Tavenner. I would be glad to have vou tell the committee 
anv circumstances you desire regarding your withdrawal from the 
Communist Party; that is, what led up to your decision to leave the 
Communist Party, and any information which might be of assistance 
in determining and deciding what ultimately are the determining 
factors in a person deciding to leave the Communist Party, 

Mr. FucHS. I have already mentioned to the committee part of the 
reason. I quit because I felt the first time in my Communist Party 
history a conflict of loyalties which would not permit me to remain a 
Communist. This was accentuated by the fact that right around 
that time I received a promotion in my agency to Assistant General 
Counsel. Again it all accumulated and made me feel it was incon- 
sistent to accept that office and remain a Communist, so I stopped. 

I don't think that I have anything more to add except to say that in 
retrospect, after 9 years of trying to live down this rather serious error, 
I would like to sum up what I don't like about communism as a way 
for people to operate, quite aside from the international question, 
because as I have tried to tell you gentlemen, the international issue 
didn't affect me until it caused me to drop out. It didn't affect me 
until 1945 and 1946. 

The other things I regret are having lent myself to a movement 
that depends upon deceit as a way of influencing people. It depends 
upon the notion that if the objectives are noble, any means are 
justifiable, and it ends up inevitably by substituting some kind of a 
discipline or mass will for the individual conscience. 

These are the things that in retrospect I deplore on my own behalf. 
I think that is all I have to say. 

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

Mr. Willis. I would like to reiterate our appreciation to the 
witness for his appearance. We have already expressed ourselves on 
that, but I now add a double measure of our appreciation for your 
appearance, for your contrite feeling now, and for your purging your- 
self of the blot that obviously was yours for a time. We are grateful 
to you, and I think the people should be. 

Mr. ScHERER. Professor Fuchs, I am of the opinion that you did 
not lose your position at American University because you were not 
an intelligent and loyal and devoted teacher, since President Anderson 
says you are such. Neither did you lose your position because those 
who recommended your dismissal without a real hearing believed that 
you might still be a Communist. It is my opinion that President 
Anderson's real reasons for recommending your dismissal were not 
those given to the board of trustees of the university. 

It is my firm conviction that someone with considerable influence at 
the university prevailed upon President Anderson to change his mind 
after he made that fine eulogy of you following jour first testimony, 
the time when you refused to cooperate fully. 

It is my further opinion that President Anderson was persuaded to 
reverse his stand because you subsequently cooperated with the Un- 
American Activities Committee of the Congress. 

The contents of a recent book, entitled "I Protest," which is a vio- 
lent attack on this committee, helped me reach these conclusions. 

Of course, in any event, no matter what the reasons of the university 
were for dismissing you, it has in my opinion made a serious mistake, 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 3019 

and rendered a disservice to the country, and a heavy blow to our fight 
against internal subversion. 

Obviously others now will hesitate to come forward because of fear 
of receiving treatment similar to that accorded you. Instead they 
will be inclined to take a cue from witnesses such as Prof. Wendell H. 
Furry, namely, to defy the committee and to take the fifth amendment 
and perhaps keep their jobs. 

That is all I have to say. 

Mr. Moulder. I wish to add this: I have heard many fine compli- 
ments concerning your services at the American University, as being 
one of the outstanding professors and teachers of law there, and never 
has there been the slightest accusation against you as to loyalty, or as 
to your having ever talked or indicated a desire to influence anyone 
toward the philosophy of communism. 

We all join together on this committee in highly commending you 
for 3^our appearance and cooperation before the committee, as well as 
your loyalty and patriotism as an American citizen. 

We want to thank you very much. 

The committee will stand adjourned until tomorrow morning at 
9:30. 

(Thereupon, the committee recessed, at 4:35 p. m., to reconvene 
at 9:30 a. m., Wednesday, December 14, 1955.) 



ROSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY 

iiiiiiiiiiiL 

3 9999 05706 3206 

A>, t^. i i % ^< t*"^^ %«^ # ' -^