(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 2 



HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES 
HOUSE OF REPEESENTATIYES 

EIGHTY-FOURTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 



DECEMBER 14 AND 15, 1955 



Printed for the use of the Committee on Un-American Activities 
(INCLUDING INDEX) 



HARVARD COLLEGE LIBRARY 

DEPOSITED BY THE 
UNITED STATES GOVERNMEWr 



FEB231956 




UNITED STATES 
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
7(1)- 11 WASHINGTON : 1956 



COMMITTEE ON UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES 
United States House of Representatives 

FRANCIS E. WALTER, Pennsylvania, Chainnan 
MORGAN M. MOULDER, Missouri HAROLD H. VELDE, Illinois 

CLYDE DOYLE, California BERNARD W. KEARNEY, New York 

JAMES B. FRAZIER, Jr., Tennessee DONALD L. JACKSON, California 

EDWIN E. WILLIS, Louisiana GORDON H. SCHERER, Ohio 

Thomas W. Beale, Sr., Chief Clerk 
II 



CONTENTS 

Page 

cember 14, 1956: Testimony of — ■ 

Mortimer Riemer 3022 

Lester Asher 3043 

Allen Heald 3055 

Gerald J. Matchett 3072 

Margaret Ellen Matchett 3079 

eember 15, 1955: Testimony of — ■ 

Lvle W. Cooperi 3083 

Helen A. Cooper i 3088 

James M. Shields i 3092 

Ellis George Ohm 3102 

lex i 

Executive testimony released by the committee January 20, 1956. 

in 



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 e.xtent, 
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 

3i: * sH ^ * * * 

Rule X 

STANDING COMMITTEES 

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

(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 ma}- 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 b}- any person 
designated by any such chairman or member. 



INVESTIGATION OF COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF 
GOVERNMENT— PART 2 



wednesday, december 14, 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 
reconvened at 10:10 a. m., pursuant to recess, in the Federal Court- 
house, Chicago, 111., Hon. Morgan M. Moulder (chairman) presiding. 

Committee members present: Representatives Morgan M. Moulder, 
of Missouri (presiding), Edwin E. Willis, of Louisiana, and Gordon 
H. Scherer, of Ohio. 

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

Mr. Moulder. The subcommittee will be in order. 

This is a continuation of proceedings before the subcommittee 
designated by Chairman Walter, consisting of myself as chairm.an, and 
Mr. Willis of Louisiana and Mr. Scherer of Ohio. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Chairman, I think it would be well at this 
time to advise the subcommittee of the schedule which has been 
worked out for the remainder of this hearing in Chicago. We expect 
to call 5 witnesses today, and it is believed that these 5 witnesses will 
consume the full day's time. 

Inasmuch as a new chairman of the subcommittee has been ap- 
pointed, I think I should also say that the chairman of the committee 
as a whole directed the staff to prepare a recommendation as to the 
witnesses to be heard in open session and the witnesses to be heard in 
closed session. 

This is a recommendation in keeping with the policy of the com- 
mittee, and it was made and approved by the chairman. As a result 
of that recommendation, I think I should say that most of tomorrow's 
session will be devoted to hearing those witnesses who are to testify 
in closed session. All of the witnesses today will be in open session. 

However, the committee agreed, as you will recall, that Ellis Olim, 
a witness scheduled to be heard yesterday, would be postponed until 
4 p.m. tomorrow, due to the inability of his attorney to be here today. 
Tomorrow, at 4 o'clock, that witness will be heard in open session. 
That will conclude the hearings scheduled here in Chicago. 

Mr. Scherer. As to the witness you just mentioned, who will be 
heard in open session tomorrow, that arrangement was made at the 
urgent request of his counsel. 

Mr. Tavenner. That is correct. 

Mr. Moulder. The attention of the committee has been called to 
a news item appearing in the morning issue of the Chicago Daily 

3021 



3022 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 

Tribune and the Washington Post concerning the testimony before 
the committee yesterday of Mr. Herbert Fuchs, wherein it is reported 
that Fuchs — 

confirmed testimony given to the House committee several years ago and the 
testimony in the Alger Hiss case given by Elizabeth Bentley. He identified 5 of 
the 6 members of what Miss Bentley termed the "Victor Perlo Communist spy 
ring" as Communists to his knowledge. 

He said he personally knew as Communists, Allan Rosenberg, Donald Niven 
Wheeler, Charles Krevitsky, Edward Fitzgerald, Harold Magdoff, and Harold 
Glasser, named by Miss Bentley as members of the Perlo group. 

The transcript of the record will reflect that Mr. Fuchs actually 
testified that he knew Allan Rosenberg as a member of the National 
Labor Relations Board and as a member of the Communist cell within 
that agency; that he had met Charles Krevitsky, Edward Fitzgerald, 
Harold Magdoff, and Harold Glasser socially, and that he personally 
did not know them to be members of the Communist Party, and that 
he did not know Donald Niven Wheeler. 

We hope that the necessary corrections will be made in this respect 
by the press. 

Are you ready to proceed? 

Mr. Tavenner. I will call Mortimer Riemer. 

Mr. Moulder. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are 
about to give before this committee will be the truth, the whole truth, 
and nothing but the truth, so help you God? 

Mr. Riemer. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF MORTIMER RIEMER, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 

THOMAS A. BURKE 

Mr. Tavenner. Will 3^ou state 3'our name, please, sir? 

Mr. Riemer. Mortimer Riemer. 

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

Mr. Burke. I am Thomas A. Burke of the Ohio bar, residing in 
Cleveland, Ohio. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you spell your name, Mr. Riemer? 

Mr. Riemer. R-i-e-m-e-r. 

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

Mr. Riemer. June 19, 1904, Port Chester, N. Y. 

Mr. Scherer. May I interrupt for a moment? Coming from Ohio, 
I would like to say that the distinguished counsel, Senator Burke, 
is the former mayor of the city of Cleveland and a former United States 
Senator from the State of Ohio. 

Mr. Tavenner. Where do you now reside, Mr. Riemer? 

Mr. Riemer. Cleveland, Ohio. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long have you been a resident of Cleveland? 

Mr. Riemer. Since October 1947. 

Mr. Tavenner. Wliat is your occupation or profession? 

Mr. Riemer. I am an attorney. 

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

Mr. Riemer. I graduated from the Syracuse, N. Y., Central High 
School in June of 1921, and I entered Syracuse University in September 
of 1921. I graduated from Syracuse University in June 1925, and 
I entered law school in September of 1928 and graduated from the 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 3023 

Law School of New York University in June of 1931. I was admitted 
to the New York bar in 1932. I am a member of the bar of the 
Supreme Court of the United States, and I was admitted to the Ohio 
bar on motion late in 1947 or early in 1948. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you begin the practice of law upon completion 
of your legal studies in 1931? 

Mr. RiEMER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you practice in the city of New York? 

Mr, RiEMER. In New York City. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long did you engage in practice there before 
having other employment? 

Mr, RiEMER. I was in active practice from the time of my admission 
in 1932 until late 1936, or early 1937. 

Mr. Tavenner. What was 3^our first employment after engaging 
in the practice of law for a period of approximately 4 or 5 years? 

Mr, RiEMER. While I was still engaged in the practice of law in 
New York City, I became the executive secretary of the National 
Lawyers Guild. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you its first executive secretary? 

Mr. RiEMER. That is correct. 

Mr, Tavenner. In what year? 

Mr, RiEMER. That was in the late fall of 1936. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long did you remain executive secretary of 
the National Lawyers Guild? 

Mr. RiEMER, Until the fall of 1939, 

Mr, Tavenner. Did you resign along about that time? 

Mr. RiEMER. I did, sir, that is correct. 

Mr, Tavenner. What was your emplojTnent following your 
resignation as executive secretary of the National Lawyers Guild? 

Mr. Reimer. On January 6, 1940, I was appointed as a trial 
examiner for the National Labor Relations Board, in Washington, 
D. C. 

Mr. Tavenner. For how long a period of time were you employed 
by the National Labor Relations Board? 

Mr. Reimer. Until I resigned on Labor Day, 1947. 

Mr. Tavenner. Since that time have you been engaged in pri- 
vate practice of the law in Cleveland, Ohio? 

Mr. Reimer. That is correct. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was your only Government employment that 
which began in 1940 when you accepted the position of trial ex- 
aminer with the National Labor Relations Board? 

Mr. Reimer. That is correct. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you a member of the Communist Party at 
the time vou became emploved bv the National Labor Relations 
Board? '• 

Mr. Reimer. I was. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee when you became a 
member of the Communist Party, and under what circumstances? 

Mr. RiEMER. I became a member of the Communist Party late in 
1935 or early in 1936. I cannot give this committee the exact date of 
that step. But as this committee knows, the mid-1 930's was a 
period of great unemployment, unrest, confusion, and indecision, and 
I was particularly disturbed by those conditions domestically, and 
I was disturbed by events abroad particularly in Germany. As a 



3024 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 

Jew, I was deeply concerned. And it was represented to me that the 
Communist Party had a program, an effective one to contribute to a 
solution of some of those ills, and I was solicited to join and I did so. 

I am glad now of the opportunity to make known what I did, and 
to explain to the committee how and under the circumstances it 
occurred. 

Mr. ScHERER. I might say at this point that since I have been a 
member of this committee we have heard testimony confirming what 
the witness has said, namely that there were a number of members of 
the Jewish race who felt, perliaps erroneously, that in the early da^^s 
the Communist Party was one of the forces that was opposed to anti- 
Semitism and fascism in Germany. I think you will recall, Counsel, 
such testimony. 

I remember the first witness was Professor Davis, and I forget the 
name of the university in the East from which he came. 

Mr. Tavenner. Where was this group or cell of the Communist 
Party of which you became a member located in the city of New 
York? 

Mr. Rjemer. Some time after I became a member, I was assigned or 
directed to a lawyers group. 

Mr. Tavenner. In what area*^ 

Mr. Riemer. It was m Manhattan — I know that. 

Mr. Tavenner. Before we go further I think that 3^ou should 
tell the committee by whom you were recruited into the Com- 
munist Party. 

Mr. Riemer. I was solicited to join the Communist Party by a 
man by the name of Gerson, his first name was Simon, who was, 
at that time if I am not mistaken, the city hall reporter of the New 
York Daily Worker. 

I had met him during the summer of 1935. I was living that 
summer in Croton, N. Y., a summer community, and I used to com- 
mute daily between New York City and there, a distance of about 35 
or 40 miles. I met Gerson, and he would be on the train going one way 
or coming the other, and I got to know him. We used to play golf 
together as a matter of fact, and he was the one who solicited my 
membership. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you immediately assigned to this group of 
lawyers composing a cell of the Communist Party? 

Mr. Riemer. No, I don't think that I was immediately assigned. 
I think that there was a period or a gap in there. How long it was, 
I do not know. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was this group to which you were assigned made 
up entirely of members of the legal profession? 

Mr. Riemer. Yes, I would say exclusively. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee approximately the 
number of attorneys who belonged to this group, or cell, of the 
Communist Party? 

Mr. Riemer. 1 would place it in the neighborhood of 15 to 20. 

Mr. Tavenner. Over what period of time did these people belong? 

Mr. Riemer. In the period between my first participation and 
late 1936. 

Mr. Tavenner. When did your first participation begin? 

Mr. Riemer. It would have begun, I am inclined to think, late in 
1935 or early ui 1936. 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 3025 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you give the committee the names of those 
wlio were members of this Communist Party group with you? 

Mr. RiEMER. Isadore Bassoff. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you spell the name? 

Mr. RiEMER. B-a-s-s-o-f-f. Joseph Brodsky, B-r-o-d-s-k-y, now 
deceased. David Freedman, F-r-e-e-d-m-a-n. Henry Holzman, 
H-o-l-z-m-a-n. There was a lady by the name of Kassner, 
K-a-s-s-n-e-r. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you recall her first name? 

Mr. RiEMER. I believe her first name was Minna. 

Mr. Tavenner. How do you spell that? 

Mr. RiEMER. M-i-n-n-a, I would assume. 

Mr. Tavenner. How do you spell the last name? 

Mr. Riemer. K-a-s-s-n-e-r. Edward Kuntz, K-u-n-t-z. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were all of these persons members of the legal 
profe-sion? 

Mr. Riemer. Yes. Martin Kurasch, K-u-r-a-s-c-li, although I 
must say with respect to him that I did not know him at that time, 
and I think I met him for the first time only after I came to Washing- 
ton. I did not know him in New York. 

Mr. TavenjwER. Let us confine ourselves for the moment to those 
in the legal profession who were members with you in your group in 
New York. 

Mr. Riemer. I will continue. 

Mr. Tavenner. So Martin Kurasch would come out of the list? 

Mr. Riemer. Yes. Martin Popper, P-o-p-p-e-r. Alex Racobin, 
R-a-c-o-b-i-n. Harry Sacher, S-a-c-h-e-r. 

Mr. ScHERER. Is that the same Harry Sacher who was sentenced 
for contempt as a result of his coJiduct before Judge Medina in the 
trial of the original 11 Communists in New York? 

Mr. Riemer. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ScHERER. The same Harry Sacher representing persons who 
have appeared before this committee? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Scherer. I remember him very well, 

Mr. Riemer. I think the last name I gave you was Sacher. The 
next name on my list is Frank Sclieiner, S-c-h-e-i-n-e-r. David Scrib- 
ner, S-c-r-i-b-n-e-r. 

Mr. Scherer. Isn't he the present general counsel for the United 
Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers of America? 

Air. Riemer. I believe he is. 

Mr. Scherer. The United Electrical Workers as we all know was 
expelled some time ago by the CIO because of its Communist domina- 
tion, and we all remember Mr. Scribner from his numerous appear- 
ances before this committee in various parts of the country, represent- 
ing identified Communists. I tbmk this identification of Mr. Scrib- 
ner now explains some of his conduct and attitude in representing 
these individuals before this committee over the years. 

Mr. Riemer. Robert Silberstein, S-i-1-b-e-r-s-t-e-i-n. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know whether this is the same Robert 
Silberstein who became executive secretary of the National Lawyers 
Guild? 

Mr. Riemer. No, I cannot answer that. Once I ceased my con- 
nection with it, I frankly paid no more attention to it, and I cannot 



3026 COMIMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 

answer or verify that. It would be a matter of documentary evi- 
dence, I am sm-e. 

It is Robert J. Silberstein. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know that his middle initial was "J"? 

Mr. RiEMER. That is right. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Chairman, you will no doubt recall that we 
subpenaed Mr. Robert J. Silberstein, the executive secretary of the 
National Lawyers Guild before the committee in 1952. He refused 
to answer any material questions, relying upon the fifth amendment. 

Mr. RiEMER. Joseph Tauber, T-a-u-b-e-r. Abraham Unger, 
XJ-n-g-e-r, and Arthur Silverman, S-i-1-v-e-r-m-a-n. Now, that would 
complete my list of positive recollection. 

Mr. Tavexxer. Did .Simon Gerson have any connection with the 
operation of this cell? 

Mr. RiEMER. Absolutely not to my knowledge. 

Mr. Tavexxer. Was there any liaison between this group and 
higher authority in the Communist Party? 

Mr. RiEMER. Not to my knowledge. 

Mr. Tavexxer. At least you had no personal knowledge of it? 

Mr. RiEMER. I had no personal knowledge of it; no, sir. 

Mr. Tavexxer. Was this group addressed from time to time by 
leaders of the Communist Party on a higher level? 

Mr. RiEMER. Not to my knowledge, and in my presence; no, sir. 

Mr. Tavexxer. When you became a member of this group, were 
you given a card or was any record made of your membership? 

Mr. RiEMER. I do not think so. Asa matter of fact, I cannot recall, 
actually filling out an application card, but if it was the practice to do 
so in those days, undoubtedly I did. But I have no recollection of 
having received back either a membership card or a book or anything 
of that sort. I don't think that they were issued. 

Mr. Tavexxer. Do you recall whether or not the suggestion was 
made to you as to the use of a pseudonym instead of your real name? 

Mr. RiEMER. I think so. I used one. 

Mr. Tavexxer. What would be the occasion for your using an 
assumed name? 

Mr. RiEMER. Actually I do not know. That is, I never used the 
pseudonym myself. 

Mr. Tavexxer. As between you and these other members were you 
all on such terms that you knew each other without the necessity of 
using an assumed name? 

Mr. RiEMER. That is correct. 

Mr. Tavexxer. If there was any record kept for purposes of 
checking on dues payments or for any other purpose, would you then 
have used the assumed name? 

Mr. RiEMER. I never used it. 

Mr. Tavexxer. You did not? 

Mr. RiEMER. No. 

Mr. Tavexxer. I thought that I understood vou to sav that vou 
did? 

Mr. RiEMER. Perhaps I misspoke. I had a pseudonym, but in 
fact I never used it because there was never any occasion to use it. 

Mr. Tavexxer. What was your name? 

Mr. RiEMER. Robert Mortimer. 

Mr. Tavexxer. Do you recall whether these other attorneys in 
this group also used fictitious names? 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 3027 

Mr. Ri-EMER. That 1 do not know. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you at any time hold any position in this 
group? 

Mr. Riemer. Xo, sir. 

Mr. Tavexxer. How frequently did this group meet? 

Mr. RiE.MER. This entire group did not meet together. My rec- 
ollection is that at the most, perhaps 7 or 8 would meet. 

Mr. Tavexxer. At one time? 

Mr. Riemer. At one time, yes, and it would meet perhaps once a 
week, possibly once every 2 weeks. I am not sure. 

Mr. Tavexn^er. Where were the meetings held? 

Mr. Riemer. They would he held at the homes of various people 
who were members. 

Mr. Tavexxer. Will you tell us the names of the members, that 
you can now recall, in whose homes these meetings were held? 

Mr. Riemer. I can only recall meeting at the home of one man. 
Undoubtedly there were meetings held at other homes, but I have no 
fixed recollection of other locations, other than this one, which sticks 
in my memory. 

Mr. Tavexxer. Who was that? 

Mr. Riemer. Mr. Silberstein. 

Mr. Tavexxer. Do you recall whetlier there was any particular 
home in which the group met more frequently than hi other homes? 

Mr. Riemer. I think we probably met more frequently in his home, 
as a matter of convenience. He lived m downtown New York, and I 
think geographically it was just physically convenient. 

Mr. Tavexxer. Did the}' ever meet in your home? 

Mr. Riemer. No. 

Mr. Tavexxer. Will you tell the committee please what was 
the principal objective of this group of the Communist Party? 

Mr. Riemer. Actually at this time, when I first became a member, 
it w^as primarily and almost exclusively devoted to a study of Marxist 
literature. I think that was almost solely the occupation of the group 
at the meetings — to discuss, analyze, and report on various pieces of 
Communist Party doctrine or literature, which had been printed and 
was available for purchase. There was also in those days, of course, 
political discussion of events then taking place in the United States, 
but I think that covers it. 

Mr. Tavexxer. Do you recall the specific courses or documents 
with which you dealt? 

Mr. Riemer. There was no course but the Communist Party had 
voluminous publications, leaflets, pamplilets, and what not. They 
would be distributed at meetings. You would buy them for 5 cents, 
or 10 cents, or whatever it was. You would take them home and 
read them, and burn them after you read them, and come back and 
discuss them. 

Mr. Tavexxer. Persons in the educational level of which the mem^ 
bers of this cell were, would no doubt read and study some of the ad- 
vanced theories and principles of the Communist Partv, would they 
not? 

Let us take for instance their leading works on economics. 

Mr. Reimer. I attempted to read Das Kapital but I gave it up, 
I could not even get through tlie first part of it. and there was another 
book 



3028 COIMIMUNIST INFILTRATIOX OF GOVERNMENT 

Mr. Tavenner. Was Das Kapital one of the required studies? 

Mr. RiEMER. No; I do not think it was. My impression, as I 
look back upon it now, and you have to understand it is some years 
ago, is that it was more current hterature, the pubhcations of American 
Communist leaders rather than the reprints of foreign Communist 
leaders. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you pay dues during this period of time? 

Mr. RiEMER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. How were the dues arrived at? 

Mr. RiEMER. The dues were on a graduated scale, based upon 
income, and I think it was left up to us to declare what our income 
was, and to fix our dues contributions in accordance with our income. 

Mr. ScHERER. Was there an}' specific percentage? 

Mr. RiEMER. Yes; there was. 

Mr. ScHERER. Do you recall that percentage? 

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

Mr. ScHERER. In some of the professions it ran rather high, as in 
the entertainment field. You remember Rossen testified that over a 
period of 10 years, he contributed $20,000. 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes. And salaried persons m the entertainment 
field who were receiving about $2,500 a week, I think usually paid 
4 percent of their salaries. 

Wlien these meetings were held of this group composed of lawyers, 
were they closed Communist Party meetings in the sense that persons 
who were not members were not permitted to attend? 

Mr. RiEMER. Yes; that is right. They were closed meetings. 

Mr. Tavenner. Is it true that every secret method that could be 
devised was used to prevent the identity of the members of this gi'oup 
from being known? 

Mr. RiEMER. That is a fair statement; that is correct. 

Mr. Tavenner. And no one would have been permitted to attend 
one of those meetings who was not a member of the Communist 
Party? 

Mr. Riemer. That is correct. 

Mr. Tavenner. And did all of the attorneys, whose names you have 
given us, attend some of those meetings, which you have described? 

Mr. Riemer. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did this group of the Communist Party become 
interested in an}^ project in which the legal profession was particularly 
involved and concerned? 

Mr. Riemer. Well, I became interested. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell us about it? 

Mr. Riemer. Some time in 1935, I believe, there was organized in 
New York City an outfit called the LawA'ers Security League. Now, 
who organized it and how it was organzied and when it was organized, 
I do not know. I did not become a member of it until I would saj', 
the spring of 1936. Its primary function, as I later learned, was to 
secure employment for law3^ers, and due to the then economic con- 
dition of the bar in New York City the encroachments made upon 
the practice by the unauthorized practices of others, I would say there 
were literally thousands of lawyers who were either unemplo3'ed or 
just could not exist professionally. 

Mr. Scherer. What year was that? 

Mr. Riemer. That would be in 1935. WPA projects were estab- 
lished to provide emplojonent for these lawj^ers. There was a project 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 3029 

to bring up to date county clerks' records, and a project to bring up 
to date the records of the Surrogate's Court, and projects of that 
nature. The Lawyers Security League was helpful and instrumental 
in getting established in these projects and in getting lawyers jobs on 
on those projects. That was its primary function. 

Mr. ScHERER. That condition you spoke of concerning the plight 
of lawyers in the New York area was the same in varying degrees 
throughout the country. 

Mr. RiEMER. It was symptomatic of the entire country, and 
particularly acute in large cities like New York. 

Mr. ScHERER. I remember well, as a j^oung lawyer at that time. 

Mr. RiEMER. That is right, it was exceedingly difficult for a man 
just graduating from law school and admitted to the bar to even 
engage in the practice and even make $20 a week. The WPA project 
at whatever they paid in those days, was substantially more than he 
could earn in practice. 

Well, to continue, sometime along in 1936, I was asked to join the 
Lawyers Security League, and I had never been particularly interested 
up to that time in membership because of its program which did not 
concern me. I was not on a WPA project and I did not want to be 
on a WPA project. Perhaps I was a little more fortunate than others, 
and I did have a slight professional income. I was asked to join the 
league, and I did. I think membership was $1 a year and it was 
very minimum. I became a member of a committee thereafter whose 
purpose it was to try to work out a program for the economic advance- 
ment of the lawyers, and devise ways and means if it could be done 
to find additional professional engagements for attorneys. We 
undertook such a program. Some of the things we talked about, for 
example, in this committee during the late spring and early summer 
of 1936 were; Increasing wages paid to lawyers on WPA projects, 
trying to secure additional projects, trying to stop the unauthorized 
practice of law, and trying to work out or evolve a system for ref- 
erences of one kind or another, in the appointment of appraisers,, 
which would be done on a basis of rotation so that qualified individ- 
uals as they approached to the top of the list, if they were available 
and wanted such appointments, would get them off the top of the list. 

In a city like New York, particularly in those days, with bank- 
ruptcy and one thing and another, there were numerous opportunities 
for professional employment of that nature. We tried to work out a 
system whereby that would be distributed on an equitable basis. That 
was a project. 

Mr. ScHERER. What position did you hold in the organization that 
you have referred to as the Lawyers Security League? 

Mr. RiEMER. I held no position. If I am not mistaken, I was the 
chairman of this committee that was trying to evolve the program 
that I have just mentioned. 

Mr. ScHERER. Who was the president of the group? 

Mr. RiEMER. I do not know who was the president in those days. 

Mr. ScHERER. Do you recall whether Robert J. Silberstein became 
the president at a later period? 

Mr. RiEMER. He might have been president at that time, or he 
could have become president later. I really do not know. 

Mr. ScHERER. Was the committee of which you were chairman, 
the only activity of this league? 



3030 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 

Mr. RiEMER. Yes, that is right. 

Mr. ScHERER. Did it have other activities? 

Mr. RiEMER. Yes; and other standing committees and I assume 
special committees, and that was a special committee. 

Mr. ScHERER. You have explained to us the activity of only one 
group in the Lawyers Securit}^ League. Did it have a number of 
activities other than that which you just related? 

Mr. RiEMER. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were there other members of your Communist 
Party group who were definitely affiliated with the league? 

Mr. Reimer. I think prol^ably that most of the names I have 
mentioned were members. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did this Communist Party group exercise any 
influence in the operation or the functioning of this league? 

Mr. RiEMER. I cannot answer that question because I do not know. 
Aside from my participation as chairman of this committee which 
lasted only a short time, I had little or no interest in the league and 
I just do not know anything about its internal workings. 

Mr. ScHERER. Just a moment. Do you happen to recall some of 
the other objectives in which the league was interested? 

Mr. RiEMER. It was primarily concerned, Mr. vScherer, with job 
opportunity. I think that was its principal and primary function. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did it finally develop to the point where repre- 
sentatives were sent to the American Bar Association to promote 
certain of the worthwhile principles advocated by the league? 

Mr. RiEMER. Here is how that came about: I was at that time a 
member of the American Bar Association, and prior to the year 1936, 
I had considered going to the Boston convention of the American Bar 
Association. I discussed with this committee of which I was chairman 
the possibility of some or all of us going to that convention, certainly 
those who were members of the American Bar Association, and pre- 
senting to the American Bar Association resolutions along the lines 
that I have mentioned seeking the endorsement of the American Bar 
Association. We were principally interested in getting the American 
Bar Association to endorse the idea of WPA projects for lawyers, 
making a study of the economic condition of the bar, concerning which 
there was no real available data, or statistics at that time, or doing 
more about the unauthorized practice of law and issues of that nature. 

Mr. Moulder. As I understand, your testimony is now concerning 
activitie.? which are in no way related to the Communist domination, 
or activities with which this committee is interested. Those are all 
worthwhile objectives that you had. 

Mr. Tavenner. There is no doubt about that. When you pre- 
sented these resolutions to the American Bar Association, did you 
find that your group of the Communist Party had supported resolu- 
tions of different types, which were also presented to the American 
Bar Association? 

Mr. RiEMER. Yes; there were some resolutions of a different type, 
and I think there was a resolution on the Tom Moone^^ case. There 
were some others I do not recall. I think they were all printed in 
the report of the American Bar Association conference for that year. 

Mr. Soberer. Do you mean some of the representatives of this 
league presented resolutions to the American Bar Association on 
matters other than they were authorized to do? 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 3031 

Mr. RiEMER. No; I would not say other than they were authorized 
to do. 

Mr. ScHERER. Other than the objectives of the leaa:iie called for, 
then? 

Mr. RiEMER. Yes; I think that is a fair statement. 

Mr. ScHERER. As I understand your testimony, certainly the objec- 
tives of this league, were not to support the Tom Moone}^ matter; 
is that right? 

Mr. RiEMER. That is correct. I think there was a resolution on 
child labor, for example. 

Mr. Tavenner. In other words, resolutions that were not directed 
to the objectives of your group found their way into this presentation 
to the American Bar Association? 

Mr. RiEMER. Yes; that is a fair statement. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know the source of these resolutions? 

Mr. RiEMER. They all came out of this committee of which I was 
chairman, I think. 

Mr. Moulder. My point is that that was not a Communist cell, 
or a Communist Party organization of which you were chairman. 

Mr. RiEMER. That is right; it was not. Of course I was a member 
of the party and I was the chairman of that committee. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was the Communist Party or any of its members 
influential in getting such resolutions passed, such as the Tom Mooney 
resolution? 

Mr. RiEMER. No. 

Mr. Tavenner. You do not think so? 

Mr. RiEMER. No, sir; they never even got out of the committee, 
as far as that is concerned. 

Mr. Tavenner. I am not talking about the American Bar Associa- 
tion, but about the Lawyers Security League. 

Mr. RiEMER. Well, you will have to give me that question again. 

Mr. Tavenner. My question was whether or not the Communist 
Party, or any of its members, were instrumental in obtaining the 
passage by the Lawyers Security League of resolutions of the type 
that you have mentioned, such as the Tom Mooney resolution? 

Mr. RiEMER. I really have no clear recollection on that. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did the Lawyers Security League develop later 
into another organization? 

Mr. RiEMER. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. Just tell us briefly. 

Mr. RiEMER. wSubsequent to the American Bar Association con- 
vention, there was a meeting in New York City held at the Association 
of the Bar of the City of New York, of the Lawyers Security League, 
at which I, as chairman of this committee, previously mentioned, 
rendered a report on what had occurred at the American Bar Asso- 
ciation convention. In substance, I said this: That it seemed to 
me, as the chairman of the committee, that at that time at least 
the American Bar Association was not going to do too much about the 
economic condition of the bar. It was not primarily concerned with 
that. I said that another approach had to be taken or other means 
devised if lawyers were going to do anything about their economic 
conditions in the profession at that time. At the meeting of which I 
speak, somebody made a motion to, or urged a resolution that the 
committee be continued in power, and authorized to develop a pro- 

70811— 56— pt. 2 2 



3032 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 

gram leading towards a meeting perhaps on a national basis to be held 
sometime around Thanksgiving of 1936, to see if it could evolve a 
program concerned with those conditions, which made it difficult, and 
in some cases almost impossible, for lawyers to gain a living profession- 
ally. So we undertook such a program; this committee of which I 
still continued to act as chairman. We attempted to contact people 
in other cities. 

I only have a recollection of Pittsburgh, and possibly Baltimore. 
While that program was still going on, and in process of development, 
a suggestion was made in New York City at a lawyers meeting of 
the American Labor Party that what the lawyers really needed was 
something in the nature of a guild of lawyers which would really go 
out and do something about their conditions, somewhat in the nature 
of work that had been done for professional groups on the west coast, 
like the screen actors or the screen writers; I do not recall the situation 
too well. I was not at the meeting but that was reported to me, 
and tlie suggestion met with favor. When it was reported to me, it 
was suggested that I ought to get together, as chairman of my com- 
mittee, with the man who had made that suggestion, and that was 
done. 

Mr. Tavenner. And that led, I am told, to the call for the first 
meeting of the National Lawyers Guild? 

Mr. RiEMER. That is right. That germ, or that idea that was 
thrown out led to the thought or the idea of the National Lawyers 
Guild, and it was really the start of it. The idea was that if we 
confined or restricted ourselves to an economic program, you could 
not get liberal and progressive lawyers who were interested in other 
things to join with you, and that you had to have a well rounded pro- 
gram incorporating a lot of things, in addition to such dry and dull 
subjects as the unauthorized practice of law. 

So out of that evolved the National Lawyers Guild, and at a meeting 
in New York City — do you want me to continue? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes. 

Mr. Eiemer. At a meeting in New York City, in the fall of 1936, 
either at the City Club or Algonquin Hotel — I do not recall now — such 
a meeting was held, and there were about 12 or 14 or 15 lawj^ers 
present. 

At that meeting those of us who were present just assumed the 
authority to designate or elect Frank Walsh the president, and other 
people were elected to other offices. It was a paper organization, 
of course, and I was asked to become the secretary. Of course I 
was eager to do so. I mean, there was no question, I wanted the job, 
and it paid $50 a week in 1936, and $50 a week in 1936 was pretty 
good money for a lawyer. 

So for the rest of 1936, I confined myself almost exclusively in 
New York City, aside from a few trips down to Washington to make 
convention arrangements. I confined myself almost exclusively to 
the organizational work of the National Law^^ers Guild. It was 
distributing literature, addressing envelopes, and inviting people to 
attend the first conference, and trying to work out a program. 

Mr. Tavenner. During this period of your activity in the organi- 
zation of the guild, were you in conference with members of the 
Communist Party regarding 3^our activities? 

Mr. E.IEMER. Yes, sir. 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 3033 

Mr. Tavenner. Tell us about that. 

Mr. Eeimer. I conferred with Silberstein and Brodsky, Those 
conferences were for the most part, as I now look back upon them, 
really addressed to the organizational work, the details of organization, 
the best way of doing it and how to do it, and who to contact and things 
of that sort. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were botli of them members of this Communist 
Party cell composed of lawyers of which you were a member? 

Mr. RiEMER. That is right. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you confer with a,nj higher authority in the 
Communist Party? 

Mr. Eiemer. i did not, no. 

Mr. Tavenner. When was the first convention held of the National 
Lawyers Guild? 

Mr. RiEMER. It was held over Washington's Birthday weekend, in 
February of 1937, at the Hotel Washington, in Washington, D. C. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did your duties require you to move to Washington? 

Mr. RiEMER. Not at that time, but I was in and out of the city 
frequently. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was there any caucus or meeting held prior to the 
convention in 1937, which 3'ou have just described, composed of 
members of the Communist Party, the purpose of which meeting 
Avas to guide the organization in its convention? 

Mr. RiEMER. Yes, there was such a meeting held on a night or two 
before the convention opened. 

Air. Tavenner. Where was that meeting held? 

Mr. RiEMER. It was held in a hotel room of the Hotel Washington. 

Mr. Tavenner. How many persons attended that meeting? 

Mr. RiEMER. My recollection is that there were 10 or 12 there. 

Mr. Tavenner. Could you give us the names of the persons who 
attended that meeting? 

Mr. RiEMER. I can only give you the names of perhaps 3 or 4 that 
I can now recall. They were Brodsky, Silberstein, and I think Sacher. 
And I was there. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee as nearly as you can 
what decisions were reached at that meeting? 

Mr. RiEMER. I have only the faintest recollection of that, and I 
cannot tell you with any assurance what decisions were made at 
that meeting. No minutes were kept, and there is no record of it. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you endeavor to agree upon a slate of officers 
to be elected? 

Mr. RiEMER. I would say so. I would say that probably that was 
discussed and agreed upon. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did that slate of officers include you? 

Mr. RiEMER. That would include myself. 

Mr. Tavenner. As executive secretary? 

Mr. RiEMER. That is right. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you recall whether the slate at that time 
included any other members of the Communist Party? 

Mr. RiEMER. Not principal officers, no. I think maybe on the 
executive committee it might have. 

Mr. Tave.\ner. Are you certain enough in your own mind that 
you could tell us who they were? 

Mr. RiEMER. Not without seeing the letterhead; no, sir. 



3034 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 

Mr. Taven^er. I understand vou resigned as executive secretarv 
in 1939? 

Mr. RiEMER. I did, sir. 

Mr. Tave:\ner. What was the reason for your resignation? 

Mr. RiEMER. Well, I will have to go back a little. 

Mr. Tavennp:r. Just briefly enough to make a clear explanation 
of it. . •. 

Mr. Riemee. I will make it as brief as I can. The National 
Lawyers Guild was quite successful in its initial stages. Thousands of 
lawyers joined and joined gladly, of all political faiths and creeds. I 
attempted on a national level, at least, to keep the progi'am on a com- 
mon denominator basis so that it would appeal to everybody, and 
that we would not be confined or isolated to any one particular group. 
But during late 1937, and in 1938 the Spanisli issue principally, I think, 
created difficulties because numerous lawyers, particularly those of 
Catholic faith felt, first, that the position of the guild was wrong, 
politically wrong, and secondly that a lawyers organization had no 
business interfering with or passing resolutions or attempting to assert 
action on an issue of that sort. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was that a very strong issue at that time? 

Mr. RiEMER. It was a very strong issue at that time. 

Mr. Tavenner. W^as that the Communist Party line at that time? 

Mr. RiEMER. Yes. In addition to that, and over which I had no 
control, there were chapters of the guild in various cities and I had 
no control over that. I learned subsequently that chapters in various 
cities at meetings would pass idiotic resolutions, which locally were 
passed, and brought the guild into disfavor among many members 
of the bar who felt that these were issues with which lawyers should 
have no concern as a lawyers' organization. They felt the guild was 
being used to unfair advantage. 

To make a long story short 

Mr. Tavenner. Let me interrupt you a moment. Was it also the 
view that many of such resolutions were Communist-inspired resolu- 
tions, and carried out the Communist Party line at that time? 

Mr. RiEMER. I think that was the view. 

Now, with this background, and because of these things, my job 
became a headache, and it was one that I no longer desired to hold, 
I went to the February 1939 convention of the National Lawyers 
Guild, which was held over here at the Hotel LaSalle, in Chicago, 
determined to resign. I discussed it with nobod.y but myself, but I 
was fed up, and I went to the first executive board meeting and I 
said, "I am through, this job is one that requires a man of abilities 
which I do not possess." I had made up my mind to get out. 

However, I was attacked personally and I was attacked and accused 
of subverting the organization, to the purposes of the Communist 
Party, which I denied. The rumor was spread that I had received 
Moscow gold, and let there be no question about that, there was not 
a cent of money that ever came into the guild that came from Mos- 
cow. The money came from its members and no other place, but 
there it was, and the fat was in the fire, and I was attacked, and I 
suppose like a lot of other individuals, maybe inadvisedly when you 
are attacked personally, you stand up to defend yourself, and so I 
did; I ran for offic(> again. 

There was not any opposition, and I was elected. 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 3035 

Now, during the convention, I think it was on the last day of the 
convention, Morris Ernst of New York, who was an executive board 
member, introduced a resohition, and I call it the condemning of all 
''isms" resolutions, and it precipitated a wing ding of a debate. I 
think it went on for about 24 hours. It kept getting hotter and 
hotter and hotter. But in any event, following that session, after 
the new president was elected, and Pecora, the retiring president 
went back to New York, the charge of communism was leveled by 
Pecora, against the guild. When that was made, the guild was just 
about on its last legs. It became impossible for the organization to 
continue thereafter. 

People resigned in droves. Or if not resigning, when their dues 
became due, they just failed to pay them. The organization so fell 
apart that in the summer of 1939 we just did not have enough money 
to pay my salary. I had difficulty keeping the rent going and paying 
the secretaries in the office. So in the fall of 1939, it became too much 
for me, and I just made up my mind to resign. I tendered my resigna- 
tion in the fall of 1939 but agreed to continue over, I think, until 
the first of the year, in order to wrap up the loose ends. One of the 
things we did was to move to another office, and so on. Aside from 
tying up the loose ends, as I say, in the late fall of 1939, or early in 
January of 1940, I have had nothing to do with the guild ever since. 
I had no part or parcel of it. 

Mr. Tavenner. Shortly after that, did you become an employee 
of the National Labor Relations Board? 

Mr. RiEMER. That is correct. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Chairman, I believe this would be a good 
place for a break, if you desire to have one. 

Mr. Moulder. The committee will stand in recess for a period of 
5 minutes. 

(Brief recess.) 

Mr. Moulder. We will proceed. 

Mr. Tavenner. During the period of time, Mr. Riemer, that your 
duties i-equired you to be in Washington as executive secretary of the 
National Lawyers Guild, did you affiliate with a group of the Com- 
munist Party there or did you retain your membership in New York? 

Mr. Riemer. I retained a nominal membership in New York, and 
I did not affiliate with any group in Washington. 

Mr. Tavenner. You have told us that you became employed in 
1940 as a trial examiner with the National Labor Relations Board. 
How did you obtain that employment? 

Mr. Riemer. After I had resigned as secretary of the Guild in the 
fall of 1939, I considered whether to go back to New York and resume 
the practice of law, or seek employment in the Government in Wash- 
ington. I had met Nathan Witt, who was then the Secretary of the 
Board, in Washington, and I knew him casually, and I went to see 
him. I asked him if there was an opportunity for employment as 
an attorney with the Labor Board. I had a short interview with him. 
He said at that time that the National Labor Relations Board was 
only hiring lawyers who were graduates of Harvard, Columbia, and 
he may have mentioned Yale, and preferably those who were on the 
law reviews of those schools. I was on the law review but I bad not 
graduated from either school, and I just turned around and walked 
out. 



3036 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 

Mr. ScHERER. Did he give you an}" reason for confining it to those 
schools? 

Mr. RiEMER. No, and I remember that comment. It was one of 
the fastest brushoffs I have ever gotten from anybody. 

Mr. ScHERER. What were those schools? 

Mr. RiEMER. He mentioned Harvard and he mentioned Columbia, 
and I think that he mentioned Yale. 

Mr. ScHERER. From where did he graduate? 

Mr. RiEMER. I do not know. But shortly after that 

Mr. Tavenner. Let me interrupt you for a moment. You did 
not identify yourself to him as a member of the Communist Party, 
did you? 

Mr. RiEMER. No, sir. Shortly after this interview with Witt, I 
met Frank Bloom, who was then an assistant chief trial examiner with 
the National Labor Relations Board. He came up to me at some 
meeting and said, "Riemer, I understand you are looking for a job," 
or words to that effect. I said, "Yes, I was," and he asked me if I 
would be interested in a position as a trial examiner with the Labor 
Board. I said I had never thought about it, it was something new 
to me, but I certainly was interested. He told me then that he would 
either arrange an interview for me to meet George Pratt, the chief 
trial examiner, or I should call Pratt and make my own appointnu^nt. 

Mr. Tavenner. Let me interrupt you there. You mentioned the 
name of Frank Bloom, and I think that we should have the record 
speak clearly at this point as to w^hether there was ever any indication 
to you at any time that Frank Bloom had been a member of the 
Communist Party. 

Mr. RiEMER. Absolutely not. 

Mr. ScHERER. What about Witt? 

Mr. RiEMER. I have no knowledge of that, Mr. Scherer. 

I met Mr. Pratt and he introduced me, and discussed the type of 
work that was involved, and the conduct of hearings all over the 
United States and the frequent absences from Washington for 
extended periods of time, the hardship of travel and so on, and it 
appealed to me. I processed an application and filled out whatever 
forms were required to be filled out in those days, and I was appointed 
early in January of 1940. 

Mr. Scherer. How long was that after your initial conversation 
with Nathan Witt? 

Mr. RiEMER. Within months, 2 months possibly, or 1 month; I 
really do not know. 

Air. Scherer. In view of your fine activities on behalf of dis- 
tressed lawyers, didn't that rankle you a little bit when Witt con- 
fined his selection of attorneys to those three schools? 

Mr. RiEMER. Mr. Scherer, I was never so mad in all of my life as 
I was on that occasion. 

Mr. Scherer. How could you explain an exception behig made to 
you, not coming from one of those schools? 

Mr. RiEMER. This was another department over which Witt had 
no control. 

Mr. Scherer. It was still in the National Labor Relations Board? 

Mr. Riemer. That is right. 

Mr. Scherer. I understood that the National Labor Relations 
Board was not emplo^nng any attorneys other than those from the 
three schools mentioned. 



COMJSiUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 3037 

Mr. RiEMER. That is what I said, but actually George Pratt, I 
think, had the authority, need existing, to engage personnel. 

Mr, ScHERER. Could the fact that somebody found out that you 
happened to be a member of the Communist Party have something 
to do with the exception made in your case? 

Mr. RiEMER. I do not know. 

Mr. Tavenner. After taking part in the work of the National 
Labor Relations Board as a trial attorney for a period of time, did 
you have occasion to meet Mr. Herbert Fuchs? 

Mr. RiEMER. He was a trial examiner, Mr. Tavenner. Yes; I did. 

Mr. Tavenner. Explain the circumstances under which you first 
met him. 

Mr. RiEMER. I had known Fuchs in Washington when I was there 
before I went on the Board, and I had seen him and met him at 
meetings of the National Lawyers Guild, in the District of Columbia 
chapter. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you know him to be a member of the Com- 
munist Partv before vou went with the National Labor Relations 
Board? 

Mr. RiEMER. No; I did not know it. 

Mr. Tavenner. After you became an employee of the National 
Labor Relations Board, what was the first occasion for a discussion of 
communism with Mr. Fuchs? 

Mr. Riemer. Shortly after I became an employee, and I cannot 
fix the time, it is just my impression now that he contacted me and 
asked me to meet with a group. I have no clear recollection of thf^ 
incident, but that is my impression. 

Mr. Tavenner. A group of what? 

Mr. Riemer. It would have been a group of lawyers, members of 
the Communist Party. 

Mr. Tavenner. A group of lawyers who were members of the 
Communist Party? 

Mr. Riemer. That is right. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was that group confined to lawyers employed by 
the National Labor Relations Board? 

Mr. Riemer. I do not know whether he told me that, but that was 
the fact after I attended. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you become a member of that group of the 
Communist Party? 

Mr. Riemer. I did. 

Mr. Tavenner. Approximately what was the date that you be- 
came a member? 

Mr. Riemer. I would say it was in January or February of 1940. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long did you remain a member? 

Mr. Riemer. I remained a member until the late spring or summer 
of 1943. 

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

Mr. Riemer. I am not. 

Mr. Tavenner. Have you been a member of the Communist 
Party at any time since 1943? 

Mr. Riemer. Absolutely not. 

Mr. Moulder. Was 1943 when your employment terminated with 
the National Labor Relations Board? 



3038 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 

Mr. RiEMER. No; I terminated my employment with the Labor 
Board in September of 1947. 

Mr. Moulder. In other words, you disassociated yourself with the 
Communist group? 

Mr. RiEMER. In the late spring or summer of 1943, and in July of 
1943 I was commissioned in the Army, or took mj'- oath, and I went 
on active dut}^ I think m August. 

Air. Tavenner. How long were you in the Army? 

Mr. RiEMER. I came back in September of 1945. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you reaffiliate with the Communist Party 
after your return from the service? 

Mr. Riemer. No, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you requested to? 

Mr. Riemer. It seems to me that during the summer of 1943, after 
I had dropped out of the Communist Party I was then asked at that 
time to account for my absences and to come back, and f refused at 
that time because when I took my oath in the Army I took it without 
fear or equivocation or any mental reservation, and I was through. 

Mr. ScHERER. You realized then that there would have been a con- 
flict of loyalties and obligations had you retamed your membership in 
the Commmiist Party and at the same time served in the Army of 
the United States; is that right? 

Mr. Riemer. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ScHERER. Your withdrawal from the Communist Party was 
almost simultaneous then with your acceptance of a commission in 
the Army of the United States? 

Mr. Riemer. Just about. 

Air. Moulder. Probably Mr. Riemer would like to give some other 
explanations as to the reason why he terminated his association with 
the Communist Party cell referred to. 

Mr. Riemer. Yes, I would like to, Mr. Moulder. I want this 
committee to know that at no time did I ever participate in any 
intrigue or conspiracy' against my Government. 

I was a member of a professional group which confined itself almost 
entirely to a philosophical or intellectual exercise in Alarxist doctrine. 
It did not take me long to discover that it was not for me. The party 
had no moral philosophy; its economic theories were fantastic. It 
was a party of disruption and discord, and it was contributing nothing 
to the good of the country. I just made up m}' mind to get out and 
get out good. 

When I entered the Army as I said before, I took that oath as a 
commissioned officer without fear, equivocation or any mental reser- 
vations whatsoever. I never have gone back since, and I haven't 
had part or parcel of anything to do with the Communist Party since. 

Air. Scherer. At the beginning of your testimony. Air. Witness, 
you said your chief reason for joining the partv^ was because you felt 
that the Communist Party was an agency in this world that was 
opposed to anti-Semitism. As I said when you made that statement, 
that testimony has been confirmed by a number of witnesses before 
this committee. Did you, like Professor Davis, who testified before 
this committee, find out that the Communist Part}'^ was not actually 
sincerely opposed to anti-Semitism? 

Mr. Riemer. That is right. The experiences in Birobidjan was 
one, and its policy with respect to Israel is another. 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 3039 

Mr. ScHERER. I recall Professor Davis, and if I keep on mentioning 
him, it is because I remember his name, but there were a number of 
others who testified before this committee who found that the Com- 
munist Party actually was as anti-Semitic as Hitler ever was. 

Mr. RiEMER. I think that is correct. 

Mr. Moulder. Let us proceed. 

Mr. Tavenner. You were telling us of an effort made to get you 
back into the Communist Party before you entered the service, and 
to make you account for j^our absences. Who was that? 

Mr. Riemer. I think it was before I went in the Army; that is my 
recollecton. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you recall who it was? 

Mr. Riemer. Yes, sir. David Rein. 

Mr. Tavenner. David Rein was an attorney for the National 
Labor Relations Board. Do you know what his occupation is now? 

Mr. Riemer. He is an attorney or a practicing lawyer. 

Mr. Tavenner. In the city of Washington? 

Mr. Riemer. Yes, in Washington, D. C. 

Mr. Scherer. I think you know him, Mr. Tavenner. 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes. 

Mr. Scherer. You have had contact with the gentleman. 

Mr. Tavenner. I would like to go back and ask you a few more 
questions about your experience in this Communist Party cell within 
the National Labor Relations Board. 

Were you given a card to show your membership, or did you sign a 
card? 

Mr. Riemer. No, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know why no cards were required? 

Mr. Riemer. I do not know as a fact, and I can surmise that it 
was probably for reasons of secrecy. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you discover whether there was more than 
one cell of the Communist Party at the NLRB? 

Mr. Riemer. No; I never discovered that. I had contact with 
only one group and it is only the personnel of that group that I know. 

Mr. Tavenner. Where did those individuals work? 

Mr. Riemer. They were all employees of the National Labor 
Relations Board. 

Mr. Tavenner. How many employees composed the group to 
M^hich you were assigned? 

Mr. Riemer. At the most, 6 or 7. 

Mr. Tavenner. Then, if there were more people than that as shown 
b}^ the evidence, to be in the Communist Party while employed by 
the National Labor Relations Board, it would be an indication that 
there was more than one cell? 

Mr. Riemer. Undoubtedly. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were all of these members in 3'our group lawyers? 
Possibly you can answer that question better by just giving us the 
names of those who were in your group, and then giving such descrip- 
tive information as you can regarding them. 

Mr. Riemer. There was Mr. Fuchs; he Avas an attorney. There 
was Mr. Rein, and he was an attorney. 

Mr. Tavenner. Is that David Rein? 

Mr. Riemer. That is right. There was Martin Kurasch, Joseph 
Robison, and Hariy Cooper; they were all attorneys. And then there 
was mvself . 



3040 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you recall a person by the name of Donner? 

Mr. RiEMER. Oh, yes; Frank Donner. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was he a member of your group? 

Mr. Riemer. He was a member, and he was an attorney. 

Mr. Tavenner. Then all of these individuals in your group were 
attorneys? 

Mr. Riemer. That is right. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were they all employed in the same section of the 
National Labor Relations Board? 

Mr. Riemer. That I do not know. I was in the Trial Examiners 
Division, and these other names that I have mentioned were attorneys, 
but whether they were all in the same section or not I really do not 
know. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do 3'ou recall bringing any new members into 
your group after you became a member? 

Mr. Riemer. No, sir. You see, I was absent from Washington 
frequentl}^ for long periods of time, during which time I would not 
attend meetings. What happened in my absence, of course, I cannot 
account for. 

Mr. Moulder. Approximately how many meetings of that group 
did you attend? 

Mr. Riemer. Over a period, that is hard to say. Do you mean in 
Washington? 

Mr. Moulder. Yes. 

Mr. Riemer. I would say 25 or 30. 

Mr. Moulder. Air. Tavenner, did you intend to interrogate the 
witness about the other names mentioned by Mr. Fuchs? 

Mr. Tavenner. He said he was not a member with those other 
persons. 

Mr. ]MouLDER. I observe that some of the names he mentioned 
were also mentioned by Mr. Fuchs. 

Mr. Tavenner. All of them were. 

Mr. Moulder. The reason I raise that question is that possibly 
others attended meetings of the same cell when he was not present, 
that is the point. 

Mr. Tavenner. That is possible; yes. Were you here when Mr. 
Fuchs testified? 

Mr. Riemer. No, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. \h\ Fuchs identified in all 17 persons employed at 
the National Labor Relations Board who were known to him to be 
members of the Communist Party. One for instance was Allan 
Rosenberg. Were you acquainted with Allan Rosenberg? 

Mr. Riemer. I knew him. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was he a member of j^our group of the Communist 
Party? 

Mr. Riemer. I did not know him as a member of the Communist 
Party. 

Mr. Tavenner. According to Mr. Fuchs' testimony, it would 
indicate that there was overlapping in these groups, and that indi- 
viduals were assigned from one group to another. Were you ever 
transferred from one group to another? 

Mr. Riemer. That could be. No; I was never transferred. I 
stayed with that one group, and it seems to me at one time that 
Mr. Cooper dropped out. 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 3041 

Mr. Tavenner. When you say he dropped out, do you know 
whether he was assigned at that time to some other group within the 
National Labor Relations Board, or whether he ceased to be a member 
of the Communist Party? 

Mr. RiEMER. That I do not know. It was my impression that he 
had resigned from the Board and gone back home to practice law. 

Mr. Willis. You said you made trips frequently. Were those 
trips to the field offices of the National Labor Relations Board? 

Mr. RiEMER. No; I made these trips, Mr. Willis, to conduct 
hearings which were held in the various regions of the Board through- 
out the LTnited States. For example, a hearing might be held in 
Chicago. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you hear mentioned in the course of any of 
your meetings a person referred to as "Mike"? 

Mr. RiEMER. No, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did vou ever hear a person referred to as "the 
chief"? 

Mr. RiEMER. Yes; I think that Mr. Fuchs on occasion would use 
that expression, that he would talk to the boss or talk to the chief, 
but I cannot recall him ever using the word "Mike." 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you learn who the chief was? 

Mr. RiEMER. No; frankly I was not interested. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did the chief attend any meeting at which you 
were present? 

Mr. RiEMER. Not at any meeting at which I was present. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was it your understanding that the chief was an 
employee of the National Labor Relations Board, or a functionary of 
the Communist Party outside of the National Labor Relations Board? 

Mr. RiEMER. I had the impression that he was a functionary out- 
side the National Labor Relations Board. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you acquainted with Victor Perlo? 

Mr. RiEMER. No; I never knew him, or I never met him. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you acquainted with Arthur Stein? 

Mr. RiEMER. No; I never knew him and I never met him. 

Mr. Moulder. Could you give us a statement briefly concerning 
the activities and discussions of this group at the meetings you say 
you attended? 

Mr. RiEMER. Again, Mr. Moulder, it was almost parallel to my 
experiences in New York; that is, except that in point of time, there 
Avere different current political developments in 1941 and 1942 than 
there had been back in 1935 and 1936. The war was on for one thing. 
But basically again it was primarily a discussion of Communist theory 
and policy in the light of current conditions. 

Mr. Moulder. Did you at any time discuss or consider any of your 
official actions or duties at your Communist Party meetings? 

Mr. RiEMER. There was never any attempt or design on the part 
of this group to manipulate the Board in any way or to control its 
policies, doctrines, or decisions. 

I remember one occasion you asked me what the group did — it must 
have been after June of 1941 because it was related to the invasion of 
Russia. We spent an evening discussing a book recently published 
and extensively reviewed concerning Sherman's March to the Sea in 
1864, and the theory was advanced that vSherman had laid down the 
scorched earth policy in his march, and that was similar to what the 
Russians were doing on their retreat into Russia. 



3042 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 

That was the sort of thmg, or at least on that occasion we dis- 
cussed it, and it had no connection with the Board and was not re- 
lated to it. 

Mr. Moulder. Did any Communist Party leader or a higher 
functionary of the Communist Party appear at your meetings to 
discuss, advise, or instruct in any way? 

Mr. RiEMER. No. I have the feeling that that was, as a matter of 
policy, something to be avoided. 

Mr. ScHERER. May I ask a question? 

Mr. Moulder. Yes. 

Mr. ScHERER. You said that Mr. Fuchs referred to ''the chief," 
and then from Fuchs' conversation did you gather that he had contact 
with the chief or that he was the liaison man? 

Mr. RiEMER. I would assume so. If the man said: "I will take it 
up with the chief or take it up with the boss," the natural conclusion 
is that he had some approach to him. 

Mr. ScHERER. Did you consider, then, Fuchs as the liaison man 
between your group and the chief? 

Mr. RiEMER. I do not think that I did at that time. Of recent 
weeks when I have been forced to think about this more concisely, 
and relate it back, of course, I do now. 

Mr. Moulder. We will have to proceed more rapidh' if we are 
going to hear five witnesses today. Are there any further questions 
of this witness? 

Mr. Tavenner. I understand from your testimony that since you 
withdrew from the Communist Party, you have not engaged in any 
Communist Party activities. 

Mr. RiEMER. That is correct. 

Mr. Tavenner. And of course, your break with the Communist 
Party is final and complete? 

Mr. RiEMER. Final and binding. 

Mr. Tavenner. If there is any other point you desire to cover re- 
garding your withdrawal from the Communist Party, you are now at 
liberty to so state. 

Mr. RiEMER. I think that I have covered it, Mr. Tavenner. 

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

Mr. Moulder. Are there any further questions? 

Mr. ScHERER. Mr. Chairman, I think the witness is to be compli- 
mented on his fine testimony, and I think he has been extremely help- 
ful to the Government and to this committee. There is one phase of 
your testimony, Mr. Riemer, that I think is more important than 
perhaps you realize. At this time I will not refer to that part of your 
testimony. I think that you have rendered a fine public service, and 
of course, there should be no recriminations in your hometown against 
you at all for what you have done here today. I sincerely hope that 
there will be none. 

Mr. Willis. Mr. Chairman, I do not have any questions, but I do 
want to join in the statement made by our colleague from Ohio. Mr. 
Scherer. I think this witness has demonstrated fortitude and courage 
to voluntarily throw some light on his associations with the Coiu- 
munist Party. He has rendered valuable service to the committee 
and to us of the Congress and the people. I particularly agree with 
Mr. Scherer that there should not be, and I hope there will not be, 
anj- recriminations or any repercussions as a result of his demonstra- 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 3043 

tion of courage, particularly not from the people of his area or from 
his clientele as a lawyer. I know it is a sensitive thing with all 
lawyers, and I wish the witness well. 

Mr. Moulder. I concur with the statements made by other mem- 
bers of the committee. I want to ask you one question. 

Are you married? 

Mr. RiEMER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Moulder. Do you have any children? 

Mr. RiEMER. Yes, sir; I have three children. 

Mr. Moulder. How long did you serve in the Armed Forces? 

Mr. RiEMER. I went on active duty, I think, sir, in August of 
1 943, and I was honorably discharged just about Christmas of 1945. I 
went overseas as a captain and came back as a major. 

Mr. Moulder. We express our appreciation for your appearance 
here. 

Mr. Burke. I would like to thank the chairman for the courtesy 
extended to Mr. Riemer and to me, and I would like to say as a 
practicing lawyer in Cleveland that Mr. Riemer has practiced his 
profession honorably for many years, and if I did not have the con- 
viction that he had completely renounced the Communist Party for 
14 years I would not be here today. 

Mr. Scherer. I am sure that is true, Senator. 

Mr. Burke. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Moulder. Thank you very much, Mr. Riemer; you are 
excused as a witness. 

Mr. Tavenner. I will call Mr. Lester Asher. 

Mr. Moulder. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony given 
by you before this committee will be the truth, the whole truth and 
nothing but the truth, so help j^ou God? 

Mr. Asher. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF LESTER ASHER 

Mr. Tavenner. What is your name please, sh? 

Mr. Asher. Lester Asher. 

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

Mr. Asher. I was born in Chicago, in 1910. 

Mr. Tavenner. What is 3'our present occupation? 

Mr. Asher. I am a law^yer here in Chicago. 

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

Mr. Asher. I graduated from the University of Chicago as an 
undergraduate and took my law work in the University of Chicago 
also, at the University of Chicago Law School. 

Mr. Tavenner. When did you begin the practice of law? 

Mr. Asher. I began to practice law in 1933 with a firm here in 
Chicago. 

Mr. Tavenner. After engaging for a period in the practice of law, 
did you obtain employment in Washington, D. C? 

^Ir. Asher. Yes. I obtained employment with the National Labor 
Relations Board beginning in about October of 1937 which was the 
first time I ever worked for any Government agency, and the only 
time. 



3044 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 

Mr. Tavenner. How long did you remain employed by the 
National Labor Relations Board? 

Mr. AsHER. I left the National Labor Relations Board in, I believe, 
May of 1945 at which time I returned to the practice here in Chicago. 

Mr. Tavenner. Wliat was the nature of your employment with 
the National Labor Relations Board? 

Mr. AsHER. I was employed by the National Labor Relations 
Board in Washington as a review attorney, and I was interviewed and 
hired by Nathan Witt who was at that time I believe the Assistant 
General Counsel, or whatever he was called in charge of the Review 
Division. I recall at the time that there were no routines or manuals 
telling you what your work was or anything of that kind, and Mr. 
Witt at the time I was hired or shortly thereafter mentioned to me 
that if I had any problems about my work or the things that I was 
expected to do, that there was an attorney in the office by the name 
of Kurasch, who knew the work and could be helpful to me. 

Mr. ScHERER. Wliat year were you interviewed? 

Mr. AsHER. In 1937. 

Mr. ScHERER. Did Nathan Witt say to you at that time that there 
were any restrictions on the hiring of lawyers as far as the law schools 
from which they graduated were concerned? 

Mr. AsHER. I think not, I was from the University of Chicago. 

Mr. Tavenner. And he offered you the services of Mr. Kurasch, 
if you needed to consult anyone regarding a problem? 

Mr. AsHER. Yes; he was not a supervisor but he had the office 
next to me if I recall, or two offices down, and he just said, "If you 
have any problems as to Government routine" — as a Government 
employee, even problems of leave, and of your hours and sick leave 
and things of that kind — there were no forms given, and no standards 
given and there was nothing that I recall at that time. 

Mr. Tavenner. Wliat was Mr. Kurasch's first name? 

Mr. AsHER. Martin. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you become acquainted with Mr. Herbert 
Fuchs? 

Mr. AsHER. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long after you assumed the duties of your 
position did you become acquainted with him? 

Mr. Asher. I recall that it was in the beginning of 1938. Fuchs 
came to the National Labor Relations Board and seemed to be a good 
friend of Mr. Kurasch, and since I very frecpiently went to lunch mth 
Kurasch — I think Fuchs joined in going along to lunch — he was a 
friend of his and seemed to have known him from New York City. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you have any discussions with Mr. Fuchs and 
Kurasch regarding the Communist Party? 

Mr. Asher. There were discussions regarding communism which 
were instituted by Fuchs in, I would say around May or sometime 
then in 1938. I recall that in about 1938, the end of my 6 months' 
period with the National Labor Relations Board which ended about 
April or May, that something happened which struck me at the time. 
I recall that the Board had worked out a policy with the lawyers 
where you would get a wage increase automatically at the conclusion 
of 6 months' service if yom- service was satisfactory. This was 
supposed to be a small wage increase. I think it was $200, which 
was at that time to me extremely big money. I was one of the fe^" 



COIVJDVIUXIST INTILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 3045 

fellows in the Review Division at the time who had a cliild, and I had 
a baby. I remember w^hen the baby arrived in the latter part of 
1937, I was the first one to pass out cigars. ^Vhen my 6 months 
finished, I did not get the raise. 

I remember at the time that I discussed that M*ith Kurasch and 
Fuchs at a luncheon date that we had, and I said that I wondered 
what I had to do about that raise. Fuchs said that he would take 
up the matter. I do not recall whether he was on the union grievance 
committee, or whether he just said he would do that. He came back 
a few days after that, and reported that it had mereh'^ been an over- 
sight, and Tom Emerson said they had overlooked my file and I 
would get the raise, and therefore I got the raise. 

Mr. Tavenxer. However, prior to that time, had they discussed 
the matter of communism with you? 

Mr. AsHER. They had not; it was right after that, at a luncheon 
with me, it was Fuchs alone. Fuchs at that time told me he felt that 
I was doing good work with the Board, was a good law^'er, but that 
I did not know anything about labor theory and labor philosophy, or 
had no background in the labor movement. I had in fact never 
taken a course in labor law at college, this was a field that I approached 
as a lawyer. 

Fuchs over several luncheons told me that he felt that I could go 
places with the Board and that he expected to become a supervisor in 
the Review Division at any time — subsequently he did. At that time 
he pointed out to me that Kurasch had become Witt's assistant, 
and Witt having moved over to the secretaryship of the Board, and 
the name of Witt was dropped very frequently, that he was pushing 
Kurasch, and that Fuchs was going to get this supervisory position. 
He mentioned to me that he felt that I should learn something about 
the labor movement and about the background of labor unions, and 
how it all fitted into a scheme of labor philosophy. 

He mentioned at one of these luncheons that he personally believed 
in communism, and felt that Communist theory and Marxist theory 
tied together the labor movement and what was going on in the labor 
movement, and the Labor Board, and its activities under that. He 
said to me that he would like to have me devote a few evenings to 
discussing these things with him as to labor background, and would I 
devote some time to that subject. I told him that I was not interested. 
So at a series of subsequent luncheons he kept pounding away at this 
problem that he could be very helpful to me at the Board, if only I 
learned something, and I did not have the background and I was 
actually pretty naive about labor problems. This kept up over a 
series of, I would sa}' 4 or 5 weeks. 

After I told him that I was not interested, it was at one luncheon 
that Kurasch joined him and said that he also was very sympathetic 
to Communist and Marxist philosophy and it had helped him under- 
stand the labor movement, and that he felt that it would be a good 
idea if I would devote some time to study. 



3046 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 

Mr. ScHERER. Who was this individual? 

Mr. AsHER. Kiiiasch. 

Mr. ScHERER. Wliat was his position at that time? 

Mr. AsHER. The assistant to Nathan Witt. 

Mr. ScHERER. What was Witt's position? 

Mr. AsHER. Secretar}^ of the Board. 

Mr. ScHERER. We have the Secretary and the Assistant Secretary 
of the NLRB who were Communists at that time. 

Mr. AsHER. I again tokl Kurasch and Fuchs that I was not inter- 
ested. After a series of such discussions to the effect that it was 
important that I learn something about the theory of the labor move- 
ment, and matters of that kind, at one point Fuchs, I believe, alone, 
said to me that if I would devote an evening or two to the study of the 
labor problems, that he could have Ruth Weyand join us in these 
discussions, because Ruth Weyand was also very sympathetic and 
knew a great deal about communism. 

Mr. Tavenner. Didn't he go further than that, and tell you that 
Ruth Weyand was a member of the Communist Party? 

Mr. AsHER. I believe he said that; that is correct. 

Mr. ScHERER. What was her position on the Board? 

Mr. AsHER. She had been hired by the Board, I believe early in 
1938, as an attorney in the briefing section, and was writing briefs for 
the Board. That was an adjacent Legal Division, and there was a 
Review Division and the Briefing Division. She was in the Briefing 
Division. 

Mr. ScHERER. She became one of the top lawyers of the agenc}"; 
didn't she? 

Mr. AsHER. That is correct. 

Mr. ScHERER. May I interrupt you, please. She argued some of 
the most important cases that the Board had before the Supreme 
Court; didn't she? 

Mr. AsHER. Yes. 

Mr. ScHERER. Do you know which specific cases she argued before 
the Supreme Court on behalf of the Board? 

Mr. AsHER. I cannot recall at this moment. I do know, however, 
many of the leading cases in the field that she argued before the 
Supreme Court. 

Mr. ScHERER. For the National Labor Relations Board? 

Mr. AsHER. Yes; on behalf of the Board. 

Mr. Tavenner. Not only were you told that Ruth Weyand was a 
member of the Comminiist Party, but Fuchs told you that he himself 
was a member of the Communist Party; didn't he? 

Mr. AsHER. He was very sympathetic to it. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Kurasch also told you he was a member of the 
Communist Party; didn't he? 

Mr. AsHER. I want to be clear on this. It goes back almost 18 
years. I am not sure whether he mentioned it or whether Fuchs 
said that, as to Kurasch. 

Mr. Tavenner. But regardless of which one said it, you knew at 
that time from what 3"0u had heard that Kurasch and Fuchs were 
members of the Communist Party? 

Mr. AsHER. Yes; they put it in terms of this: Fuclis always put it 
m terms that he was sympathetic to and believed in this philosophy. 

Mr. ScHERER. When did you find out that Nathan Witt was a 
member of the Communist Partv? 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 3047 

Mr. AsHER. I personally' have no evidence or proof of that. 

Mr. ScHERER. You later learned of it; didn't j'ou? 

Mr. AsHER. I think it was a general feeling around the Board, 
I think throughout that period. 

Mr. ScHERER. What was that? 

Mr. AsHER. That he was. 

Mr. ScHERER. There was a feeling then. Now, subsequent to 
your leaving the Board, j^ou learned from testimony, like all of us, 
that he was a member of the Communist Party; did you not? 

Mr. AsHER. That is right. 

Mr. Tavenner. But you never attended a Communist Party 
meeting with Nathan Witt; did you? 

Mr. AsHER. I did not. 

\h\ Tavenner. And neither have we found that any of these other 
members were ever in attendance at a Communist Party meeting with 
Nathan Witt: 

Mr. ScHERER. There is no question about his membership in the 
Communist Party though. 

\h\ Tavenner. That is right. 

Mr. ScHERER. There is an overabundance of evidence; isn't there? 

Mr. Tavenner. That is right. 

Mr. ScHERER. I understand that, but there is no question about 
the fact that Nathan Witt was a member of the Communist Party. 

Mr. Tavenner. That is right, sir. 

You say you were told that Ruth Weyand was a member of the 
Communist Party. W^hat effect did that have upon you? 

Mr. AsHER. I was very much impressed at the mention of Miss 
Weyand 's name. She had graduated from law school ^vith me in 
Chicago, and she was about the first or second student in the law 
school class, and was a better student than I was. I had a great 
deal of respect for her legal ability, and tremendous respect for her. 

Mr. Tavenner. When you were informed that she was a member of 
the Communist Party what did you tell Mr. Fuchs or Mr. Kurasch 
you would do about joining? 

Mr. AsHER. They never talked to me in terms of joining any party. 
It was all talk of would I spend an evening studying the problems of 
the Labor Board and the labor movement and the basis of learning 
something about the theoiy of the labor movement and how it fitted 
into the scheme of their philosophy? I think that Mr. Fuchs felt that 
in talking to me, and my saying I did not want to discuss these prob- 
lems with him 

Mr. Moulder. I cannot understand your attitude. Why wouldn't 
you be interested in discussing those problems and those questions 
which were so closely related to your employment? 

Mr. AsHER. Because at that time as Fuchs raised these problems, 
I told him, as he mentioned he was S3mipatlietic to communism, and 
that I was religious, and I had always felt tliis was opposed to religion, 
and he would say, "Well, you are wrong, that shows you know nothing 
about the theory, and you know nothing about this background, and 
you should learn something about it." 

Mr. Moulder. I understand your explanation is that you assumed 
it was in connection with the Communist Party movement, and that 
is the reason you did not want to go into it. 

Mr. AsHER. It was in terms of communism which I was opposed to. 

70811 — 56 — pt. 2 3 



3048 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 

Mr. ScHERER. You understood from your conversations with 
Fuchs, and Kurasch that the philosophy they were going to teach jou 
in respect to labor problems and labor relations was the Communist 
viewpoint? 

Mr. AsHER. They mentioned communism and Marxism as a 
philosophy they believed in. 

Mr. Moulder. That was rot made clear by you in the beginning 
when you said you were not interested. 

Mr. AsHER. Then I remember this went on in innumerable lunch- 
eon discussions and I raised the point that I felt they were too much 
interested in Russia, and they were not sufRciently interested in 
American problems. His answer would be, "That shows that you 
do not understand this, and you have picked up cliches, and you 
ought to learn something about it." 

Mr. Willis. Cliches such as Americanism? 

Mr. AsHER. That is right. 

Mr. Tavenner. As a result of your fuially learning that Ruth 
Weyand was one of the members of the Communist Party, you 
decided that you would attend the meetings, didn't you? 

Mr. AsHER. No, it did not happen that way. I do not recall the 
exact details, but I recall at this time that Fuchs asked if I would 
drop m to see Ruth Weyand's new apartment in Washington, which 
she had furnished, and I recalled that I dropped in one evening to 
see this apartment which she showed off with great pleasure as being 
very handsomely furnished, and it was. At the time I dropped over 
that evening, there was Fuchs and Kurasch with Miss Weyand and 
there was Joe Robison and Allan Rosenberg there. 

Mr. ScHERER. Did you say it was a luxurious apartment? 

Mr. AsHER. I thought it was pretty fancy as of that time. 

Mr. ScHERER. What was her salary in the Government? 

Air. AsHER. I do not recall, but I do recall when she started with 
the Board that the salary was higher than the level at which I had 
started. 

M^r. ScHERER. Approximately what would it be? 

Mr. AsHER. About $4,60C. 

Mr. ScHERER. A year? 

Mr. AsHER. That is right. 

Mr. ScHERER. Was she a practicing lawyer before she went with 
the Board? 

Mr. AsHER. Yes. 

Mr. ScHERER. About how many years had she practiced? 

Mr. AsHER. I would say 4 or 5 years. 

Mr. ScHERER. During what period was that? 

Mr. AsHER. From about 1933 until I think, it was about 1938 that 
she must have started with the National Labor Relations Board. 

Mr. ScHERER. Those were the bad years for lawyers. 

Mr. AsHER. Those were the depression years. 

Mr. Tavenner. When you arrived at Ruth Weyand's apartment, 
you found Martin Kurasch, Mr. Fuchs, Allan Rosenberg, and Joe 
Robison there? 

Mr. Asher. That is right. 

Mr. Tavenner. How many of these meetings did you attend? 

Mr. Asher. There were three evenings of that kind entirely that 
I ever attended, and this was during, 1 believe, about June, July, and 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 3049 

August, or in that period, of 1938. I am trying to recollect as best 
as I can. I am quite certain no more than 3; there may have been 
4, but 1 believe 3. 

Mr. Tavenner. The first meeting was at the home of Ruth Weyand. 
Where was the next meeting held? 

Mr. AsHER. At Miss Weyand's home, she showed off her apartment 
and then I remember she talked about several pending National 
Labor Relations Board decisions, and that was the discussion. 

Mr. Tavenner. I am coming to that presently. 

Mr. Asher. The next evening, I don't recall at whose home it was, 
it may have been Fuchs'. The third and the last evening that I can 
remember was at my home, and Mr. Fuchs had asked did I mind if 
he dropped in to my house. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was one of the meetings held at the home of 
Allan Rosenberg? 

Mr. AsHER. I do recall that. 

Mr. Tavenner. In fact, wasn't the second meeting held at the 
home of Allan Rosenberg, instead of Mr. Fuchs' home? 

Mr. AsHER. It may have been. 

Mr. Tavenner. Very weU, and the third meeting at yom- house? 

Mr. Asher. That is correct. 

Mr. Tavenner. Let us go back to the first of those meetings. 
Were you asked to sign a card or anything of that character? 

Mr. Asher. I was not asked to sign a card and I was not asked to 
pay any mone}^ and I never gave them a nickel or a penny. 

Mr. Tavenner. Wliat occurred at these meetings? 

Mr. Asher. After Miss Weyand showed her apartment, I remember 
there was talk — mostly discussion by Miss Weyand — of a decision 
which the National Labor Relations Board had either decided at that 
time, or was about to decide — that was the Fansteel case in which 
Miss We^^and pointed out that the way the Board had written up 
that decision, that she didn't think it made sense, and that the Board 
stood a chance of losing that in the courts. Subsequently, they did. 
There was a discussion about the Board's decision, the case, and things 
of that kind. 

Mr. Scherer. Did she present that case to the courts for the Gov- 
ernment on behalf of the National Labor Relations Board? 

Mr. Asher. I don't recall; I wouldn't know. 

Mr. Scherer. If she did, I can see how they lost it. 

Mr. Asher. The discussions of the three evenings that I attended 
were all prunarily on Board problems and Board cases. The excep- 
tion as I recall is this: I believe it was the second evening when Miss 
Weyand read a statute which she had drafted, and it was a long elabor- 
ate statute which stuck in my mind. It was a statute which involved 
the Government ownership, I believe, of railroads similar to Govern- 
ment operations of post offices. It was a very long and a very elabor- 
ate statute which she read. After that evening I recall that the next 
day or so I got ahold of Mr. Fuchs, and I said, "This doesn't make 
sense to me. You have talked about learning something about the 
Board and I don't see what railroads have to do with the Board. I for 
one know nothing about railroads, and I do not think that Miss 
Weyand knows anythmg about railroads. I cannot understand this 
whole problem of a railroad statute." I said, "Furthermore, as I 



3050 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 

understand it, the railroad brotherhoods are not interested in Govern- 
ment operation of raih'oads, and it makes no sense to me." 

He said, "Well, you listen, Ruth did a brilliant job. That was a 
brilliant legal statute, and you can learn a great deal by it." 

Mr. ScHERER. They were interested then in Government owner- 
ship of the railroads? 

Mr. AsHER. That was the statute that had been drafted, and it 
was a great deal of work. As I recall it was a very elaborate statute. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was any time devoted at any of these meetings 
to the study of Communist Party periodicals or literature? 

Mr. AsHER. I remember that at Miss Weyand's apartment, this 
first time that I was there, that the discussion indicated that they 
had finished the reading of some Marxist document, or some Marxist 
book, because there was a reference back to, "Well, this is similar to 
that book that we had read." But during these three gatherings 
that I attended there was no book or volume that was under con- 
sideration. It was pretty much entirely problems of the Labor Board, 
and this one evening I think we discussed, as I recall, this long rail- 
road statute. 

Mr. Tavenner. During the discussions that took place at these 
meetings, was any reference made to higher authority than the 
group that was meeting? 

Mr. AsHER. I recall that when there were references to Labor 
Board problems or situations, such as that the Board theory was 
wrong on a certain case or a certain theor}^ of law, Fuchs on at least 
two occasions would wind up discussions by saying this: "Well, I 
will take that up with Mike." That was a reference that he made, 
I believe on 1 or 2 occasions. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were those matters wliich dealt with the Board 
itself? 

Mr. AsHER. That is correct. 

Mr. Tavenner. And the policies of the Board? 

Mr. AsHER. That is right. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Fuchs so testified. 

Mr. ScHERER. Wliat was the name of that case in which the Weyand 
woman disagreed so violently with the Board? 

Mr. AsHER. I do not think it was disagreement with the ruling of 
the Board, but disagreement with the way the Board had approached 
it or written up the facts. That was the Fansteel case. 

Mr. ScHERER. How do you spell it? 

Mr. AsHER. F-a-n-s-t-e-e-1. 

Mr. ScHERER. Was that one of the matters taken up with Mike? 

Mr. AsHER. I do not recall. I just remember Fuchs used that 
expression as a sort of a conclusion, to several discussions of the Board 
problems, I believe on about two occasions. 

Mr. Tavenner. That he would have to consult Mike? 

Mr. Asher. Or that he would take that up with Mike. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did he ever bring Mike's decision back to you? 

Mr. Asher. No, there was never any followup. 

Mr. Tavenner. You did not stay in long enough? 

Mr. Asher. That is right. 

Air. Tavenner. Who was Mike? 

Mr. Asher. I have no concrete proof or evidence. It was always 
my hunch that it was Nathan Witt, but that was just a feeling tliiat 
I iiad. 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 3051 

Mr. Tavenner. Was that your hunch because you felt that Nathan 
Witt was a member of the Communist Party? 

Mr. AsHER. Yes, and I felt that these were all Board problems and 
it would have to be taken up with someone who knew the Board. 

Mr. Tavenner. Would you be surprised to learn that Mike was not 
in any way connected with the Board itself but was a functionary of 
the Communist Party who had never been employed by the National 
Labor Relations Board? 

Mr. Asher. I was so advised by a representative of the committee 
and I was surprised. 

Mr. Tavenner. You knew that these were Communist Party 
meetings; didn't you? 

Mr. Asher. I did not. 

Mr. Tavenner. You did not know? 

Mr. Asher. I felt that Fuchs might have been a Communist as he 
said he was, but that he was, as I felt, putting it on the level that he 
was trying to teach me something about the Board and its work, and 
its operations. 

Mr. Tavenner. You have said that Fuchs had told you on a nmn- 
ber of occasions that certain questions in your mind regarding com- 
munism would be cleared up if you made certain studies, and he told 
you he was a member of the Communist Party; he told you that 
Kurasch was a member of the Communist Party; and he told you 
Ruth Weyand was a member of the Communist Party. It was only 
then — you had refused to go to any of these meetings because of 
communism, but finally when you found that Ruth Weyand had been 
represented to you to be a member of the Communist Party, you went. 

Mr. Moulder. I do not understand his testimony. I understand 
you accidently dropped in to see this apartment where these other 
people happened to be. Is that your testimony? 

Mr. Tavenner. You went there at the mvitation of Fuchs, as I 
understand. 

Mr. Asher. He asked me would I drop in to see Ruth Weyand's 
apartment. 

Mr. Tavenner. That was at the invitation of Fuchs? 

Mr. Asher. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was it at that meeting when they were winding up 
the discussion of some Marxist publication? 

Mr. Asher. The discussion indicated that they had been studying 
a Marxist publication. 

Mr. Tavenner. There was no doubt in your mmd but what that 
w^as a Communist Party meeting, was there? 

Mr. Asher. Well, let me put it this way: Fuchs attempted to give 
me the idea that the idea of a party or apparatus or something of 
that kind he was not talking to me about at all. He knew that that 
froze me up the minute he even mentioned such a thing. He was 
talking in terms of a philosophy or a theoiy that he wanted me to 
learn as a sort of a learning process. 

Mr. ScHERER. Wliether it was a party meeting or not, it was a 
meeting of Communists. 

Mr. Moulder. May I straighten out the record and my under- 
standing of the testimony. As I recall, the first time you visited the 
apartment was to see the apartment, and you were impressed with the 
fancy furniture and so on, and then a day or two later or at some time 



3052 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 

later dming that same week, you returned. Is that the way I am 
to understand it? 

Mr. AsHER. No, right at the same time she showed the apartment, 
we sat around and we talked about this. 

Mr. ScHERER. Were there subsequent meetings of this same group, 
that you attended at which there were similar discussions? 

Mr. AsHER. There were two other meetings. 

Mr. Willis. There were three meetings in all? 

Mr. AsHER. That is right. 

Mr. Willis. You never paid any dues? 

Mr, AsHER. I never paid any dues and I never was asked for any 
money and I never paid any mone3^ 

Mr. Tavenner. At this third meeting which was held at your home, 
was there any discussion with Fuchs which appeared to be unusual? 
That is, appeared to you to be unusual under the cu'cumstances? 

Mr. AsHER. At this third gathering at my house there were several 
things that I subsequently discussed with Fuchs. First of all as I 
recall he brought with him a David Rein who as I recall at the time, 
I didn't even know if he was emploj^ed by the Board or was planning 
to be, and I do not know the exact time in which he started working 
for the Board. I subsequently told Mr. Fuchs that I did not know 
Rein from Adam, and it did not seem to me to make sense, that \\-ith 
his talking to me about stud3"ing Labor Board problems and Labor 
Board cases, how he could bring someone into the house who had not 
w^orked for the Board to participate in such a discussion, and it did 
not make sense to me at all. 

Mr. Tavenner. Actually wasn't it because you resented a stranger 
being brought into a Communist Party meeting without your knowing 
w^ho that stranger was? 

Mr. AsHER. No. He talked to me in terms of Labor Board theories 
and problems, and this fellow was not with the Labor Board, and I 
felt he knew nothing about the Labor Board. 

Mr. Tavenner. And you resented his being there? 

Mr. AsHER. That is right, and I told him I didn't think that made 
sense, if he was talking to me in terms of Labor Board activities, to 
bring in somebody who was not with the Labor Board. 

Mr. Tavenner. You found out later that David Rein was em- 
ployed by the National Labor Relations Board, at that time or 
shortly thereafter? 

Mr. AsHER. That is correct. 

Mr. Tavenner. You also learned David Rein was a member of 
the Communist Party; did you not? 

Mr. AsHER. I did not. All I know is the background of Mr. Rein 
since he has been practicing law. 

Mr. Tavenner. What did you tell Fuchs about bringing in David 
Rein, who was a stranger to 3'ou? 

Mr. AsHER. I told him that I could not see how he could tell me 
that we were to discuss Labor Board situations, or Labor Board 
problems, and bring in somebody who knew^ nothing about the Labor 
Board. At that same evening, nw wife was in an adjoining sort of 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 3053 

alcove, and I think several times during the course of the evening she 
whistled while she was reading a book and when we finished the 
discussion of some Labor Board problems or some situations, my wife 
served coffee, cake, and ice cream. It was in the summertime. 
Fuchs was livid. He asked me whether my wife had been in the 
adjoining room, and I said, "Of course." He asked what was this 
business of serving coffee and cake and ice cream. And I said, "Well, 
people come to my house, and I serve them, that is the way I always 
do business." He said some remark, that that was complete stupidity, 
some remark of that kind. 

Mr. ScHERER. Wliy was it stupid? 

Mr. AsHER. I think that he had sinister ideas, and he had an 
apparatus that he had in mind, which I did not have in mind; and I 
saw nothing sinister about these discussions and having my wife serve. 
He, I believe, on the other hand, saw that there was something 
sinister in this situation. 

Mr. ScHERER. Was he objecting to the fact that your wife heard 
what transpired at the meeting, or what was the objection? 

Mr. AsHER. I think that he was objecting to m}" wife even being 
anywhere around. 

Mr. ScHERER. Was there specific objection to the refreshments, or 
the t3"pe of the refreshments? 

Mr. AsHER. Not to the t3"pe of refreshments, and I think the 
refreshments were good. 

Mr. ScHERER. Perhaps I did not understand. 

Mr. Moulder. Perhaps you were conducting yourself as a capitalist 
in serving ice cream. But let us proceed. 

Mr. Tavenner. Tell us just what you told iVIr. Fuchs, and then 
what occurred? 

Mr. AsHER. I told Mr. Fuchs that it did not make sense to me for 
him to talk to me about discussing Labor Board problems and learning 
something about the Labor Board and the labor movement and then 
he brings in a fellow who has not worked for the Board and has no 
background in Labor Board problems and Labor Board cases, and I 
couldn't understand that. 

Within a few days after, or a short period after the evening at my 
home, Fuchs came up to me at the Board, I believe, and said that 
we are holding no more meetings, "and as far as you are concerned, 
there are no more meetings or discussions." 

Mr. Tavenner. In other words, you were out. 

Mr. ScHERER. Without a hearing. 

Mr. Willis. When he said you were out, according to you, did you 
ever get in? 

Mr. AsHER. He did not say, "out," he merely said, "there are no 
more meetings as far as you are concerned," and I never felt that I 
was in anything. I had given him no money, nor had I taken any 
pledges or oaths, and as far as I knew, he was trying to talk to me of 
a philosophy or a discussion of things and ■ 

Mr. Willis. I have been very much impressed with your testimony 
factually, except the last part there about the ice cream and the cake 



3054 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 

deal. When he tells you that such a procedure in your home was 
stupidity, how could you help but know that you were in a Communist 
meeting, or business? 

Air. AsHER. It was at that time that he told me there were not to 
be any more, and it was right about that time when I started making 
applications for transfer out of Washington, to get out of Washington 
and to get into the field. 

Mr. Willis. I thought he had told you that there were to be no 
more meetings, and you said a few days after the meeting at your 
house — — 

Mr. AsHER. Well, there was a period in there in which we had, I 
think, argued about Rein, and about my wife serving, to which he took 
objection. 

Mr. ScHERER. I think we understand what happened, and it is 
pretty clear. He was just halfway in. They were trying to get him 
all of the way in. 

Mr. Willis. I think that he found out that you were not the right 
material or the right timber, probably. 

Mr. Tavenner. Had you ever met David Rein before that night 
when he appeared at this meeting? 

Mr. AsHER. No, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. How did you know then whether or not he was 
employed by the National Labor Relations Board? 

Mr. Asher. Because I think that they mentioned he was looking 
for a job, or he was contemplating it or something of that kind. I 
never saw him around the Board. 

Mr. Tavenner. Wliat was the date of that meeting? 

Mr. AsHER. It was in 1938, August or September, in about that 
time, as best as I can recall. 

Mr. Tavenner. Wlio told you that he was not employed by the 
Board? 

Mr. Asher. I believe it was Fuchs, who said, "This is David Rein 
whom I have known in New York, he is either going to work for the 
Board or work in Washington," and there was some such remark as 
a preliminary. 

Mr. Tavenner. So after he was vouched for by Mr. Fuchs, you 
were unwilling to have him present? 

Mr. AsHER. That is right. 

Mr. Moulder. I wish to make this statement to you, Mr. Asher. 
From my observation and understanding of your testimony, I believe 
you were a victim of entrapment and circumstances which existed at 
the time. That should not reflect upon you professionally or as a 
person. 

Mr. Asher. Thank you, Mr. Congressman. 

Mr. Moulder. There is nothing in the record in conflict with what 
you have said before this committee and in fact, it is corroborative 
of what Professor Fuchs himself said, that you happened to attend 
a meeting or two, and then you said that you had enough of it, and 
you did not want to see any more of it. 

Mr. Asher. I would merely like to state for the record 

Mr. Moulder. I would like to ask you one question: Are you now 
or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party? 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 3055 

Mr. AsHER. I am not, and I have never been. 

Mr. Moulder. I also wish to express to you my appreciation for 
your testimony and the information you have given to this com- 
mittee. And, as I say, there is no evidence concerning you as a 
Communist. 

Mr. ScHERER. Wliat was Professor Fuchs' testimony about it; and 
what did he say? My recollection is in conflict with the chairman's. 

Mr. Tavexner. He said he was in and out of the Communist Party, 
and that this witness did not want an}^ more of it. That is about the 
way he expressed it. 

Mr. Moulder. Somethino; like that. 

Mr. AsHER. I would merely like to state that I have been practic- 
ing law here in Chicago for the past 1 1 years, and my practice has been 
predominantly in the representation of AFL unions, during which 
time I believe we have done a very effective job, in many cases 
knocking the ears off Communist-controlled unions and that has been 
our practice in many cases, and our record is very clear on the type 
of practice we have engaged in, in the labor movement. 

Mr. Willis. Wliile you were testifying, I whispered to the present 
chairman that I was impressed with the way you were handling 
yourself on the witness stand. You say that you have been repre- 
senting AFL unions? 

Mr. AsHER. Yes, sir; entirely, that is correct. 

Mr. Willis. I hope that they will appreciate your appearance 
here and that there will be no misunderstanding or repercussions in 
\'Our practice of the law. 

Mr. AsHER. Thank you, Congressman. 

Mr. Moulder. Thank you. The witness is excused. 

The committee will stand in recess until 2 o'clock. 

(Wliereupon, at 12:35 p. m. the committee recessed, to reconvene 
at 2 p. m.) 

AFTERNOON SESSION, DECEMBER 14, 1955 

(The hearing was resumed at 2 p. m., with Representatives Moulder 
(chairman), Willis, and Scherer being present.) 

Mr. Moulder. Are you ready to proceed, Mr. Tavennei? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes. Air. Allen Heald, will you come forward, 
please? 

Mr. Moulder. Do you solemnly swear that the evidence you are 
about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 
truth, so help you God? 

Mr. Heald. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF ALLEN HEALD, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 
WILLIAM H. DILLON 

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

Mr. Tavenner. It is noted that you are accompanied by counsel. 
Would counsel please identifv himself for the record? 
Mr. Dillon. William H. Dillon, Chicago, 111. 
Mr. Tavenner. When and where were you born, Mr. Heald? 



3056 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 

Mr. Heald. At South English, Iowa, on December 21, 1904. 

Mr. Taveniser. What is your present occupation? 

Mr. Heald. I am an attorney. 

Mr. Tavenner. Wliere do you reside? 

Mr. Heald. Cedar Rapids, Iowa. 

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

Mr. Heald. I attended public schools in Iowa; and I attended the 
University of Chicago, both college and law school. 

Mr. Tavenner. When did you complete your law course at the 
University of Chicago? 

Mr. Heald. In 1930. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you then engage in the practice of law? 

Mr. Heald. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. After a period of time, were you employed by the 
National Labor Relations Board? 

Mr. Heald. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. When did your employment begin? 

Mr. Heald. It began in 1937. 

Mr. Tavenner. Can you give us the month? 

Mr. Heald. I believe it was June. 

Mr. Tavenner. Where were you stationed? 

Mr. Heald. Washington, D. C. 

Mr. Tavenner. What was your title or the nature of your position? 

Mr. Heald. I was an attorney and my work consisted of briefing; 
briefing in cases before the courts. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you work under Ruth Weyand? 

Mr. Heald. No. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you work in a separate department from her? 

Mr. Heald. She was also in the briefing department. 

Mr. Tavenner. In the same department that you were in? 

Mr. Heald. That is right. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long did you remain employed by the NLRB? 

Mr. Heald. Until about January of 1941. 

Mr. Tavenner. What was your next employment? 

Mr. Heald. At the United States Housing Authority. 

Mr. Tavenner. Where? 

Mr. Heald. At Washington, D. C. 

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

Mr. Heald. I worked on the preparation of the legal setup for 
local housing authorities, particularly those of counties, county hous- 
ing authorities which engaged in rural-housing programs. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long did that employment last? 

Mr. Heald. About a year. 

Mr. Tavenner. What was your next employment? 

Mr. Heald. At the OPA. 

Mr. Tavenner. Wliere? 

Mr. Heald. In Chicago. 

Mr. Tavenner. What time did that employment begin and end? 

Mr. Heald. It began about February of 1942 and it ended, I 
think, about the middle of 1945. 

Mr. Tavenner. Smce that time have you been engaged in the 
private practice of law or did you have other employment? 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 3057 

Mr. Heald. I have engaged in the private practice of law except 
for a period in 1946 and 1947 when I was attorney for the Chicago 
Housing Authority. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Heald, were you present in the hearing room 
yesterday when Mr. Herbert Fuchs testified? 

Mr. Heald. I was here part of the time. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you hear Mr. Fuchs identify you as a member 
of a gi-oup of Communist Party lawyers within the NLRB? 

Mr. Heald. I did. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you a member of such a gi'oup? 

Mr. Heald. No. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you join a gi'oup of individuals consisting of 
Mr. Fuchs, Mr. Porter, Mr, Robison, and others? 

Mr. Heald. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. You joined a gi'oup? 

Mr. Heald. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee, please, the circum- 
stances under which you joined that gi-oup? 

Mr. Heald. Sometime in the summer of 1938 Mr. Fuchs, who was 
an attorney at the NLRB, told me that he belonged to a group of 
people who met about once a week, as I remember, and engaged in a 
discussion of the Communist theories. He stated that this group 
engaged in no other activities than discussion, study, and research and 
he asked me to join this group and he repeatedly spoke to me about 
it during that summer and fall. 

Mr, Tavenner. At first did you refuse to join it? 

Mr. Heald. At first I was not particularly interested, although I 
was interested in learning something about the Communist theories. 
I might say that I am of a Quaker family, and in my childhood I had 
been trained in the doctrine of peace and I was anxious to learn what 
the Communists believed on the subject of peace. 

Mr. Tavenner. My question was whether or not for a period of 
time you refused to join this group? 

Mr. Heald. That is right, yes; I for a period of time did not. 

Mr. Tavenner. You refused to join? 

Mr. Heald. Yes. 

Mr. Moulder. Would you care to elaborate on what you mean by 
''joining"? 

Mr. Heald. I didn't particularly think about what joining meant; 
I assumed that it meant participating in the meetings of this group 
and in theu- discussions. That is all I considered. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you participate in the meetings that were 
subsequently held after you joined? 

Mr. Heald. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. Before you actually joined this group, did any 
other member of the group besides Air. Fuchs come to a^ou and talk 
to you about joining? 

Mr. Heald. On 1 or 2 of the occasions when he spoke to me, John 
Porter who was also an NLRB attorney was with him. The rest of 
the time Mr. Fuchs was alone. 

Mr. Tavenner. Then finally did you tell Mr. Fuchs that you would 
join this group? 

Mr. Heald. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. When did you tell him? 



3058 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 

Mr. Heald. I believe in the late fall of 1938. 

Mr. Tavenner. You knew at the time you told Mr. Fuchs 
you would join this group that it was a group of the Communist 
Party, didn't you? 

Mr. Heald. No. 

Mr. Tavenner. What did you think it was? 

Mr. Heald. I thought it was, and I was told that it was a group 
that met for the purpose of discussing Communist theory. 

Mr. Tavenner. You knew that there was such a thing as the 
Communist Party at that time, didn't you? 

Mr. Heald. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you make contributions in this group for the 
use of the Communist Party? 

Mr. Heald. Mr. Fuchs explained to me that the members of the 
group did make contributions which went to the Communist Party 
and were used for purposes of peace, including such means as publi- 
cations, and I did make such contributions m different amounts; 
sometimes I made no contributions, and they were voluntary and 
discretionary with me. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were they made with fair regularity? 

Mr. Heald. I would say, no. 

Mr. Tavenner. Wliat was the amount of the contribution? 

Mr. Heald. It varied, and just at this time, I have no idea just what 
the amount was. 

Mr. Tavenner. Can you tell us why it varied in amount? 

Mr. Heald. It varied in amount because the amount was within 
my discretion and no one ever specified an amount. And, as I say, at 
times I made no contribution. 

Mr. Tavenner. Wliere was the first meeting of this group held 
after you decided to join? 

Mr. Heald. After I decided to participate in these discussions I 
attended meetings at the homes of various members of the group, 
and I don't remember where the first one was held. They were held 
at the homes of various members. 

Mr. Tavenner. How many persons were in this group? 

Mr. Heald. There were seven. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you give their names, please? 

Mr. Heald. Besides Porter and Fuchs — — 

Mr. Tavenner. Just a moment. Was Fuchs a member of the 
Communist Party? 

Mr. Heald. Not to my knowledge. 

Mr. Scherer. Did you say, to your knowledge, he was not a 
member of the Communist Party when you joined? 

Air. Heald. That is right — when I began participating in these 
meetings. 

Mr. Scherer. How soon after that did you find out that he was a 
member of the Communist Party? 

Mr. Heald. I had no knowledge of that until I heard his testimony 
yesterday. 

Mr. Scherer. Witness, I have just been reading the statement that 
you submitted to the committee and maj^be you can explain it. You 
said : 

This group consisted of seven NLRB attorneys, with all of whom I was ac- 
quainted. There was also a man not an NLRB employee who was identified to 
me only as "Mike." 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 3059 

Then you talk of meeting Mike at the National Lawyers Guild con- 
vention. And then on the next page you say: 

Mike was apparently in touch with officials of the Communist Party and fre- 
quently expressed what purported to be the official views of that organization. 
Fuchs and others in the group often disagreed with Mike in these discussions. 

Are those statements in this memorandum that you have handed 
to the committee consistent, do you think, with the testimony you 
have just given? 

Mr. Heald. Yes. I was referring to Mr. Fuchs. 

Mr. ScHERER. I can't see the consistency because you say vou 
didn't learn that Fuchs was a member of the Communist Party until 
he testified here. 

Mr. Heald. That is correct. 

Mr. Scherer. And yet in this memorandum you say that shortly 
after you joined the party, you met Mike and you sa}' that — 

Mike was apparently in touch with officials of the Communist Party and fre- 
quently expressed what purported to be the official views of that organization. 

Mr. Heald. I think that you are referring to "Mike," and I under- 
stood Mr. Tavenner's question to refer to Fuchs. 

Mr. Scherer. Then you go on and say that Fuchs and other 
members of the group often disagreed with ^like m these discussions, 
Fuchs was one of the group of seven NLRB attorneys whom you 
referred to in this memorandum, was he not? 

Mr. Heald. Yes. 

Mr. Scherer. All right. Go ahead. I couldn't reconcile the 
statement with what I read. 

Mr. Heald. \l&j I say that Mike was a different person from 
Fuchs, and he may have been a Communist. In fact, as I say, he 
apparently was m touch with persons in the Communist Party, and 
he purported to give what were the Communist theories. These were 
tossed up for discussioa in this group. 

Mr. Scherer. In the next paragraph you say: 

Fuchs explained to me that each member of the group made a cash contribution 
at regular intervals which went to the Communist Part3\ 

Mr. Moulder. He so testified to that. 

Mr. Scherer. And he now says that he did not know until yesterday 
that Fuchs was a member of the Communist Party. I just can't 
reconcile those statements with this, and some more things which 
you say in the memorandum you have submitted to us. But go 
ahead. 

Mr. Heald. Mr. Chairman, this was 17 years ago, and looking 
back I can well understand that the purpose of this group was to 
attempt to convert myself and persons like myself to communism. 
I can only say that if that was the purpose it did not succeed and at 
that time, to me, it was a group which engaged in a discussion of a 
subject which I wanted to learn something about. 

Mr. Scherer. Later in your memorandum., to which you ap- 
parently gave considerable thought in preparing for this committee, 
you say: 

Late in 1940, or early in 1941, the group split into two separate groups. I 
joined the group consisting of John Porter, Ruth Weyand, and Allan Rosenberg, 
and mvself. 



3060 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 

Then you say: 

Shortly after that, Porter became ill and dropped out * * *. A man named 
Bill Sherwood performed the role previously performed by Mike and assumed to 
explain the official views of the Communist Party. 

I cannot help but feel from your own statement that you recog- 
nized at that time that this was a Communist Party group. I don't 
think that it makes much difference at this time. But go ahead. 

Mr. Heald. I would like to sa}^ that I recognized that these were 
Communist theories which were being explained to us in the group. 
They were discussed and they were disagreed with, and sometimes 
heatedly, by members of the group. I have no doubt that they were 
official Communist theories given to us by the two persons you men- 
tioned, Mike and Bill Sherwood, and that they obtained them from 
their contact with the Communist Party. 

Mr. ScHERER. That is what you sa3^ 

Mr. Heald. To me — and I believed at the time to the others in 
the group — ■ — 

Mr. ScHERER. There was no question in your mind, according to 
your statement, that Bill Sherwood and Mike were members and 
functionaries of the Communist Party, was there? 

Mr. Heald. I suspected that they were members, and the others 
I did not. 

Mr. ScHERER. All right. 

Mr. Tavenner. In other words, you state that John Porter, Ruth 
Weyand, Joseph Robison were not known to you to be members of 
the Communist Party? 

Mr. Heald. That is right. 

Mr. Tavenner. By that do you mean you didn't see their Com- 
munist Party card, or you knew from their actions that they were not 
members of the Communist Party? 

Mr. Heald. I mean that I knew of nothing that would indicate 
that they were. 

Mr. Tavenner. That they were members of the Communist Party? 

Mr. Heald. Yes, su*. 

Mr. Tavenner. And you attended meetings with some of those 
people for a period of 3 years; didn't you? 

Mr. Heald. Yes; at irregular intervals. 

Mr. Tavenner. In Washington? 

Mr. Heald. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. During that 3-year period, did you make these 
contributions to the Communist Party or for the use of the Com- 
munist Party through this group? 

Mr. Heald. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. You heard the Communist Party line brought down 
from functionaries of the Communist Party to this group by ''Mike" 
and by BUI vSherwood. That occurred; didn't it? 

Mr. Heald. And it was heatedly disputed at these meetings. 

Mr. Tavenner. But it was brought down; wasn't it? 

Mr. Heald. It was expressed to the group. 

Mr. Tavenner. And none of those things indicated to you that this 
group could by any possibility be a cell of the Communist Party? 

Mr. Heald. As I say, looking back I can well understand that the 
purpose of those who formed it was to convert us, but it did not succeed 
in that pm-pose. 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 3061 

Mr. ScHERER. Mr. Tavenner, have you had an opportunity to read 
the statement that he submitted to the committee? 
Mr. Tavenner. Yes, sir. 
Mr. ScHERER. On page 2 of the statement, the witness says: 

About January 1941 I left the NLRB and went to work for the United States 
Housing Authority. In February of 1942 I moved to Chicago, where I worked 
for tlie OPA. Six months or a year later, I was invited to join a similar group in 
Chicago by Ben Diamond, whom I had known as a Government attorney in 
Washington. I decided to join this group. 

Now you say it is a similar group to the one you belonged to in 
Washington, and — ■ 

It consisted of 6 or 8, all of whom were introduced to me by their first names — 

Mr. Moulder. Probably it would expedite the proceedings, and 
perhaps it is a httle irregular from ordinary procedure, but would 
counsel object to the witness reading this statement paragraph by 
paragraph? 

Mr. Scherer. I prefer to proceed like I am proceeding. 

Mr. Heald. Mr. Chairman, I would like to 

Mr. Scherer. I have no objection to the witness reading his 
statement. 

Mr. Tavenner. I was endeavoring to question him regarding 
matters in his statement. 

Mr. Moulder. I was thinking that it might clear it up if the 
witness would be permitted to read his statement. 

Mr. Scherer. I don't know when a member of the committee 
doesn't have the right to ask questions in any form he sees fit. 

Mr. Moulder. It seems it would make it a little more clear, 
because he wants to go over this thing again. But 3'ou may proceed, 
of course. 

Mr. Scherer. You said "I decided to join this group" which 
"consisted of 6 or 8, all of whom were introduced to me by their first 
names." 

Now, didn't that raise some suspicion in your mind that this 
second group was a group similar to the one that you belonged to in 
Washington that was receiving instructions, apparently, as you say, 
from the Communist Party? In this secoDd group, when you joined 
it, you were only introduced to these men by their first names 

Mr. Heald. At the time I had no idea that any instructions were 
being received by them. Actually, the activities of the group con- 
sisted like those in Washington, only of discussion of matters of theory. 

Mr. Scherer. Did you learn the last names of the men who 
belonged to this gi-oup that you joined in Chicago? 

Mr. Heald. No; I did not. That is with the exception of the ones 
whose names I have given. 

Mr. Scherer. Then you say, in referring to this group: 

At one of the last of these meetings I attended, someone in the group handed 
me a printed card. I handed it back to him without reading it, saying that I 
did not want it. I did not know what the card was. 

Wliy did you hand back the card? You knew it was a Communist 
Party membership card; did you not? 

Mr. Heald. No; I did not. 

Mr. Scherer. Why would you hand it back? 

Mr. Heald. At that time my interest in this discussion group had 
been declining for some time, and I did not know whether I would 



3062 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 

continue attending the meetings even occasionally as I had been, 
ard I did not wish to engage in any formal token of participation in 
the group. 

Mr. ScHERER. You thought it was a membership card for that 
group, though, but you didn't know it was a Communist Party 
membership card; is that right? 

Mr. Heald. I didn't know what it was, but I didn't want to 
engage in any discussion of any formality of participation at that 
point. And the whole incident, I might say, did not seem significant 
to me at the time, and I only remembered it when I was preparing 
this statement. I wanted to include everj^thing in the statement, 
however trivial it might seem, that might have any connection with 
my participation in these groups. 

I believe it will be apparent to you that I have made a complete 
statement to include everything in the statement, however trivial, 
and however inconsistent, or strange it may seem to me today, 
looking back. But I wanted to submit to the committee a complete 
statement, and I have done my very best to do so. 

Mr. Scherer. You understand what this committee is trying to 
determine. It is the extent to which the Communist Party infiltrated 
the National Labor Relations Board. Now, we have established 
here this morning by testimony that Nathan Witt, the topman, the 
Secretary, his assistant, and Fuchs who was close to the assistant, 
and the woman attorney who argued many of the cases for the Board 
before the Supreme Court were all members of the Communist Party. 
And that is the purpose of these hearings. 

Mr. Moulder. I would like to proceed in this manner if you are 
interested in proceeding that way. Because most of the questions 
concern this statement and the answers concern the same matter, he 
may read the statement and then be cross-examined. He prepared 
this statement, which is a voluntary one. 

Mr. Tavenner. Very well, if that is the chairman's view of it. 

Mr. Scherer. Don't we have a right to interrupt as he reads his 
statement? 

Mr. Moulder. Certainly; counsel or any member of the committee. 

Mr. Scherer. This is a 3-page, closely typewritten statement, 
and I think that we have a right to interrupt. 

Mr. Moulder. No one is questioning that, Mr. Scherer. 

Mr. Scherer. All right. 

Mr. Heald (reading): 

Mr. Chairman, my name is Allen Heald, and I live at 1399 Elmhurst Drive NE., 
Cedar Rapids, Iowa. I am engaged in the general practice of law. 

I am not, and have never been, a Communist or a member of the Communist 
Party. 

I come of a Quaker family, and I have been trained, from my childhood, in the 
Quaker doctrine of peace. All my life I have been deeply concerned for the 
advancement of peace among individuals and nations. 

About 17 years ago, I joined a group of people who were engaged in studying 
and discussing the Communist theories of history and politics. I did this because 
I wanted to learn just what the Communist theories were, and particularly what 
they believed on the subject of peace. 

I am submitting to the committee a full statement of all of the facts concerning 
my participation in that group, as best I can recall them after so long a time, and 
also other matters into which the committee may inquire. 

From June 1937 to about January 1941, I was employed by the National 
Labor Relations Board in Washington, D. C, as an attorney. During the sum- 
mer and fall of 1938, Herbert Fuchs. who was also an NLRB attornev and a 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 3063 

friend of mine, spoke to me on a number of occasions about a group to whicli he 
said he belonged. I do not remember all that was said in these conversations. 
To the best of my recollection, Fuchs said that this group met about once a week 
that it engaged in discussion of the Communist theories, and that it engaged in 
no other activities than discussion, study, and research. 

Fuchs approached me about this matter repeatedly during that summer and 
fall. On one or two of these occasions, John Porter, another NLRB attorney, 
was with Fuchs; the rest of the conversations were with Fuchs alone. He had 
persuasive, analytical, and witty answers to my objections. When I went on my 
vacation I took with me several books that he lent me; I particularly recall an 
analysis of 19th century French history that I found interesting. 

During the fall of 193S I was much disturbed about the threat of a world war, 
which I felt was made greater by the Munich agreement and the Nazi occupation 
of Czechoslovakia. I knew that Fuchs felt as I did about this, and I concluded 
from what he told me that this group was sincerely interested in specific measures 
to discourage aggression in Europe. Because of my interest in peace and also 
because of my desire to learn something about Communist theories from discus- 
sion with intelligent people, I told Fuchs in the late fall of 1938 that I would 
join this group. 

I felt that I could consistently do this, even though I disagreed with the idea of 
dictatorship and the other basic ideas of communism. 

The group consisted of seven NLRB attorneys, with all of whom I was ac- 
quainted. There was also a man, not an NLRB employee, who was identified 
to me only as "Mike." Some years later I saw this man at a National Lawyers 
Guild convention, under the following circumstances: He was standing near me, 
and noticed my name on the badge I was wearing and said he had thought he 
recognized me. I then recognized him and said "Oh, yes, I remember you" and 
I walked away. Later I saw him on the speaker's platform, where he was intro- 
duced as Victor Perlo, an economist, .\fter the speaking I went to a Thompson 
restaurant for a glass of milk and chanced to .sit at the same table with this man 
and several others who had been at the meeting. I had no conversation with 
him. These are the only times I have ever seen him outside of the meetings of 
the group that I have mentioned. 

In this group I was never given a membership card of any kind, never took an 
oath or went through any formality of joining. 

The meetings were held at irregular intervals of about once a week, at the 
homes of the members. The discussions frequently developed into heated argu- 
ments about world and national issues and principles of politics, economics, et 
cetera. Several attempts were made to center the discussion on particular books, 
but the group never stuck to one subject very long. There was no formality 
about the arguments, and little agreement was reached. I found the discussions 
interesting. 

"Mike" was apparently in touch with officials of the Communist Party and 
frequently expressed what purported to be the official views of that organization. 
Fuchs and others in the group often disagreed with "Mike" in these discussions. 

Fuchs explained to me that each member of the group made a cash contribu- 
tion at regular intervals, which went to the Communist Party and was used by 
it in work for peace, including such means as publications. I made these contri- 
butions because of my confidence in Fuchs' judgment that the money was used in 
the real interests of peace. My contributions varied in amount. I do not now 
have any idea how much I contributed or how often. At a later period I con- 
tributed smaller amounts, and sometimes made no contribution. I do not remem- 
ber which one of the group I paid the money to. 

Late in 1940 or early in 1941, the group split into two separate groups. I joined 
a group consisting of John Porter, Ruth Weyand, Allan Rosenberg, and myself. 
Shortly after that, Porter became ill and dropped out of the group. Two or three 
others, not NLRB employees, then joined the group. They were introduced and 
known to me only by their first names. A man named Bill Sherwood performed 
the role previously performed by Mike, and assumed to explain the official views 
of the Communist Party. 

The members of this group worked on research and writing projects, on his- 
torical subjects such as the growth of the American labor movement, the history 
of the 8-hour day, and similar topics. The manuscripts were given to Sherwood, 
who was to arrange for their publication. I did not have time to work on any of 
these projects. I never learned whether any of them were published. 

About January 1941 I left the NLRB and went to work for the United States 
Housing Authority. In February of 1942 I moved to Chicago, where I worked for 

70811— 56— pt. 2 i 



3064 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 

the OPA. I made this move mainly in order to be nearer to my parents and my 
former home in Iowa. 

Six months or a year later, I was invited to join a similar group in Chicago by 
Ben Diamond, whom I had known as a Government attorney in Washington. I 
decided to join this group. It consisted of 6 or 8, all of whom were introduced to 
me by their first names. I was introduced to them the same way. I did not 
know where these people were employed. I never saw them anywhere else. 

As in Washington, there were discussions of world and national affairs and 
political and economic theory. I found the discussions less lively and interesting 
than those in Washington. A member would be assigned a particular subject 
of current interest, on which he w'ould report to the group. Meetings were held, 
as I remember, about every 2 or 3 weeks, at the apartments of various members. 
None were held at my home. 

I attended irregularly, at less and less frequent intervals, and finally stopped 
altogether. I felt that the discussions were no longer of particular interest. To 
my best recollection, this was sometime in 1945. 

At one of the last of these meetings that I ever attended, someone in the group 
handed me a printed card. I handed it back to him without reading it, saying 
that I did not want it. I do not know what the card was. At no other time in 
any of my contacts with these groups was any kind of card offered to me. 

The people whom I met in these groups seemed like decent, intelligent people, 
who were interested in discussing current affairs, and in peace. I would be very 
much surprised if any thought of overthrow of the Government, or of espionage, 
ever entered the minds of those whom I met in these groups. I did not know 
any of them to be members of the Communist Party. I did believe that Mike 
and Bill might be. 

I strongly objected to the Russo-German pact in 1939, and wrote a letter to 
Fuchs stating my objections. He replied, as I remember, agreeing with most of 
the points I made. Although I welcomed the Communist Party's apparent sup- 
port of the Allies in the war period from 1941 to 1945, I again found myself in 
strong disagreement with that party's views at the time of Russia's refusal to 
hold free elections in Poland. I believe this occurred during my last year of 
participation in the Chicago group. 

I have belonged to the following organizations, which had no connection with 
the above-mentioned groups: 

About 1936 or 1937, I joined the National Lawyers Guild. About 1942 I was 
elected to the executive board of that organization. I attended 2 or 3 meetings 
of that board. In 1947 I moved to Iowa, where there is no guild organization to 
my knowledge. I made no attempt to interest Iowa lawyers in the guild. I at- 
tended no guild meetings after 1948. To the best of my recollection I ceased to 
pay dues about 1949, and ceased to receive the guild magazine in 1953 or earlier. 

About 1937 or 1938 I was attracted by the peace appeals of the American 
League for Peace and Democracy, and I believe I attended 1 or 2 meetings and 
joined that organization. Prompted by the same feelings, I attended one meeting 
of the American Peace Mobilization, which I believe was late in 1939. I had no 
further contact with either organization, so far as I can recall. 

In 1938 I joined the Washington Bookshop in order to get a substantial discount 
(in excess of the amount of the fee for joining) on Carl Sandburg's six-volume 
Life of Lincoln. I never attended any of its meetings or took part in its activities. 

In the fall of 1947, I moved to Cedar Rapids, Iowa, my former home, where 
I have since engaged in general law practice. I did this mainly in order to be 
near my parents. My father is an Iowa doctor and farmer. I have helped him 
look after his farms and other interests, and have spent as much time as I could 
in companionship with him. 

My father is a birthright Quaker and, like myself, is deeply concerned about 
peace. He has long known and admired Henry A. Wallace. In 1948 I accom- 
panied mj^ father to the Progressive Party convention at Waterloo, Iowa, and 
other meetings in support of Mr. Wallace. Mainly, I believe, because of my 
father's interest in this cause, I was laominated by the Progressive Party for 
Congress in my district. All my campaign expenses were paid by my father and 
myself. 

In addition to the above, I have been from time to time, and am at present, a 
member of various civic organizations such as the chamber of commerce, various 
bar associations, and my local Farm Bureau. 

Mr. Moulder. Do you wish to ask any questions, Mr. Scherer? 
Mr, Scherer. I think that I have interrupted Mr. Tavenner too 
much ah'eady. 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 3065 

Mr. Tavenner. That is quite all right. 

I understood you to say, as you look back on those meetings, there 
is now no uncertainty in your mind as to the fact that they were 
Communist Party meetings. Am I correct in that? 

Mr. Heald. No. What I said was that I can readily believe that 
the purpose of them was to win us as converts to the Communist 
Party, but that they did not succeed in doing that. 

Mr. Tavenner. If it was a group winning converts for the Com- 
munist Party, wouldn't you call it a Communist Party group? 

Mr. Heald. I don't believe so. 

Mr. Tavenner. You don't think so? 

Mr. Heald. No; not the way I would look at it. 

Mr. Tavenner. Let us look at your statement a moment, and see 
if 3"ou didn't realize at the time that you were attending those meetings 
that it was a Communist Party group. You have stated here, on the 
first page: 

I told Fuchs in the late fall of 1938 that I would join this group. 

Then you continue: 

I felt that I could consistently do this even though I disagreed with the idea of 
dictatorship and the other basic ideas of communism. 

Wouldn't that sentence be absolutely without meaning unless it 
does mean that you felt at that time just what this language imports; 
that you felt you could join the Communist Party notwithstanding 
the idea of dictatorship and the other basic ideas of communism? 

Mr. Heald. I couldn't have joined it, notwithstanding my rejection 
of those ideas. I couldn't have, feeling as I did. 

Mr. Tavenner. Does it not import that you knew that it was the 
Communist Party, or otherwise that language would have no meaning 
whatever? 

Mr. Heald. No; it seems to me that with my rejection of the idea 
of dictatorship, of the idea of dogmatism, and strict conformity to a 
party view, I rejected all of those things; and I could not have regarded 
this as a Communist group. 

Mr. Tavenner. But you stated here that you told Fuchs that you 
would join the group and that you felt that you could consistently do 
this notwithstanding your ideas about the dictatorship and the basic 
ideas of communism. 

Mr. Heald. I felt that to engage in a discussion of the subject was 
consistent with my rejection of the basic ideas of the subject. I 
wanted to learn about it even though I did disagree with it. 

Mr. Tavenner. You discussed that subject for practically 6 years, 
didn't you? 

Mr. Heald. At intervals. 

Mr. Tavenner. You discussed it from 1938 to 1941 with persons 
who had been shown to be active in Communist Party activities, and 
by your own statement from February of 1942 to 1945 here in Chicago. 

Did it take you all of that time to make up your mind? 

Mr. Heald. No; my mind was already made up, and I was merely 
engaging in a discussion to learn what I could about these theories. 
This was not a process of makmg up my mind, I was simply engaged in 
discussing in order to learn. 

Mr. ScHERER. As you say, Witness, in your statement, you knew 
that both "Mike" and later Sherwood who took "Mike's" place were 



3066 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 

bringing to this group the Communist Party program from a higher 
echelon ; and you say that yourself. 

Mr. Heald. And I was attending these meetings for the purpose of 
discussing that theory. I knew that it was a Communist theory that 
they were expounding, and I wanted to learn about it. 

Mr. Tavenner. A little earlier, I was asking you who were the 
seven members of this group. 

Mr. Heald. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. And I think that you named two of them; Fuchs 
and Porter. 

Mr. Heald. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Who were the others? 

Mr. Heald. The others were Joseph Robison, Allan Rosenberg, 
David Rein, Ruth Weyand, and Martin Kurasch. 

Mr. Tavenner. You are aware that all of those persons have been 
identified during the course of this hearing as members of the Com- 
munist Party? I mean, are you aware of that now? 

Mr. Heald. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you mean to tell this committee that you sat 
in these frequent meetings with David Rein, Allan Rosenberg, Martin 
Kurasch, Herbert Fuchs and never discovered that they were members 
of the Communist Party? 

Mr. Heald. As I recall these meetings, there was extreme and 
heated disagreement among all of these people about many points of 
theory. It did not seem to me like a Communist Party group in 
that there was no discipline, and no requirement of conformity. 
Many of the things that were told to the group by "Mike" were 
strongly disputed by the others. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did "Mike" take the position before your group 
that you should not join mass organizations, and was that one of the 
disputes that existed? 

Mr. Heald. I don't recall any dispute about that. I am speaking 
of disputes about theory, and the only thing, or the only activity that 
these groups did engage in was discussion of theory and research and 
study. 

Mr. ScHERER. They discussed the problems that were current in 
the National Labor Relations Board, did they not? 

Mr. Heald. I don't recall an}^ extended discussion of that, and 
they may have been mentioned; but I don't recall that there was any. 

Mr. ScHERER. Did you hear the testimony of the witness Asher 
this morning? 

Mr. Heald. Yes, sir, I heard his testimony. 

Mr. Scherer. Do you recall any of the discussions that he related? 

Mr. Heald. No, I do not, and I don't recall his presence in the 
group at all. 

Mr. Willis. That would be consistent with his testimony; he 
didn't identify you as ever being with him at a meeting. 

Mr. Heald. I am sure that I never saw him at one of these meetings. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know how many of such groups were 
organized within the NLRB at that time? 

Mr. Heald. No. 

Mr. Tavenner. To your knowledge, did a member of any other 
group attend any of your meetings at any time? 

Mr. Heald. Not to mv knowledge. 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 3067 

Mr. Tavenner. In fact, no one outside of your group ever attended 
your meetings? 

Mr. Heald. I believe I have named all of the ones whom I saw. 

Mr. Tavenner. Didn't it strike you as somewhat strange that 
you would have a group that you met with for a period of years, and 
never on any occasion was any other lawyer from the NLRB per- 
mitted to come in, nor any stranger permitted to come in and sit 
with you? 

Mr. Heald. I don't know that I ever heard any discussion of who 
would be permitted or who w^ould not be permitted. 

Mr. Tavenner. Your 6 years of study of communism ought to 
have made vou aware of a matter as elementary as that, don't you 
think? 

Mr. Heald. Well, all that I can say is that I was concerned in this 
as a group that engaged in the study of this subject, and these were 
the ones whom I saw at the group. 

Mr. Scherer. Why would a group like that have to use assumed 
names? 

Air. Heald. No assumed names were used in this group. 

Mr. Scherer. You don't recall that they had assumed names? 

Mr. Heald. I am sure that I never heard an assumed name. 

Mr. Scherer. In the Chicago group, you only knew their first 
names? 

Mr. Heald. Yes. 

Mr. Scherer. You never learned their last names? 

Mr. Heald. They were so introduced to me, and in the occasional 
meetings that I attended I didn't learn the last names of any of them 
except the one that I have mentioned. 

Mr. Tavenner. During all of this period of time, did you ever 
-endeavor to take a friend to one of these meetings? 

Mr. Heald. No. 

Mr. Tavenner. Why? 

Mr. Heald. I never was inclined to seek new participants in 
organizations, and I don't recall that I ever did. 

Mr. Tavenner. Why wouldn't you want to seek a participant in 
this organization? 

Mr. Heald. It simply isn't my nature to urge people to participate 
in things. 

Mr. Tavenner. You had a great many friends among the lawyers 
of the NLRB, did you not? 

Mr. Heald. I had a number of friends; yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. But you never asked one of them to go to one of 
these meetings with you? 

Mr. Heald. No; I don't recall that it ever occurred to me to ask 
one. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know whether the reason for that was that 
you couldn't take another person without the permission of all of 
them? In other words, they were meetings closed to other persons 
who were not members? 

Mr. Heald. That was not in my mind. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did any member of that group bring a visitor with 
him? 

Mr. Heald. Well 

Mr. Tavenner. I think that you answered that a moment ago. 



3068 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 

Mr. Heald. I do recall one other person who was brought to some 
of these meetings. 

Mr. Tavenner. Who was that? 

Mr. Heald. Jack Krug. I believe that he attended some of them. 

Mr. Tavenner. He has already been identified during the course 
of this hearing as a member of the Communist Party. Krug was an 
employee of the NLRB, was he not? 

Mr. Heald. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. You say that this group was split into two separate 
groups. When did that occur? 

Mr. Heald. It was in 1940 or 1941. 

Mr. Tavenner. What was the reason for it? 

Mr. Heald. I don't know. 

Mr. Tavenner. It was still a group composed of 7 or 8 people, 
including yourself, was it not? 

Mr. Heald. I believe so; yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Who advised you that it was to be split in two 
parts? 

Mr. Heald. I don't recall who did. 

Mr. Tavenner. Weren't you asked by an individual as to whether 
or not you would like to meet with this group or that group? 

Mr. Heald. I may have been. 

Mr. Tavenner. Wlio was that individual? 

Mr. Heald. Well, after so many j^ears, I just don't believe that I 
could remember. 

Mr. Tavenner. Wasn't it Bill Sherwood? 

Mr. Heald. I don't believe it was. It might have been. I don't 
believe it was Sherwood because I don't believe that I met him until 
after the division occurred. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was it Perlo? 

Mr. Heald. It might have been. I just don't have any recollec- 
tion of the details and I did not consider myself a very active par- 
ticipant in the group. 

Mr. Tavenner. Didn't you tell the staff that you believed it was 
"Mike" who asked you if you would like to be in a group consisting of 
the four persons you named ; that is, Rosenberg, Porter, Miss Weyand, 
and yourself? 

Mr. Heald. I think that in answer to a similar question I told 
them that it might well have been, *'Mike." 

Mr. Tavenner. Didn't you have curiosity enough to try to ascer- 
tain in the course of your studies why your group was no longer 
sitting as one group but had to divide into two? 

Mr. Heald. I assumed that it was more convenient for others to 
meet at different times. 

Mr. Tavenner. Didn't a question arise in your mind when a func- 
tionary of the Communist Party gave you your instructions in the 
matter? 

Mr. Heald. Well, no instructions were given to me. 

Mr. Tavenner. Or direction? 

]\Ir. Heald. As I say, I had no knowledge that this man was a 
functionary, as you say, in the Communist Party. 

Mr. Tavenner. You knew he had no connection with the NLRB? 

Mr. Heald. I knew that he had no such connection.- 

Mr. Tavenner. But you loiew he was the one who was the con- 
tact with the Communist Party, or at least you have so stated. 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 3069 

Mr. Heald. I knew that he expounded what purported to be the 
Communist Party views. 

Mr. Tavenner. And you still didn't realize that he was connected 
with the Communist Party? 

Mr. Heald. Well, looking back I can easily see that the purpose 
may have been to attempt — — 

Mr. Tavenner. You knew it then, didn't 3^ou? 

Mr. Heald. No, I did not. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know where this man, Sherwood, was 
from? 

Mr. Heald. I don't know. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was he employed in the XLRB? 

Mr. Heald. No. 

Mr. Tavenner. Wliat did he do? 

Mr. Heald. I believe he either was employed or was considering 
employment at the Labor Department. ^ think he was employed 
there at least for a time. 

Mr. Tavenner. Wlien was the last time you saw him? 

Mr. Heald. About 1942. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you loiow what he is doing now? 

Mr. Heald. I have no idea. 

Mr. Tavenner. Or where he is? 

Mr. Heald. No. 

Mr. Tavenner. This question may have been asked you by one 
of the committee members. You say that when 3'ou joined a similar 
group in Chicago you were introduced to the members by their first 
names. How many persons were there? 

Mr. Heald. I would say 6 or 8, as best I can remember, 

Mr. Tavenner. How were they employed? 

Mr. Heald. I have no idea. 

Mr. Tavenner. You never inquired? 

Mr. Heald. No. 

Mr. Tavenner. You never inquired as to their last names? 

Mr. Heald. No. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did 3'ou go to the homes of any of them? 

Mr. Heald. Some of them. 

Mr. Tavenner. In fact, 3'ou met in their homes, didn't you? 

Mr. Heald. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. You never inquired as to who they were or who the 
person was whose home was extended to you? 

Mr. Heald. No. 

Mr. Tavenner. And you visited their homes from 1942 to 1945, 
a period of 3 years, didn't you? 

Mr. Heald. Occasionally. 

Mr. Tavenner. During all of that period of time you didn't inquire 
about the names? 

Mr. Heald. I am not a curious person. 

Mr. Tavenner. But didn't a^ou have a reason for not inquiring? 

Mr. ScHERER. Did you say you are not a curious person? Is that 
your statement? 

Mr. Heald. Not about people's affairs that are of no concern of 
mine. 

Mr. ScHERER. Just about Communist philosophy? 

Mr. Heald. I was interested in that, and I wanted to learn what 
its teachings were. 



3070 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 

Mr. ScHERER. Now, the real reason, isn't it, Witness, that you 
say you don't know their last names, or their occupations, is because 
you are hestitating to identify those individuals for this committee? 
Isn't that the real reason? 

Mr. Heald. No. I have, as I have said, I have made every effort 
I could to search my memory and reveal everything that I can remem- 
ber, and I do not and I never did know their last names, and I assure 
you I am concealing nothing. 

Mr. Scherer. You appear to be a very fine gentleman who might 
find it distasteful to reveal to this committee the names of those 
individuals who were members of this cell with you here in Chicago. 
And, of course, if you only know their first names, that is not very 
helpful, is it? 

Mr. Heald. However distasteful, I assure you that I am revealing 
everything. I consider that my own likes and dislikes in the matter 
are not to be considered in this, and I — ■ — 

Mr. Scherer. That should be your position, I think. 

Mr. Heald. I can only say that it is. 

Mr. Scherer. That is the law, too. 

Mr. Tavenner. How were you informed while in Chicago where 
these meetings were to be held between 1942 and 1945? 

Mr. Heald. I believe usually at one of the meetings the location 
of the next meeting would be decided on, and if I didn't attend the 
next meeting usually Mr. Diamond I believe, would telephone me and 
tell me where the next one would be. 

Mr. Tavenner. Would he give the name of the place where it was 
to be held? 

Mr. Heald. He would give me the address. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you ever tell anyone that you were attending 
any of these meetings? 

Mr. Heald. I don't recall that I did. 

Mr. Tavenner. Why? 

Mr. Heald. I was never asked about it, and I just don't recall 
whether I have mentioned it to anyone or not. 

Mr. Tavenner. When employed by the NLRB, did you advise 
anyone there that you were attending meetings and studying com- 
munism for a period of about 3 years? 

Mr. Heald. I don't remember whether I did discuss it with anyone. 

Mr. Scherer. It is so obvious that the individuals in the Wash- 
ington cell have been identified by Fuchs and others and they are 
known to us, so there could be no hesitancy on the part of this witness 
in saying that he knew who those individuals were. But these indi- 
viduals who were in the Chicago cell may or may not have been Gov- 
ernment employees, and are not known to us now, and I can see this 
man is of a caliber that would hesitate to reveal for the first time who 
these individuals were. I do think that this man possesses some 
information that would be helpful to this committee. The story as 
set forth in this memorandum and m his testimony is incredible. 

Mr. Heald. Mr. Chairman 

Mr. Scherer. I hate to say that but it is apparent, I think, to 
everybody in the room that that is the only conclusion we could 
arrive at after listening to the testimony. 

Mr. Heald. I cannot allow that to go without an answer. 

Mr. Scherer. You mav answer. 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 3071 

Mr. Heald. You mention, Mr. Scherer, the names of the individuals 
in the Chicago group. They were all persons with whom I was well 
acquainted before I was in the Washington group, before I was in 
that group at all. They were 

Mr. Scherer. I think that you made a slip of the tongue. You 
meant the Washington people you were well acquainted with. 

Mr. Heald. I was well acquainted with them, and I knew their 
names, and I had known most of them fairly well at least before I 
ever participated in that group. I attended the meetings of that 
group with more frequency. 

The group in Chicago consisted, with the one exception I have men- 
tioned, of people that I had never seen before, and I have never seen 
any of them anywhere except in that group, and they were not fellow 
employees of mine. 

Mr. Scherer. However, they may have been Government em- 
ployees. 

You say you did not know where they were employed? 

Mr. Heald. That is right, Init they were not people whom I worked 
with. 

Mr. Scherer. And in the same agency, perhaps? 

Mr. Heald. They were not people that I had ever seen any place. 
I have not hesitated to reveal this information. 

Mr. Scherer. Wliy did you join a group, as you say, that was 
similar to the group that you attended in Washington, namely, a 
group that was discussing Communist theories, with total strangers 
out here? Obviously they were total strangers. 

Mr. Heald. Your question is why I should? 

Mr. Scherer. Yes. 

Mr. Heald. I thought it would still be interesting to do it. I 
found that it was not so interesting, and I did cease to participate. 

Mr. Moulder. I do not wish to prolong this witness' testimony 
but I would like to ask a question. In your statement you referred 
to the fact that — ■ 

I strongly objected to the Russo-Germaii pact in 1939, and I wrote a letter to 
Fuchs stating mv objections. 

Could you tell us what your objections were at that time? Why 
would you be writing to Professor Fuchs on that subject? 

Mr. Heald. I felt that the Russo-German pact offered no safeguards 
against Nazi aggression, and that it was a great mistake, and it was 
an illusion to suppose that it would offer any solution of the problem 
or any assurance of peace. On the contrary, I felt that it would tend 
to encourage Nazi aggression, and to eliminate 

Mr. Tavenner. May I ask one other question? Have you at any 
time been a member of anv other group similar to the one tliat you 
belonged to in the NLRB?*^ 

Mr. Heald. No; not other than the Chicago one. 

Mr. Tavenner. I have no further questions. 

Mr. Scherer. Before we close, I think that we should state for the 
record that these other organizations to which the witness says in his 
memorandum he belonged, are Communist-front organizations, 
namely: the American Peace Mobilization, the American League for 
Peace and Democracy, the Washington Bookshop, and the National 
Lawyers Gidld. 



3072 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 

Mr. Heald. At the time of my connection with any of those 
organizations, I had no knowledge of any facts showing a subversive 
character of any of them. 

Mr. ScHERER. The}' ma}^ have been designated by the Attorney 
General, or by one of the investigating committees of Congress as 
subversive and as Communist-front organizations at a period later 
than the time to which you belonged to them. But they were cited 
because of their activities during the time you belonged to them. 

Mr. Moulder. That was during the period 1936, 1937, and 1938. 

Mr. Heald. Yes; I had no knowledge at that time of any facts 
which would lead me to believe that they had a subversive character. 

Mr. Moulder. The witness is excused. 

The committee will stand in recess for a period of 5 minutes. 

(Whereupon, there was a brief recess.) 

Mr. Moulder. The committee will be in order. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Gerald J. Matcbett, will 3-ou come forward, 
please? 

(Members of the subcommittee present at this point in the hearing 
were Representatives IMoulder (chairman), Willis and Scherer.) 

Mr. Moulder. Will you be sworn, please? Do you solemnly 
swear that the testimony you are about to give before this committee 
will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help 
you God? 

Mr. Matchett. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF GERALD J. MATCHETT, ACCOMPANIED BY 
COUNSEL, RICHARD JAMES STEVENS 

Mr. Tavenner. What is your name, please, sh? 

Mr. Matchett. Gerald J. Matchett. 

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

Mr. Stevens. My name is Richard James Stevens; I am attorney 
in the State of Illinois and practice in Chicago, 111. 

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

Mr. Matchett. I was born on a farm near Fruita, Colo., September 
29, 1912. 

Mr. Tavenner. Wliere do 3'ou now reside? 

Mr. Matchett. Here in Chicago. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long have you lived in Chicago? 

Mr. Matchett. We have lived in Chicago since 1946. 

Air. Tavenner. What is your employment or A'our occupation? 

Mr. Matchett. I am a teacher. 

Mr. Tavenner. Where do you teach? A teacher in what? 

Mr. Matchett. I teach at Illinois Institute of Technology. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long have j^ou been a teacher there? 

Mr. Matchett. Since we came to Chicago; since 1946. 

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

Mr. Matchett. Yes. I have a bachelor's degree from the Uni- 
versity of Colorado; a master's degree and a Ph. D. degree from Clark 
University. 

Mr. Tavenner. Clark University? 

M^r. Matchett. Located in western Massachusetts. 

Mr. Tavenner. In wliat field did vou take A^our doctor's degree? 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 3073 

Mr. Matchett. Economics. 

Mr. Tavenner. When did you complete your course at Colorado 
University? 

Mr. Matchett. I got my degree in 1934. Before that time I went 
to a junior college, Mesa County Junior College, located in Grand 
Junction, Colo., and I was there for 2 years and then I went to 
the University of Colorado where I got my A. B. degree. 

Mr. Tavenner. When did you receive your doctor's degree? 

Mr. Matchett. In 1939. 

Mr. Tavenner. What has been your employment since 1939? 

(Witness consulted his counsel.) 

Mr. Matchett. I wish to object to this question on the ground 
that any answer might tend to incriminate me, and I claim the pro- 
tection of the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Scherer. I ask that you direct the witness to answer the ques- 
tion as to his employment. 

Mr. Moulder. The witness is directed to answer the question, and 
of course, you are advised that you have a right to claim the protec- 
tion of the fifth amendment. You are directed to answer because 
your statement is not responsive to the question, and you have given 
no reasons why the answer to that question would incriminate you. 

(Witness consulted his counsel.) 

Mr. Matchett. I would like to state again that the answer to that 
question might tend to incriminate me, and therefore I wish to use the 
protection of the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Scherer. You understand that when a member of the com- 
mittee asks the Chair to direct you to answer the question, it is be- 
cause the member of the committee, and subsequently the Chair, do 
not accept your answer. 

Mr. Moulder. And also he is advised that refusal to answer might 
subject him to prosecution for contempt. 

(Witness consulted his counsel.) 

Mr. Matchett. Being so advised, I continue to claim the privilege 
of the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Scherer. Now let me ask this question: Did you ever have a 
job since you graduated from college that was of a nature that wouldn't 
incriminate 3"ou? Tell us about those. 

(Witness consulted his counsel.) 

Mr. Scherer. Is this one of the men who worked for NliRB? 

Mr. Tavenner. No, sir. 

Mr. Matchett. In answer to that question I think that I indicated 
what my present job is. 

Mr. Scherer. Were there any other jobs that you had since 3'ou 
graduated from college that were of such a nature that to tell this 
committee would not tend to incriminate you? If you had some kind 
of a job \\ith the Communist Party or engaged in some other illegal 
activity, I admit you are properly invoking the fifth amendment. 
But now tell us of all other jobs that do not come in that category. 

You worked for the National War Labor Board. It wouldn't in- 
criminate you to work for the United States Government. 

(Witness consulted his counsel.) 

Mr. AIatchett. There may be associations arising out of employ- 
ment which might tend to incriminate me, and therefore I continue to 
claim the privilege. 



3074 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 

Mr. ScHERER. So we may have the record straight, Mr. Chairman, 
I ask you to direct the witness to answer my question and tell us about 
such jobs and positions that he had since his graduation from college, 
which would not tend to incriminate him. Certainly every job he has 
had over these years would not tend to incriminate him. 

Mr. AlouLDER. As requested by Mr. Scherer, the witness is directed 
to answer the question. 

(Witness consulted his counsel.) 

Mr. Matchett. I feel that every job I have held might lead to 
information which might tend to incriminate me, and therefore I 
continue to claim the privilege of the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Matchett, where did you reside prior to 
taking up your work as a teacher at Illinois Institute of Technology 
in 1946? 

(Witness consulted his counsel.) 

Mr. Matchett. I claim the privilege of the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Scherer. I ask you to direct the witness to answer the ques- 
tion as to where he resided prior to taking up his position as a teacher 
at Illinois Institute of Technology. 

Mr. Moulder. The witness is directed to answer the question. 

Mr. Matchett. I continue to claim the privilege of the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. Scherer. I think that we should state it is the feeling of the 
committee, or at least my feeling, that in refusing to answer that 
question, the witness is not invoking the fifth amendment properly 
and subjects himself to a possible contempt prosecution. 

I make that statement in accordance with the ruling of the Supreme 
Court in the Emspak and related cases. 

Mr. Tavenner. During the period that you attended the University 
of Colorado, were you aware of the existence of an organized group of 
the Communist Party on the campus of that institution? 

Mr. Matchett. I claim the privilege of the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Tavenner. And you refuse to answer? 

Mr. Matchett. On the protection given me because an answer 
might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are jou acquainted with Philip Reno? 

Mr. Matchett. I claim the privilege. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did Philip Reno attend the University of Colo- 
rado? 

Mr. Matchett. I claim the privilege. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you acquainted with Edward Scheunemann? 

Mr. Matchett. I claim the privilege. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did Edward Scheunemann attend the University 
of Colorado? 

Mr. Matchett. I claim the privilege. 

Mr. Moulder. Wlien you make the statement you "claim the 
privilege", are you refusing to answer on the basis 

Mr. Matchett. That the answer might tend to incriminate me; 
that is what I mean. 

Mr. Moulder. Under the protection of the fifth amendment? 

Mr. Matchett. That is right. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you employed by the National War Labor 
Board in Denver in 1945 or any other time? 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 3075 

Mr. Matchett. I claim the privilege. 

Mr. ScHERER. I ask that the witness be directed to answer that 
question. 

Mr. Moulder. The witness is directed to answer the question. 

Mr. Matchett. And my answer might tend to incriminate me and 
therefore I claim the privilege. 

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

(Witness consulted his counsel.) 

Mr. Matchett. I am not. 

Mr. Scherer. Were you yesterday? 

Mr. Matchett. I claim the privilege of the fifth amendment on the 
basis that answer might tend to • 

Mr. Scherer. You say that you are not a member as of this 
moment; is that right? 

Mr. Matchett. That is right. 

Mr. Scherer. Were you a member of the Communist Party this 
morning? 

Mr. Matchett. I claim the privilege on that; an answer might tend 
to incriminate me. 

Mr. Scherer. When did you cease to become a member? 

Mr. Matchett. I claim the privilege. 

Mr. Moulder. The witness is directed to answer the question and 
it is my belief you have waived the right to claim the privileges of the 
fifth amendment b}^ stating that you are not now a member of the 
Communist Party. 

That carries with it an inference that you are not now. Refusing 
to answer about your past affdiation carries the strong implication 
that maybe you were this morning, as asked by Mr. Scherer. 

Mr. Scherer. When you were employed by the National War 
Labor Board, did you have to fill out an application for employment, 
known as form 57? 

Mr. Matchett. I claim the privilege. 

Mr. Scherer. Is it a fact that you did fill out such an application? 

Mr. Matchett. I claim the privilege. 

Mr. Scherer. Were you asked on that application whether or not 
you were a member of the Communist Party? 

Mr. Matchett. I claim the privilege. 

Mr. Scherer. I haven't seen it, but I think Mr. Tavenner has it 
til ere; is it a fact that you did sign such an application and when that 
question was asked you, you answered "no"? 

Mr. Matchett. I claim the privilege. 

Mr. Willis. Have you ever worked for the Federal Government? 

Mr. Matchett. I claim the privilege. 

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

Mr. Willis. You mean to say that you are afraid that it might 
incriminate you to tell us whether you ever worked for your Govern- 
ment? 

Mr. Matchett. I continue to say that such answers might be self- 
incriminatory and I claim the privilege of the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Willis. Did you ever reside in Denver, Colo.? 

Mr. Matchett. I claim the privilege. 

Mr. Scherer. I ask you to direct the witness to answer the question. 
He is clearly in contempt if he refuses to answer a question as to 
whether or not he ever resided in Denver, 



3076 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 

Mr. Moulder. The witness is adv^ised and directed to answer the 
question. 

Mr. Matchett. I claim the privilege. 

Mr. Willis. Did you know a gentleman by the name of Michael 
Hessen, a lawyer, in Denver? 

Mr. Matchett. I claim the privilege. 

Mr. Tavenner. I hand you a photostatic copy of Government 
form 57 purportmg to be made out in the name of Gerald J. Matchett, 
under date of April 17, 1946, and I ask you to look at the last 
page and state whether or not the signature at the end of the document 
is your signature? 

(Document was handed to the witness.) 

(Witness consulted his counsel.) 

Mr. Matchett. I claim the privilege. 

Mr. Moulder. You are refusing to answer; is that right? 

Mr. Matchett. That is right, under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. ScHERER. He may be properly invoking the fifth amendment, 
because if he answered that question on form 57 that he was not a mem- 
ber of the Communist Party, he committed perjury; so I assume that 
he is properly invoking the fifth amendment in this case. 

Mr. Tavenner. I desire to offer the above-mentioned photostatic 
copy of form 57 in evidence, ask it be marked "Gerald J. Matchett 
Exhibit No. 1" for identification purposes and to be made a part of 
the committee files. 

Mr. Moulder. It will be so received. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Matchett, were you an employee of the Bu- 
reau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Department of Commerce, 
in Washington, D. C, in 1942? 

Mr. Matchett. I claim the privilege. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you employed as an agricultural economist 
by the Agriculture Department in Washington in 1942? 

Mr. Matchett. I claim the privilege. 

Mr. Scherer. During the time that Mr. Tavenner is asking you 
about, when you were obviously employed by these agencies of Govern- 
ment, were you engaged in any illegal activity? 

Mr. Matchett. I claim the privilege. 

Mr. Scherer. You mean you won't tell us Avhether or not you were 
engaged in any illegal activity? 

Mr. Matchett. 1 claim the privilege. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you Chief of the Review Section of the 
Ninth Regional National War Labor Board Office, in Colorado, in 
December 1942? 

Mr. Matchett. I claim the privilege. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you enter the military service in 1944? 

(Witness consulted with his counsel.) 

Mr. Matchett. I claim the privilege. 

Mr. Scherer. It is incredible that he claims the privilege in saying 
that it is incriminatmg to answer the question as to whether he was 
in the service of the Government of the United States, in the armed 
services. 

Mr. Moulder. The witness is directed to answer the question. 
T can't see why it would incriminate you to answer the question as 
to whether or not you ever served your country or were in the armed 
services. 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 3077 

(Witness consulted with his counsel.) 

Mr. Matchett. On reconsideration, I will state that I was in the 
armed services between, as I remember now, March 1944 and I have 
forgotten the exact date of my discharge, but it was in 1946. 

Air. ScHERER. Were you a member of the Communist Party while 
you were in the armed services of the United States? 

Mr. Matchett. I claim the privilege. 

Mr. Tavenner. Where did you serve while a member of the Ai'ined 
Forces? 

Mr. Matchett. Mainly in Europe. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you returned to the United States for dis- 
charge or were you discharged in Europe? 

(Witness consulted his counsel.) 

Mr. Matchett. I was discharged in Em-ope. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you then receive an appointmentof a civilian 
character with the United States Government whUe in Em'ope? 

Mr. Matchett. I claim the privilege. 

Mr. ScHERER. I ask that the witness be directed to answer the 
question. 

Mr. Moulder. The witness is directed to answer. 

Mr. Matchett. I claim the privilege under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you employed in Berlin, by the U. S. Office 
of Military Government for Germany? 

Mr. Matchett. I claim the privilege. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you become acquainted with Russ Nixon in 
Germany? 

Mr. Matchett. I claim the privilege. 

Mr. Tavenner. Irving Kaplan? 

Mr. Matchett. I claim the privilege. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you present yesterday during the testimony 
of Professor Fuchs? 

Mr. Matchett. I was not. 

Mr. Tavenner. Professor Fuchs testified that you were recruited 
into a unit or organization of the Communist Party in Denver, Colo., 
at which time you were employed by the National War Labor Board. 

Mr. Matchett. I claim the privilege. 

Air. Tavenner. Is that true or false? 

Mr. Matchett. I claim the privilege. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you acquainted with Herbert Fuchs? 

Mr. Matchett. I claim the privilege. 

Mr. Tavenner. I have no further questions. 

Mr. Moulder. May I inquire of you as to why you received your 
discharge from the United States Armed Forces while in Europe? 

(Witness consulted with his counsel.) 

Mr. Matchett. On this question I claim the privilege of the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. Moulder. Any questions? 

Mr. ScHERER. Wliat subjects do you teach at Illinois Institute of 
Technology? 

Mr. Matchett. I claim the privilege. 

Mr. ScHERER. This witness said at the opening of his testimony that 
his present employment is Illinois Institute of Technology. I asked 
him the question, "Wliat subjects do you teach," and he invokes the 
fifth amendment. 



3078 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 

First, I think it is an improper invocation of the fifth amendment 
and second, if it would be a proper invocation he has waived it, and I 
ask you to direct the witness to answer the question. If he still in- 
sists in refusing to answer the question I feel he is in contempt and 
we will so ask the committee to find. 

Mr. Moulder. The members of the committee concur with the 
statement made by Mr. Scherer, and you are directed to answer the 
question. 

We can't understand that your refusal to claim the privilege under 
the fifth amendment is in good faith and furthermore, you have waived 
the right to claim that privilege for the reason that you have stated 
that you do teach at the educational institution mentioned by Mr. 
Scherer. So don't you now wish to answer that question? 

Mr. Matchett. Because of the subject matter, I think that I 
should claim the privilege under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Scherer. Do you mean to say, sir, a man who has a Ph. D. 
degree, that to tell this committee what subject you teach at the 
Illinois Institute of Technology might tend to incriminate you? Do 
you honestly believe that it would tend to incriminate you to tell me 
what subjects you teach, whether it is mathematics, American prob- 
lems, or sociology, or so on? 

Mr. Matchett. I think it might lead to a line of questioning which 
might tend to incriminate me, and it is on that basis that I am claiming 
the protection of the fifth amendment. 

iSIr. Scherer. I can only say to you that I do not think by any 
stretch of the imagination — ^I cannot see how you can in good faith 
claim the privilege of the fifth amendment to that question. I am 
telling you now for the record that I am unwilling to accept the 
answer, and in my opinion you are guilty of contempt, and that I 
intend to ask this committee, in executive session, that necessary steps 
be taken to bring action for contempt. 

I ask you to direct the witness to answer the question. 

Mr. Moulder. The witness is directed to answer the question. 

Mr. Matchett. I don't get the question. I didn't understand the 
question. 

Mr. Moulder. It is the same question on which an additional 
direction was asked. After advising you of the dangers that might 
be involved by your refusing, do you now desire to retract your re- 
fusal and answer the question propounded to you by Mr. Scherer as 
to what subjects you teach where you are now employed? 

Mr. Matchett. No, I continue to claim the protection. 

Mr. Scherer. I just wonder how the Illinois Institute of Tech- 
nology would feel about such a position? 

Mr. Moulder. The witness is excused. 

Mr. Tavenner. Margaret Matchett, will you come forward, 
please? 

Mr. Moulder. Will you be sworn, please? 

Do you solemnly swear the testimony which you are about to give 
before this committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 
hut the truth, so help you God? 

Mrs. Matchett. I do. 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 3079 

TESTIMONY OF MARGARET ELLEN MATCHETT, ACCOMPANIED 
BY COUNSEL, RICHARD JAMES STEVENS 

Mr. Travenner. What is your name, please? 

Mrs. Matchett. Margaret Ellen Matchett. 

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

Mr. Stevens. Richard J. Stevens, Chicago, 111., licensed to practice 
in the State of Illinois. 

Mr. Tavenner. Where were you born? 

Mrs. Matchett. I was born in Rockford, 111. 

Mr. Tavenner. Where do you now reside? 

Mrs. Matchett. In Chicago. 

Mr. Tavenner. What is your profession or occupation? 

Mrs. Matchett. I am a housewife. 

Mr. Tavenner. Have you also been a teacher? 

(Witness consulted her counsel.) 

Mrs. Matchett. I decline to answer the question on the grounds 
that the answer might tend to incriminate me, and I claim the 
protection of the fifth amendment. 

Mr. ScHERER. Mr. Chairman, I refuse to accept that answer and 
I ask that you direct the witness to answer the question. I can't 
possibly see how to answer whether or not she has been a teacher can 
incriminate her. 

Mr. Moulder. You are advised by the committee that your refusal 
to answer might place you in a position where you will be guilty of 
contempt, and therefore, as requested by Mr. Scherer, you are directed 
to answer the question. 

Mrs. Matchett. I respectfully continue to claim the protection of 
the fifth amendment. 

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

Mrs. Matchett. Yes. I have a bachelor of arts degree from 
Butler University, and a master's and doctor of philosophy degree 
from Indiana University. 

Mr. Tavenner. When did you receive your degree from Indiana 
University? 

Mrs. Matchett. In 1946. 

Mr. Tavenner. How soon after receiving your degree did you 
leave Indiana University? 

(Witness consulted her counsel.) 

Mrs. Matchett. I decline to answer on the grounds that the 
answer might tend to incriminate me, and I claim the privilege of the 
fifth amendment. 

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

Mr. Moulder. The witness is directed to answer for the reason 
I stated a while ago, that you are advised you might be placing 
yourself in danger of being guilty of contempt. That statement is 
not made in a spirit of coercion or a threat to you, but for your own 
protection, and you are therefore directed to answer the question. 

Mrs. Matchett. I understand, sir. I must respectfully decline. 

Mr. Scherer. Where did you get your Ph. D.? 

Mrs. Matchett. From Indiana University. 

Mr. Scherer. What year was that? 

70811—56 — pt. 2 5 



3080 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 

Mrs. Matchett. 1946. 

Mr. ScHERER. In what field? 

Mrs. Matchett. Alathematics. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you teach at Indiana University between 1939 
and 1942? 

(Witness consulted her counsel.) 

Mrs. Matchett. I claim the privilege of the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Scherer. Let us get the record straight. I ask you to direct 
the witness to answer. 

Mr. Moulder. The witness is directed to answer. 

Mrs. Matchett. I claim the privilege. 

Mr. Moulder. May the record reveal that when you claim the 
privilege, you are refusing to answ^er when you make the statement 
"I claim the privilege" 

Mrs. Matchett. I intended that to abbreviate the full statement; 
that the answer might tend to incriminate me and I claim the privilege 
of the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Tavenner. Have you at any time lived in College Park, Md.? 

(Witness consulted her counsel.) 

Mrs. Matchett. I claim the privilege of the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you teach at the University of Maryland in 
the years of 1942 and 1943? 

Mrs. Matchett. I claim the privilege of the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Moulder. The witness is directed to answer. 

Mrs. Matchett. I continue to claim the protection of the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. Tavenner. Have you at any time resided in Denver? 

Mrs. Matchett. I claim the protection of the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Moulder. The witness is directed to answer that question for 
the reasons previously advised by the committee. 

Mrs. Matchett. I must respectfully continue to claim the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. Tavenner. Is there an educational institution by the name of 
University of Denver? 

(Witness consulted her counsel.) 

Mrs. Matchett. There is a university; either a University of 
Denver, or Denver University. 

Mr. Tavenner. Regardless of which may be the correct name, did 
you teach there during the scholastic year of 1943 to 1944? 

Mrs. Matchett. I claim the protection of the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Moulder. The witness is directed to answer, with the warning 
as previously given by the committee for your own protection ; that 
you might be placing yourself in a position of being guilty of contempt. 

Mrs. Matchett. I must respectfully continue to claim the privilege 
of the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Tavenner. I hand you a photostatic copy of Government 
Form 57, purporting to be made out in the name of Margaret Ellen 
Stump Matchett, under date of April 13, 1944. I ask you to examine 
it, please, and state whether or not the signature appearing at the 
bottom of the last page is your signature? 

(Document handed to the witness.) 

(Witness consulted her counsel.) 

Mrs. Matchett. I claim the privilege. 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 3081 

Mr. Tavenner. I desire to offer the above mentioned photostatic 
copy of form 57 in evidence, ask that it be marked "Margaret E. 
Matchett Exhibit No. 1," for identification purposes, and to be made 
a part of the committee files. 

Mr. Moulder. The document will be so received. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you acquainted with Phil Reno? 

Mrs. Matchett. I claim the privilege of the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you acquainted with Edward Scheunemann? 

Mrs. Matchett. I claim the privilege of the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you acquainted with Herbert Fuchs? 

Mrs. Matchett. I claim the privilege of the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you belong to a Communist Party cell or unit 
in Denver 

Mrs. Matchett. I claim the privilege. 

Mr. Tavevner. Just a moment — ^to which each of those individuals 
belonged? 

Mrs. Matchett. I claim the privilege of the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Scherer. Herbert Fuchs said under oath that you were a 
member of the Communist Party. That was yesterday. Was he 
telling the committee the truth when he said that you were a member 
of the Communist Party? 

Mrs. Matchett. I claim the privilege of the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Scherer. You don't deny, then, that his testimony is true? 

Mrs. Matchett. I claim the privilege. 

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

(Witness consulted her counsel) 

Mrs. Matchett. No. 

Mr. Tavenner. When did you cease to become a member? 

Mrs. Matchett. I claim the privilege. 

Mr. Scherer. Were you a member of the Communist Party yester- 
day? 

Mrs. Matchett. I claim the privilege, sir. 

Mr. Scherer. Did you resign this morning? 

Mrs. Matchett. I claim the privilege of the fifth amendment. 

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

Mr. Moulder. The witness is so directed. 

Mrs. Matchett. I must continue to decline, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. I have no further questions. 

Mr. Willis. Have you ever been a member of the Commuiyst 
Party? 

Mrs. Matchett. I claim the privilege of the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Moulder. The witness is excused. 

Mr. Tavenner. That is all for open session, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Moulder. The committee will stand in recess and go into 
executive session. 

(Whereupon, at 4 p. m., the public hearing was adjourned and 
the committee went into executive session.) 



INVESTIGATION OF COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF 
GOVERNMENT— PART 2 



THURSDAY, DECEMBER 15, 1955 

United States House of Representatives, 

Subcommittee of the 
Committee on Un-American Activities, 

Chicago, III. 

EXECUTIVE session ^ 

A subcommittee of tlie Committee on Uii-American Activities met 
in executive session at 10 a. m., in the Federal Courthouse, Chicago, 
111., Hon. Edwin E. Wilhs, presiding. 

Committee members present: Representatives Willis and Scherer. 

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

Mr. Willis. The subcommittee will come to order. 

The subcommittee heretofore appointed by the chairman, consisting 
of Congressmen Morgan M. Moulder of Missouri as chairman, 
Edwin E. Willis of Louisiana, and Gordon H. Scherer of Ohio, to 
conduct the hearings in Chicago which began on December 14 is 
now in session. Congressman V^'ilhs of Louisiana (acting as chair- 
man) and Congressman Scherer are present, thus constituting a 
quorum of the subcommittee. 

Will you stand and be sworn, please? Do you solemnly swear that 
the testimony you are about to give before this subcommittee will 
be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you 
God? 

Mr. Cooper. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF LYLE W. COOPER ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 
CHARLES J. O'LAUGHLIN 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you state your name, please, sir? 
Mr. Cooper. Lyle W. Cooper. 
Mr. Tavenner. Are you accompanied by counsel? 
Mr. Cooper. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will counsel please identify himself for the record? 
Mr. O'Laughlin. My name is Charles J. O'Laughlin, a member 
of the bar of the State of Illinois. 

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

Mr. Cooper. St. John, Kans., December 30, 1895. 

Mr. Tavenner. Where do you now reside? 

Mr. Cooper. Chicago. 

Mr. Tavenner. What is your occupation or profession? 

' Released by the committee January 20, 1956. 

3083 
70811— 56— pt. 2 6 



3084 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 

Mr. Cooper. I am the research director for the United Packing- 
house Workers of America, CIO. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long have you held that position? 

Mr. Cooper. Since July 10, 1944. 

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

Mr. Cooper. After graduating from high school in Colorado 
Springs, Colo., I entered Colorado College in Colorado Springs and 
graduated from there in 1918. After a period of service in World 
War I, I resumed my education, first entering the University of 
Chicago in the summer session of 1920. Then I went to the University 
of California in Berkeley, and I was carrying on graduate work there 
until 1921, and the period was interrupted by teaching. 

There was a summer session again at the University of California 
in 1922, a summer session at the University of Wisconsin in 1923, and 
then continuous graduate work at the University of Chicago in 1924 
through most of 1925, receiving the doctor's degree in economics, 
specializing in labor problems in December of 1925. The thesis was 
Economic Policies of the American Federation of Labor. That com- 
pleted my formal education. 

Mr. Tavenner. What employment have you had since the com- 
pletion of your educational training? 

Mr. Cooper. Since completion of it I was on the staff of the Illinois 
Department of Labor, beginning in 1925. I think it was in the early 
autumn. That ran for a year. I think the title was "report writer," 
with the Illinois Department of Labor, Then I went to Marquette 
University in Milwaukee in the autumn of 1926 as an associate pro- 
fessor of economics. I was in Milwaukee for approximately 10)^ years. 

Mr. Tavenner. You mean you were with Marquette University 
for lOK years? 

Mr. Cooper. Yes, su\ 

Mr. Tavenner. Would that bring 3^ou up to about 1937. 

Mr. Cooper. Yes. February 1, I think it was, 1937, I left Milwau- 
kee. I was professor after 2 years at Marquette University and also 
professor in the graduate school at Marquette. 

Mr. Tavenner. In what department were you teaching? 

Mr. Cooper. I was in the College of Business Administration. 

Mr. Tavenner. What subjects did you teach? 

Mr. Cooper. For the most part labor problems, labor legislation, 
a course in business and government, and a course in value and dis- 
tribution. I think that consisted of my subjects. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you proceed, please. 

Mr. Cooper. In February of 1937 I took a civil-service position 
with the Social Security Board in Washington, D. C. in the Unemploy- 
ment Compensation Division. I obtained a leave of absence, I think 
it was early in the summer of 1937, to join the staff of the Wisconsin 
Industrial Relations Board. I remained there, I believe approxi- 
mately 6 weeks, at which time an offer came which I considered at- 
tractive from the National Labor Relations Board in the Economics 
Division. I went back to Washington and I took that position with 
the National Labor Relations Board, Economics Division, in July of 
1937. I remained there until June or toward the end of June, I be- 
lieve it was, in 194G. Then I took a position with the United vStates 
House of Representatives on the Select Committee to Investigate the 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 3085 

Interstate Migration of Destitute Citizens, properly called the Tolan 
committee. 

Mr. WiLLi'^. Was it a special committee? 

Mr. Cooper. Yes, sir; for investigating; migration. 

That emplo.vment continued until April, I believe it was, of 1941, 
at which time I took a position with the Works Progress Administra- 
tion in Washmgton, D. C., the Economics Division, and remained there 
until July of 1942. Then I transferred to the Board of Economic 
Warfare, and I think, approximately a year later its name was changed 
to the Foreign Economic Administration. And then my Government 
employment continued 

Mr. Tavenner. Wli.en did your employment begin with the Board 
of Economic Warfare? 

Mr. Cooper. I think I am correct in stating July of 1942. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long did that employment last? 

Mr. Cooper. I think I was on the payroll at least until the end of 
1944. From July of that year I was on leave, I think technically on 
leave from the agency, but, nevertheless on the payroll. I mean 
there was an interim there, and, as I stated, I joined the staff of the 
United Packinghouse Workers on July 10, 1944. 

Mr. Tavenner. Since that time have you held your present 
position on the research staff of the United Packinghouse Workers 
of America, CIO? 

Mr. Cooper. Yes, sir; continuously. 

Mr. Willis. Were you stationed in Chicago tliroughout this 
period? 

Mr. Cooper. Yes, sir. 

This is an international union with membership in Canada and 
Puerto Rico, as well as the United States. 

Mr. Tavenner. During the period that you were employed by the 
National Labor Relations Board was a loyalty investigation conducted 
regarding you? 

Mr. Cooper. Frankly, I do not loiow, sir. -. 

Mr. Tavenner. You do not know? 

Mr. Cooper. No. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you have a loyalty hearing? 

Mr. Cooper. Never while I was at the National Labor Relations 
Board. 

Mr. Scherer. Did you have a loyalty hearing at any other time? 

Mr. Cooper. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Scherer. A^Tlen was that? 

Mr. Cooper. Let me see. It was March or April of 1942, I think. 

Mr. Scherer. With what agency were you connected at that time? 

Mr. Cooper. I was with the Board of Economic Warfare at that 
time. 

Mr. Scherer. Was that the only loyalty hearing ever conducted 
as far as you knew? 

Mr. Cooper. There were two phases of that. Well, to trace it, 
the Civil Service Commission had a hearing, and the agency itself 
had a hearing and disagreed with the Commission. 

Mr. Scherer. What was the Commission's finding? 

Mr. Cooper. The Commission's finding was that I should be 
severed . 

Mr. Scherer. Did the agency's loyalty board then reverse the 
Commission's findrng? 



3086 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 

Mr. Cooper. Not immediately, no, sir. But on appeal before the 
Appeals Board of the Commission, a hearing which took place in 
April of 1944, pardon me, I think the former date was incorrect. 
It was 1943. In 1944 an Appeals Board hearing of the Civil Service 
Commission was held which eventually resulted in reinstatement by 
the Civil Service Commission both in my position and reinstatement 
in all civil-service ratings and positions to which I was eligible. 

Mr. ScHERER. What was the outcome of the agency hearing? 

Mr. Cooper. The agency hearing cleared me. 

Mr. ScHERER. Was that subsequent to the original hearing before 
the Civil Service Commission? 

Mr. Cooper. No, that was after the original hearing. 

Mr. Scherer. Was it subsequent to the original hearing? 

Mr. Cooper. Yes, sir; subsequent, that is correct. 

Mr. Scherer. You testified at the hearing, did you not? 

Mr. Cooper. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Scherer. On how many different occasions did you testify? 

Mr. Cooper. Three. 

Mr. Tavenner. In substance, what was the charge against you? 

Mr. Cooper. Well, I cannot recall exactly. I would say it 
amounted to the charge of being a fellow traveler of the Communist 
Party. 

Mr. Tavenner. Didn't it go further than that and charge you 
with having been a meml)er of tlie Communist Party? 

Mr. Cooper. I do not think so. The record would show, however. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you at any time a member of the Communist 
Party wdiile employed by the Federal Government? 

Mr. Cooper. No, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Had you been a member of the Communist Party 
at any time prior to your employment by the Federal Government? 

(The witness consulted his counsel.) 

Mr. Cooper. On advice of counsel, I respectfully plead the fifth 
amendment on the ground that my answer might incriminate me. 

Mr. Scherer. Were you asked whether or not you were a member 
of the Communist Party at any of the hearings to which you just 
referred? 

Mr. Cooper. I think I was, su-. 

Mr. Scherer. How did you answer those questions? 

Mr. Cooper. In the same manner as I have answered them here. 

Mr. Scherer. You took the fifth amendment? 

Mr. Cooper. No, sir. The questions referred to the present at 
that time. 

Mr. Scherer. What is that? 

Mr. Cooper. The present, whether I was then a member, as I 
recall. 

Mr. Scherer. And your answer was "No"? 

Mr. Cooper. That is correct. 

Mr. Scherer. At that time? 

Mr. Cooper. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Scherer. Were you telling the truth when you answered "No" 
at that time? 

Mr. Cooper. Certamly. 

Mr. Scherer. Did they ask you whether you liad ever been a 
member of the Communist Party prior to the date of the hearing? 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 3087 

Mr. Cooper. I do not recall. 

Mr. ScHERER. If they had asked you that question, would you 
have answered the question truthfully at that time? 

(The witness consulted his counsel.) 

Mr. Cooper. I have always answered questions truthfully to my 
best knowledge. 

Mr. Scherer. It is rather inconceivable, isn't it, Witness, in the 
conduct of a loyalty hearing that they would not have asked you the 
question whether or not you had ever been a member of the Com- 
munist Party in the past? 

Mr. Cooper. I cannot say. 

Mr. Scherer. You can't say? 

Mr. Cooper. No. 

Mr. Scherer. If they had asked 3'ou at any one of those hearings 
whether or not you had been a member of the Communist Party at 
any time prior to the date of the hearings, how would you have 
answered at that time? 

(The witness consulted his counsel.) 

Mr. Cooper. I don't know how I would have answered. I would 
have either pleaded the fifth amendment or answered the question. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you recall whether or not you filled out Gov- 
ernment form 57 or any other application for Government employ- 
ment where the question appeared as to whether or not you had been 
a member of an organization devoted to the forceful overthrow of 
the Government of the United States? 

Mr. Cooper. I don't remember a form 57. I remember filling out 
forms. I cannot sa}^ whether in this long period of time what the 
contents of those forms were. 

Air. Tavenner. Were you aware of the existence of a cell or 
organized group of the Communist Partv within the National Labor 
Relations Board at the time you were employed there? 

Mr. Cooper. I was not. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was your status that of an economist? 

Mr. Cooper. That is correct. 

Mr. Tavenner. We have had considerable testimony during this 
hearing about the organization of a number of cells of the Communist 
Partj within the legal staff of the NLRB. 

Were you aware of any such organization? 

Mr. Cooper. I was not. 

Mr. Tavenner. You stated your first Government employment 
occurred around February 1, 1937, and that you went to that employ- 
ment directly from teacliing at Marquette University, where you had 
taught for a period of 10}2 years? 

Mr. Cooper. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you a member of the Comm.unist Party at 
any time during j^our teaching career at Marquette University? 

(The witness consulted his counsel.) 

Mr. Cooper. I respectfully plead the fifth amendment in answer 
to this question on the grounds that it might incriminate me. 

Mr. Tavenner. You refuse, therefore, to answer the question on that 
ground? 

Mr. Cooper. I do 

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

Mr. Cooper. I am not. 



3088 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 

Mr. Tavenner. Have you ever been a member of the Communist 
Party? 

Mr. Cooper. Again I must respectfully decline to answer, on the 
grounds that it might incriminate me, under the fiftli amendment. 

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

Mr. Scherer. Witness, we feel that if you were willing to do so 
you could give this committee some valuable information. Perhaps 
your counsel has told you, the law of the last 2 years provides that 
this committee, if it sees fit may, with the approval of the Federal 
court, grant you immunity from prosecution; that is, no matter what 
answer you might give in response to any question counsel might ask, 
you would be free from prosecution, if the committee saw fit to grant 
you immunity. 

If this committee should, with the approval of the Federal court, 
grant you immunity from prosecution, would you then testify? 

Mr. Cooper. No, sir, I would not. 

(The witness consulted his counsel.) 

Mr. Scherer. That is all. 

Mr. Tavenner. I have no further questions. 

Mr. Scherer. I have this comment for the record, that the 
answer of the witness indicates clearly, then, that he is not pleading 
the fifth amendment in good faith because he said that he refused to 
answer our questions because of the fear of incrimination. Now, 
even if possible incrimination is removed, he says that he would not 
answer the questions. So it is obvious he has some reason other than 
fear of criminal prosecution. 
}^1 just want to note that on the record. 
- (Witness excused.) 

'^ Mr. Willis. Do you solemnly swear that the evidence you are 
about to give before this subcommittee will be the truth, the whole 
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? 

Mrs. Cooper. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF HELEN A. COOPER, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 
CHARLES J. O'LAUGHLIN 

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

Mrs. Cooper. Helen A. Cooper. 

Mr. Tavenner. It is noted that the present witness is represented 
by the same counsel who represented the former witness. 

Mr. O'Laughlin. I think the record should show that they are 
husband and wife. 

Mr. Willis. We will come to that. It is obvious. 

Mr. Tavenner. When and where were you born? 

Mrs. Cooper. Great Falls, Mont., April 1, 1900. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you the wife of Mr. Lyle W. Cooper? 

Mrs. Cooper. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee please whether in the 
past you have held cmplo3aneiit with the Federal Government? 

Mrs. Cooper. I have. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you hold such employment now? 

Mrs. Cooper. No. 

Mr. Tavenner. When were you last employed b}" the Federal 
Government? 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 3089 

Mrs. Cooper. In May of 1942. 

Mr. Tavenner. What was the nature of your emplo>Tnent? 

Mrs. Cooper. I was employed by the United States Children's 
Bureau as a consultant in child labor and assistant consultant in 
child labor, and it was under that. 

Mr. Tavenner. In what department of the Government was that? 

Mrs. Cooper. The Industrial Division of the Children's Bm-eau. 

Mr. Tavenner. Under the Department of Labor? 

Mrs. Cooper. That is right. 

Mr. Tavenner. Wlien did that employment begin and end? 

Mrs. Cooper. It began in 1939 and ended in May of 1942. I think 
it was about May or June of 1939. 

Mr. Tavenner. Where were you employed? 

Mrs. Cooper. In Washington, D. C. 

Mr. Tavenner, Was j^our entu-e Government employment in 
Washington? 

Mrs. Cooper. Would you amplify what you mean? 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you conthiuously in Washington during that 
employment by the Labor Department? 

Mrs. Cooper. I was in travel status, and I went around the 
country. 

Mr. Tavenner. Have you held any other Government employ- 
ment? 

Mrs. Cooper. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell us what it was? 

Mrs. Cooper. As far as I recall, I had a position with the Federal 
Emergency Relief Administration as a research worker in 1934 in 
Milwaukee, and I think it was a short employment; also with the 
National Recovery Administration, that was about 6 months, also in 
Milwaukee 

Mr. Tavenner. During what period? 

Mrs. Cooper. I will have to look that up. I don't have that 
information exactly. These were short periods of employment. It 
was just before the NRA went out, 6 months prior to its demise, you 
know, and it was declared unconstitutional. 

Mr. Tavenner. Would you fix the date roughly as 1934? 

Mrs. Cooper. 1935, with the National Recovery Administration. 

Then there was an assignment Father Haas gave me. Father Haas 
asked me to do an investigation for him at Stevens Point, Wis., and that 
was in 1937. 

Mr. Tavenner. What was the nature of that work? 

Mrs. Cooper. There was a dispute with reference to an employee's 
position, and I forget what the controversy was, but whether he was 
entitled to hold this position for some outside reason, and I have 
forgotten what it was. I could look it up. 

Air. Willis. At whose request did you make that investigation? 

Mrs. Cooper. Father Haas. He was then in Washington, D. C, 
with the Works Progress Administration. Francis J. Haas. 

Mr. Willis. Was he a CathoHc priest? 

Mrs. Cooper. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did that matter relate in any way to a Communist 
afhliation of the individual involved? 

Mrs. Cooper. No, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. It did not? 

Mrs. Cooper. No, sir. 



3090 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 

Mr. Tavenner. What was the approximate date of that assign- 
ment? 

Mrs. Cooper. I would say early in 1937, to the best of my 
recollection. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you give us any other Federal employment 
that you had? 

Mrs. Cooper. I think that covers it. 

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

Mrs. Cooper. I was through high school and a commercial college 
in Montana, and I received a Ph. D. from the University of Chicago 
in March 1924. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know whether or not a loyalty investiga- 
tion was conducted on you at any time while you were employed by 
the Federal Government? 

(The witness consulted with counsel.) 

Mrs. Cooper. There was an investigation at the Children's Bureau, 
and I don't know whether that was loyalty board or not. I presume 
it was. I think everyone was called in the department. I am 
not sure. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you have a hearing of any description? 

Mrs. Cooper. Well, it might have been a hearing like this, with 
one person interrogating. 

Mr. Tavenner. At that time did it involve the question of any 
present or prior Communist Party affiliation on your part? 

Mrs. Cooper. I think that the question was asked. 

Mr. Tavenner. What was the question that was asked? 

Mrs. Cooper. "Are you a member of the Communist Party or 
have you ever been," or something like that. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you answer it? 

Mrs. Cooper. I think that I did. 

Mr. Tavenner. How did you answer it? 

Mrs. Cooper. I think that I answered that I was not a member. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you also answer that you had never been a 
member? 

Mrs. Cooper. I don't know whether that was asked. I couldn't 
say. 

Mr. Tavenner. Had you ever been a member of the Communist 
Party? 

Mrs. Cooper. I respectfully decline to answer that question, under 
the privilege afforded me by the fifth amendment, on the ground that 
my answer might incriminate me. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you a member of the Communist Party at 
the time that that hearing was being held? 

Mrs. Cooper. I was not. 

Mr. Scherer, Were you a member a week before that hearing? 

Mrs. Cooper. I would plead under the privilege afforded me by 
the fifth amendment that my answer might tend to incriminate me, 
and I will decline to answer. 

Mr. Scherer. What answer did you give to the loyalty board when 
it asked you whether or not you had been a member of the Communist 
Party at an3^time in the past? 

Mrs. Cooper. I don't remember that question, sir. 

Mr. O'Laughlin. I don't think the record shows it was a lo^^alty 
board hearing, Congressman. 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 3091 

Mr. ScHERER. In whatever hearing you were involved, you say you 
don't believe that the question was asked as to whether you had 
ever been a member of the Communist Party? 

Mrs. Cooper. I don't recall that question. 

Mr. ScHERER. If it was asked, you answered truthfully, then, did 
you not? 

Mrs. Cooper. I did, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you a member of the Communist Party at 
anytime while you held Government employment? 

Mrs. Cooper. I respectfully decline to answer, under .the privilege 
afforded me by the fifth amendment, on the grounds the answer might 
tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Tavenner. What was the date of the loyalty hearing to which 
you have referred? 

Mrs. Cooper. I do not recall, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was it at the time you were employed in a par- 
ticular office? Wliat was that office? 

Mrs. Cooper. The Children's Bureau. 

Mr. Tavenner. Wliat was the approximate date you entered upon 
that employment? You told us a little while ago. 

Mrs. Cooper. It was 1939. 

Mr. Tavenner. Prior to that time had you been employed in the 
Labor Department? 

Mrs. Cooper. No, su-; unless any of these other agencies were 
there. No; I don't think that they w^ere. 

Mr. Tavenner. Prior to that time had you taken the assignment 
given you by Father Haas? 

Mrs. Cooper. That is right. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was that in 1937? 

Mrs. Cooper. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you a member of the Communist Party at 
the time that 3^ou performed that assignment? 

Mrs. Cooper. I respectfully decline to answer, under the privilege 
afforded me by the fifth amendment, on the grounds that my answer 
might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Tavenner. When you were employed by the NRA in 1935, 
were you aware of the existence within that organization of an organ- 
ized group of the Communist Party? 

Mr. O'Laughlin. Would you read the question? 

Mr. Tavenner. I will restate it. 

At the time that you were employed by the NRA in 1935, were 
you aware of the existence within that organization of an organized 
group of the Communist Party? 

(The witness consulted her counsel.) 

Mrs. Cooper. I certainly was not aware of anything of that nature; 
no, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you acquainted with Henry Rhine? 

Mrs. Cooper. No. You see this was in Milwaukee. 

Mr. Tavenner. That is right. You \vere not emploj^ed bv the 
NRA in Washington. You were employed in Milwaukee. 

Mrs. Cooper. That is right. 

Mr. Tavenner. Then I understand you to say that you were not 
aware of the existence of an organized group of the Communist Party 
within the NRA in Milwaukee? 



3092 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 

Mrs. Cooper. That is right. 

]Mr. Tavenner. Were you a member of the Communist Party in 
1935, during the time you were emploj^ed in the NRA? 

Mrs. Cooper. I respectfully decline to answer, under the privilege 
afforded me bj' the fifth amendment, on the grounds that m}'' answer 
might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you a member of the Washington Committee 
for Democratic Action? 

Mrs. Cooper. No, sir. 

Mr. TAVEN^JER. Were 3''ou a member of the American League for 
Peace and Democracy? 

Airs. Cooper. I respectfully decline to answer, under the privilege 
afforded me by the fifth amendment, on the grounds that my answer 
might tend to incriminate me. 

Air. Scherer. What was the last question? 

Mr. Tavenner. Was she a member of the American League for 
Peace and Democracy? This is an organization which has been cited 
by both the Attorney General and this committee. 

Are you a member of the Communist Party at this time? 

Mrs. Cooper. No, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. I have no further questions. 

Mr. Willis. I have no questions. 

Mr. Scherer. I have no questions. 

(Witness excused.) 

Mr. Willis. Will you raise your right hand and be sworn? Do 
you solemnly swear that the evidence j'ou are about to give before 
this subcommittee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but 
the truth, so help you God? 

Mr. Shields. I do. 

Mr. Willis. Proceed. 

TESTIMONY OF JAMES M. SHIELDS, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 

IRVING MEYERS 

Mr. Tavenner. Wliat is your name, please? 

Mr. Shields. James j\L Shields. 

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

Mr. Meyers. Afy name is Lwing Meyers, Chicago, 111. 

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

Mr. Shields. I was born in the little town of Braggs, Okla., which 
was at that time Indian Territory, in 1897. 

Mr. Tavenner. Where do you now reside? 

Mr. Shields. Here in Chicago. 

Mr. Tavenner. What is your profession or occupation at the 
present time? 

Mr. Shields. At the present time, sir, I am selling men's clothing. 

Mr. Tavenner. Have you had Government employment in the 
past? 

Mr. Shields. I have. 

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

Mr. Shields. I was first employed b}^ the Government with the 
Federal Emergency Relief Administration in Washington. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you give us the dates, please? 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 3093 

Mr. Shields. Approximately from sometime in September of, I 
think, 1934, until I think again September or the end of August in 
1936. 

During that period the Federal Emergency Relief Administration 
was changed, or became the Works Progress Administration, which I 
then was an employee of. 

And subsequently, in approximately September or October — I 
can't give the exact date — of 1937, I was employed by the National 
Labor Relations Board. 

Mr. Tavenner. In what capacity? 

Mr. Shields. As a field examiner. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you stationed in the city of Washington? 

Mr. Shields. I was employed and assigned immediately to the 
Minneapolis office and continued to serve — if I may carry that 
through — I remained an employee of the National Labor Relations 
Board until August 1947. 

Mr. Tavenner. In what capacities? 

Mr. Shields. I was a field examiner until late in 1942. Late 
that year I was assigned temporarily into Washington, D. C, as a 
special examiner, and I don't think that afi"ected my status as a 
field examineiv but shortly thereafter — I think late that fall — I was 
made — we called them assistant directors — I think special examiner 
was the official title, attached to the Washington office of the Director 
of Field Activities. 

I remained in that capacity until in the fall, approximately Sep- 
tember 1, I think, of 1943, when I was made regional director in 
charge of the 18th region, with headquarters at Minneapolis, which 
position I held until the termination of my services with the National 
Labor Relations Board in August of 1947. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you have Government employment after that 
date? 

Mr. Shields. No, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. How were you employed after August 1947? 

Mr. Shields. May I consult with counsel? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes, sir. 

(Witness confers with counsel.) 

Mr. Shields. May I mquire, sir, as to what the term "how em- 
ploj^ed" means? 

Mr. Tavenner. By whom were you employed? 

Mr. Shields. I was not employed by the Government, sir. I was 
self-employed for a period of that time. 

Mr. Tavenner. In what type of work? 

Mr. Shields. As a labor consultant. 

Mr. Tavenner. Wliere? 

Mr. Shields. In Minneapolis. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long did you work in that capacity? 

Mr. Shields. It is very difficult to answer that exactly, sir. I set 
up an office in a locality and building, and I headquartered out of that 
office for a period of — I can't give you the exact dates — approximately 
8 or 9 months, and from that time on T had no office, except I worked 
out of my own home on call as a consultant until some time, oh, I 
would say in the latter part of 1949. 

Mr. Tavenner. By whom were you employed beginning in 1949? 

Mr. Shields. I was unemployed for a considerable time prior to 



3094 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 

that, sir; then beginning January 1, 1950, I came to Chicago and I was 
employed by the United Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers of 
America. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was this by a local or by the national organization? 

Mr. Shields. By the national organization. 

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

Mr. Shields. I was on the staff, su-, in charge of the presentation 
of arbitration grievances for certain of the local unions connected with 
the International Harvester Co. chain. 

Mr. Tavenner. What was j^our title? 

Mr. Shields. I was a staff member. I don't believe I had any 
particular title. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long did you continue to be employed in that 
capacity by the UE? 

Mr. Shields. Until the end of x^pril — ^until some time in April of 
this present j^ear. 

Mr. Tavenner. 1955? 

Mr. Shields. Correct. 

Mr. Tavenner. Where were you self-employed, as you described it, 
as a labor consultant in 1947 and 1948? 

Mr. Shields. In Minneapolis. 

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

Mr. Shields. I am a graduate of Moravian College, a small 
denominational school, and had a bachelor's degree there, and also at 
Duke University for a master's degree in 1934. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you have military service? 

Mr. Shields. I did. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was that in World War I? 

Mr. Shields. That is right. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee, please, whether 
Washington was your post of duty at any time during the period you 
were employed by the National Labor Relations Board? 

Mr. Shields. It was. 

Mr. Tavenner. What period of time was that? 

Mr. Shields. The period of time that I previously stated, sir, 
from approximately the fall of 1942 for a period of approximately 
1 year, until the fall of 194.3. 

Mr. Tavenner. During the period of your employment by the 
National Labor Relations Board were you ever afforded a hearing 
regarding charges pertaining to the loyalty program? 

(Witness confers with counsel.) 

Mr. Shields. Would you repeat that question? 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you read it, sir? 

(Record read.) 

Mr. Shields. No, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you at any time receive any letters of charges 
issued under the Government employees' loyalty program? 

(Witness confers with counsel.) 

Mr. Shields. Just a moment. Mr. Tavenner, I presume you are 
referring to the language which is on the subpena served upon me? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes, I am coming to that. 

Mr. Shields. All right, sir. I am frankly at a complete loss as to 
the identification of any such documents. I have no such documents 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 3095 

ill my possession and, very frankly, I have no recollection of having 
ever handled or being shown, or being in anyway party to such docu- 
ments during my employment. 

Mr. Tavenner. Have you no recollection of ever having received 
any such document? 

Mr. Shields. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you recall whether or not you were investi- 
gated at any time under the Government employees' loyalty program? 

(Witness confers with counsel.) 

Mr. Shields. I have absolutely no recollection, sir, of ever being 
advised or informed that such an investigation was being made. 

Mr. Tavenner. What was the reason for the termination of 3^0 ur 
services with the National J^abor Relations Board in August 1947? 

Mr. Shields. T resigned voluntarily. 

Mr. Tavenner. AVliat was the reason for your resignation? 

Mr. Shields. I stated at that time in an official letter to the 
Chairman of the National Labor Relations Board, my intention to 
resign, and my request that T be relieved from my duties, and detailed 
my reasons. I presume that letter is a matter of record. 

Mr. Tavenner. W^hat was your reason for resigning? 

Mr. Shields. I woidd like to give _vou the letter, sir, and that will 
speak for itself. 

Mr. Tavenner. If you show me the letter, sir, that will be sufficient. 

Mr. Scherer. Were you requested to resign? 

Mr. Shields. No, sir. This is a true copy of the letter which 
I wrote on August 21, 1947, addressed to the Chairman of the Board. 
This is my own copy. I will be very happy to have it read into the 
record. 

Mr. Tavenner. I think you are entitled to have it put hi the 
record, if you desire it. 

Mr. Willis. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. That would be the easiest way. 

Mr. Scherer. I move it be made part of the record at this time. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mav we be off the record? 

Mr. Willis. Off theVecord. 

(Discussion off the record.) 

Mr. Willis. On the record. 

Mr. Shields. Mr. Tavenner, it is entirely up to the committee as 
to whether or not they wish to have it read into the record, or made 
a part of the record. I have submitted it to the committee in response 
to the question. 

Mr. Scherer. I think the only reason Mr. Tavenner suggested 
that it be read is because you said it was your onl}' copy. 

Mr. Shields. I can furnish you a copy. 

Mr. Scherer. Do you have a copy of it? 

Mr. Shields. Yes. 

Mr. Scherer. Then I suggest that we make the copy part of the 
record. 

Mr. Shields. In that connection, sir, may I say this: I would like 
also, if that is done, to have considered along mth that as my answer, 
the reply which I received, which is an official signed document 
bearing the signature of the Chairman of the Labor Board, Paul 
M. Herzog. 



3096 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Chairman, I suggest that there be admitted 
in evidence and made a part of the record as Shields Exhibit No. 1, 
a letter of resignation dated August 21, 1947, and as Shields Exhibit 
No. 2, the letter of acceptance of his resignation dated August 22, 
1947. 

Mr. Willis. The documents will be so marked and received in 
evidence. 

(Shields Exhibits Nos. 1 and 2, referred to above, are as follows:) 

Shields Exhibit No. 1 

National Labor Relations Board, 
Eighteenth Region, 801 Wesley Temple Building, 

Minneapolis, Minn., August 21, 19^7. 
Mr. Paul M. Herzog, 

Chairman, National Labor Relations Board, 

Washington, D. C. 

Dear Paul: I herewith tender my resignation from the staff of the National 
Labor Relations Board. 

When I joined the staff in November 1937, I was motivated by a deep faith in 
the purposes and provisions of the Wagner Act. Throughout these 10 years that 
faith has never wavered. In my experience as field examiner, as Assistant 
Director of the Field Division under the superb leadership of Oscar S. Smith, 
and in my present capacity as regional director for the 18th region, it has been 
possible to utilize to the full such abilities as I have in the public interest. In 
working with representatives of labor and employers and in association with other 
staff members, at no time has there been any question in my mind as to the right- 
ness or fairness of the job to be done. It has been a completely satisfying 
experience. 

Passage of the Taft-Hartley Act, however, raised the serious question as to 
whether it could be possible conscientiously to continue as an agent of the Board 
responsible for its administration and enforcement. The provisions of the new 
law appeared to me effectively to nullify the basic purposes of the Wagner Act and 
to impose impossible restrictions on the rights of employees freely to choose 
representatives and to bargain collectively through those chosen representatives. 
I hesitated, however, to take this step as long as a possibility remained that 
certain provisions of the Taft-Hartley Act might be interpreted and administered 
liberally and in a fashion least calculated to destroy organized labor. The recent 
conference in Chicago made it quite clear to me that such is not the intent of those 
to whom authority is being delegated for such interpretation and administration. 

I wish to express to you, to the other members of the Board, and to my associates 
throughout the staff, for whom I have deep respect and devotion, my personal 
sorrow at the necessity for this decision. My years with the Board have been the 
happiest years of my life. 

May I urge that this resignation be made effective as soon as I can be relieved 
of my duties. 

Respectfully, 

James M. Shields. 

Copies to: John M. Houston, Board member; James M. Reynolds, Jr., Board 
member; J. Copeland Gray, Board member; Abe Murdock, Board member; 
Robert N. Denham, General Counsel. 



Shields Exhibit No. 2 

National Labor Relations Board, 

Washington 25, D. C, August 22, 1947. 
James M. Shields, 

Director, National Labor Relations Board, 18th Region, 
801 Wesley Temple Building, Minneapolis 4, Minn. 
Dear Jim: Your letter of the 21st addressed to me as chairman of the board 
has just arrived. I am sorry that this agency is not to continue to have the benefit 
of your long experience in administering labor legislation. Your record has been 
a distinguished one, and your personal relationships with the members of the 
board have been of the hapi^iest character. 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 3097 

However, every man must make his own decision where matters of conscience 
are concerned and therefore, even if I had the power since yesterday midnight to 
decHne to accept your resignation, I should not feel at liberty to do so. You 
know what you want out of life and why you want it; involuntary servitude having 
been abolished in 1865, we have no right to hold you. You leave with the personal 
friendship of all members of the board and the staff who have come to know j'ou 
over the years. I want to be sure that you know this. 

So far as the effective date of your resignation is concerned, I believe that 
it would be best if you worked that out directly with the new General Counsel, 
as he has full jurisdiction over the operations of the field offices. I am sure that 
you and he will want to work out something which is mutually convenient and 
which will not prejudice the continuity of operations in the Minneapolis office. 
Very sincerely yours, 

Paul, M. Herzog, Chairman. 

Mr. Tavennee. Air. Shields, do you recall that prior to the time 
of your resignation Government form 84 was submitted to you and 
other employees to be signed, and which also required fingerprinting 
of individual employees? 

Mr. Shields. I cannot identify form 84. It has been a long time 
since then. 

Air. Tavenner. Do you recall shortly prior to your resignation, 
that a form was submitted to you and other employees in connection 
with which fingerprints were required? 

Air. Shields. I don't recall any specific form or occasion. I do 
know that during my years that I was with the Board that there were 
application forms or documents on personal history, and so forth, 
made out during that time. Wliatever was submitted along those 
lines during my tenure, I am satisfied I complied with fully. 

Air. Tavenner. Was there any mstance in \\4iich you did not com- 
ply with them? 

Mr. Shields. No instance that I recall, no, sir. 

(Witness confers with counsel.) 

Mr. Shields. As I stated, there were forms; as I recall, there were 
quite a number of forms from time to time in connection with Gov- 
ernment employment which I was expected to fill out. I am sure 
that no issue ever arose, to my knowledge, as to my unwillingness or 
failure to do whatever was submitted to me to be done in that con- 
nection. 

As to identifying a specific form, or what was in it, at this late date, 
I would find it very difficidt to do that, honestly. 

Mr. Tavenner. During the period of your employment with the 
National Labor Relations Board, were you aware of the existence of 
an organized group of the Communist Party, composed principally of 
employees of the National Labor Relations Board? 

(Witness confers with counsel.) 

Mr. Shields. As to that question, I feel I should avail myself of 
my privilege under the fifth amendment, and refrain from answering 
a question which might conceivably result in self-incrimination. 

Mr. Tavenner. In light of your answer, I deshe to ask you this: 
Did the timing of yom- resignation have anything to do with the fill- 
ing out of requhed forms which had been submitted to you by your 
employer in connection with the loyalty program? 

(Witness confers with counsel.) 

Mr. Shields. I endeavored to answer your question as to the 
reasons for my resignation, and if your inquhy seeks to go be^^ond 
that answer I should again like to avail myself of my privilege under 
the fifth amendment. 



3098 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you refuse to answer that question on the 
grounds of the fifth amendment? 

Mr, Shields. I do. 

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

Mr. Shields. I again assert my privilege, sir. 

Mr. Willis. On the same grounds? 

Mr. Shields. On the same grounds — as stated in the fifth 
amendment. 

(Witness confers with counseL) 

Mr. Tavenner. I have no further questions. 

Mr. Scherer. Were you ever a member of the Communist Party? 

Mr. Shields. Again I must assert the same privilege, sir. 

Mr. Scherer. You said you went into business for yourself after 
3'our resignation from the National Labor Relations Board. 

Mr. Shields. That is true. 

Mr. Scherer. And then, as I recall it, 3'ou became affiliated with 
the UE? 

Mr. Shields. Eventually. 

Mr. Scherer. How long was that after the severance of your 
relations with the National Labor Relations Board? 

Mr. Shields. I would like to give just a little detail in that, sir, if 
I may. I resigned effective— I think I submitted my resignation as 
indicated in the date there as August • 

Mr. Scherer. August 21, 1947. 

Mr. Shields. And I ceased my active work within a week or two 
thereafter. I think I retained status as a paid employee under the 
financial arrangements that the Board had for retiring employees, so 
when whatever money I had accumulated had run out, which was 
some time thereafter, I then w^ent to work January 1, or 2, immediately 
after the New Year's holiday in 1950. 

Mr. Scherer. In 1950? 

Mr. Shields. Right. 

Mr. Scherer. In your letter of August 21, 1947, to Mr. Paul M. 
Herzog, in which you submitted your resignation, you gave as your 
reason the "passage of the Taft-Hartley Act." That is right, isn't it? 

Mr. Shields. That is in the letter; yes, sh. 

Mr. Scherer. Was that your real reason for resigning? 

Air. Shields. I have endeavored to answer that question accurately, 
sir. I submitted the letter as my full answer on the question as to 
why I resigned. 

Mr. Scherer. I am asking you now, w^as that your real reason for 
resigning, as stated in the letter? 

Mr. Shields. That was my reason; yes. 

Mr. Scherer. Were there any other reasons? 

Mr. Shields. I must again invoke my privilege, as questioning the 
accuracy of my first statement. 

Mr. Scherer. You say in this letter: 

Passage of the Taft-Hartley Act, however, raised the serious question as to 
whether it could be possible conscientiously to continue as an agent of the Board 
responsible for its administration and enforcement. The provisions of the new 
law appeared to me eflfectively to nullify the basic purposes of the Wagner Act 
and to impose impossible restrictions on the rights of employees freely to choose 
representatives and to bargain collectively through those chosen representatives. 
I hesitated, however, to tai<e this step as long as a possibiHty remained that cer- 
tain provisions of the Taft-Hartley Act might be interpreted and administered 
liberally and in a fashion least calculated to destroy organized labor. 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 3099 

Now, that letter was written on August 21, 1947. In view of tlie 
phenomenal progress made by the labor organizations since 1947, do 
you feel that tlie Taft-Hartley law has destroyed organized labor, as 
you said you felt it might in August 1947? 

Mr. Shields. Mr. Soberer, are you asking me for my present views? 

Mr. ScHERER. Yes. 

Mr. Shields. I agree with what I stated tliere. My views have 
not changed in that connection. 

Mr. ScHERER. At least it has not destroyed organized labor in a 
9-year period, has it? In that 9-year period hasn't organized labor 
made unprecedented gains? 

Mr. Shields. That is a matter of opinion, sir. 

Mr. ScHERER. What is your opinion? 

Mr. Shields. That is not my opinion ; no. 

Mr. Scherer. It is not your opinion? 

Mr. Shields. No, sir. 

Mr. Scherer. Do you feel that the Taft-Hartley law has destroj'ed 
organized labor? 

Mr. Shields. I think it has dealt it some very severe blows. 

Mr. Scherer. In spite of its growtli. in spite of the recent amalga- 
mation of the CIO and AFL, in spite of its increased membership, you 
still feel that way? I am merely asking you these questions to see if 
it was the real reason for your resigning in 1947. 

Mr. Shields. If I understand .you, sir, you are asking me for my 
opinion now? 

Mr. Scherer. That is right. 

Mr. Shields. And how that can be the basis for what the accuracy 
of m.} opinion was at that time I cannot see, sir. 

Mr. Scherer. In the light of what has happened, have you changed 
your opinion? 

Mr. Shields. My opinion has remained. 

Mr. Scherer. The same? 

Mr. Shields. The same; yes, sir. 

I felt at the time it was a very bad piece of legislation, and I still 
feel that way, sir. 

Mr. Scherer. That may be true that you felt that way, but I am 
asking and wondering whether you still feel that the Taft-Hartley 
law has destroyed, as you predicted it would, organized labor? 

Mr. Shields. My feelings are unchanged, sir, as to what is involved 
in the Taft-Hartley law, and its significance to organized labor. 
I feel the same now as I did then. 

Mr. Scherer. That is all. 

Mr. Willis. I have no questions. 

Mr. Tavenner. I omitted to ask several questions that I think 
should have been asked. 

Mr. Willis. Proceed. 

Mr. Tavenner. During the period from 1950 to 1955, you were 
employed by the UE? 

Mr. Shields. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you work entirely within one district of the 
UE.? 

Mr. Shields. No, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Or more than one? 

Mr. Shields. I worked in more than one. 

70811 — 56 — pt. 2 7 



3100 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 

Mr. Tavenner. With what districts did you woi-k, and at what 
time? 

Mr. Shields. I was concerned primarily, with the plants which 
had formerly heen, I ,y;iiess hefoi-e the merger with tlie Farm Equip- 
ment Union in tlie International Harvester chain. 1 was j^ractically 
fidl time concerned with the presentation of ai'hitration cases under 
the master contracts held in the Harvester plants, and these Harvester 
plants go heyond the district hnes set np hy the iniion, and extend into 
Kentucky, throughout llhnois, and into Indiana, and from time to 
time I traveled to those points, and in light of my duties, as outlined, 
worked at those points presenting cases at formal arl)itration hearings. 

Mr. Tavenner. You were \mder the jurisdiction of what districts 
when you performed that work? 

Mr. Shields. Well, tliere was an overlapping jurisdiction. I was 
not under any specific district's jm-isdiction. 

Mr. Tavenner. What were the districts whicli overlapped? 

Mr. Shields. I don't know that I can answer that question. 
I am not attempting to 

Mr. Tavenner. Who paid your salary? 

Mr. Shields. The iiUernational office paid me, that is, the New 
York office paid me. It is my helief that Indiana was in a separate 
district from Illinois, and at certain times Kentucky was in a separate 
district from hoth. 

Mr. Tavenner. In what district was Indiana located? 

Mr. Shields. I cannot remember the number of it, because I was 
never concerned with that. 

Mr. Tavenner. Wlio was the president of that district? 

(Counsel confers witli witness.) 

Mr. vShields. I don't recall who was in charge. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was Abe Feinghiss one of the leaders in the 
district under wdiich you were w^orking? 

ATr. Shields. Just a moment, please. 

(Witness confers with counsel.) 

Mr. Shields. Abe Feinglass? I am at a loss. I need further 
identification, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do 3'ou know him or not? 

(Witness confers with counsel.) 

^Ir. Shields. I will have to assert my privilege again. I am at a 
loss here. I will have to assert my privilege again under the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was John T. Gojack president of one of the districts 
of HE under which you worked? 

Mr. Shields. I will have to reassert my privilege. 

Mr, Tavenner. Are you acquainted with John Gojack? 

Mr. Shields. May I consult with my attorney? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes, certainly. 

(Witness consults with counsel.) 

^Ir. Shields. I know a John Gojack who was stationed in Indiana. 
Now, as to what his title was at a given time, I don't know, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you receive any of your directions through 
him? 

Mr. Shields. I received no directions from any district directly. 

Mr. ScHERER. Witness, you said that tlie Taft-Hartley law dealt 
some serious blows to organized labor. Do you feel that that provision 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 3101 

of^tlie Taft-Hartley law which required officers of unions to sign 
non-Communist affidavits was such a provision? 

Mr. Shields. I will have to exercise my privilege, please, sir, on 
that one. 

^'Mr. Tavenner. Were you a member of the Communist Party 
during the period of time that you were employed by the UE? 
^'Mr. Shields. I again reassert my privilege under the fifth amend- 
ment. 

Mr. Tavenner. I have no further questions. 

Mr. Scherer. No questions. 

Mr. Willis. That is all. 

Mr. Meyers. Is the witness released from his subpenas? 

Mr. Scherer. Before the witness leaves I would like to ask one 
more question. 

Mr. Willis. All right, sir. 

Mr. Scherer. Dming the time you were self-employed, imme- 
diately following your severance from the National Labor Relations 
Board, Hid you receive any compensation from the UE? 

Mr. Shields. Just a moment, sir, yes, please. I did not mean 
"3^es" as an answer, I just wanted to talk to counsel. 

(Witness confers with counsel.) 

Mr. Shields. It is very difficult for me, to recall specifically all of 
my clients at that time in my capacity as a labor consultant. 

Mr, Scherer. Was the UE in any way a client? 

Mr. Schields. I do not recall, franldy. 

Mr. Scherer. You do not recall? 

Mr. Shields. No, su\ 

Mr. Scherer. Did you receive any compensation, either directly 
or indii'ectly, from the Communist Party? 

Mr. Shields. I must reassert my privilege, sir. 

Mr. Scherer. You resigned from the National Labor Relations 
Board, and submitted this letter, which was an attack on the Taft- 
Hartley law, at the time there was a determined efl^ort by certain 
segments of organized labor to amend or annul that law, did you not? 

Mr. Shields. I don't understand the question exactly. 

Mr. Scherer. Will you read it, please? 

(Record read.) 

Mr. Shields. If I understand the question, there was such a deter- 
mined effort at that time, and there still is. 

Mr. Scherer. Did your resignation not have anything to do with 
an attempt to discredit the Taft-Hartley law? 

Mr. Shields. I think my letter should speak for itself on that, sir. 

Mr. Scherer. It was not part of a plan to discredit it at that time, 
was it? 

Mr. Shields. I have already stated that that letter is my answer, 
and beyond that I would have to claim my privilege under the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. Scherer. That is all. Thank you very much. 

(Thereupon the executive hearing of the last three witnesses was 
adjourned and the committee resumed its public hearings.) 



3102 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 

DECEMBER 15, 1955— PUBLIC HEARING— RESUMED 

A siil)coiiiniittee of the Coiiimittee on Un-American Activities 
reconvened at 4 p. m., to resume its public hearings, in the Federal 
Courthouse, Chicago, 111., Hon. Edwin E. Willis (chairman of the 
subcommittee) presiding. 

Committee members present: Representatives Willis and Scherei". 

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

Mr. Willis. The subcommittee will come to order. 

This is a conlinuation of the public hearings of the subcommittee 
which was duly constituted by the chairman of the full committee, 
consisting of Mr. Moulder of Missouri as chairman, and myself and 
Mr. Scherer of Ohio. Congressman Willis of Louisiana is now acting 
as chairman, and present is Congressman Scherer. A quorum of the 
subcommittee is thus present. 

The subcommittee, having held executive sessions today will now 
resume its public hearings. 

Will you call your witness, please, Mr. Tavenner? 

Mr. Tavenner. Will Mr. Ellis Olim come forward? 

Mr. Fanelli. Mr. (Chairman, my client objects to photographs 
being taken. I don't know what your committee rule is on it. 

Mr. Willis. The rule of the committee is that photographs may 
be taken before testifying, but not during the testimony. 

Mr. Fanelli. You don't have to pose for him. Sit down. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairmatu 

Mr. Willis. Will you stand and be sworn? 

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

Mr. Olim. I do. 

Mr. Fanelli. Mr. Chairman, may I identify myself for the record? 

Mr. Tavenner. You will have an opportunity to do so in due 
course. 

Mr. Willis. Proceed, Mr. Tavenner. 

TESTIMONY OF ELLIS GEORGE OLIM, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 

JOSEPH A. FANELLI 

Mr. Tavenner. What is j^'our name, please? 

Mr. Fanelli. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, before you go into 
that 

Mr. Tavenner. You will be given an opportunity to identify 
yourself in the regular order. 

Mr. Fanelli. There is a statement I would like to make, in view 
of the suggestion made last Tuesday, whenever you would like it. 

Mr. Willis. Proceed, Mr. Tavenner. 

Mr. Tavenner. What is your name? 

Mr. Olim. Ellis Olim. 

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

Mr. Fanelli. My name is Joseph A. Fanelli. I am a member of 
the highest court of the bar of the District of Columbia, and maintain 
bw offices in that District at 1701 K Street NW., Washington, D. C. 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 3103 

With the Chair's permission, would you like a statement as to my 
affiliation or nonaffiliation witli the Communist Party? I feel I 
owe it to my client, in view of Mr. Walter's suggestion Tuesday. 

Mr. ScHERER. 1 think he should be permitted to make a statement, 
if he so desires. 

Mr. Willis. Do you mean as to your affiliation or nonaffiliation 
with the Communist Party? 

Mr. Fanelli. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. I don't believe that is called for, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Fanelli. I don't believe it is, either, but Congressman Walter 
said he believed every counsel who appeared here ought to state for 
the record whether he is or is not, or has been a member. 

Mr. Willis. That is not a rule of the committee. The chairman 
stated we had that under consideration, and it is not as yet a rule of the 
committee. 

Mr. Fanelli. Ma}^ I make a 2- or 3-second statement on it? 

Mr. Willis. As to your own affiliation? 

Mr. Fanelli. Yes, sir, because I feel I owe it to my client, in view 
of that suggestion. I would like to state for the world, Mr. Chair- 
man, that I am not now, and have never been, a member of the 
Communist Party or any other organization on the Attorney General's 
list, and for tluit matter, so far as I know, on anybody's list. 

I would also like to add on behalf of myself that I find the making 
of that statement extremely distasteful and do not — — 

Mr. Willis. Just a moment, you volunteered to make that state- 
ment. 

Mr. Tavenner. You volunteered and insisted upon it. 

Mr. Willis. It would be assumed that what you said would be 
in the minds of this committee. 

Mr. Fanelli. 1 don't want any unfavorable im])lication left to my 
client. 

Mr. Willis. Proceed, Mr. Tavenner. 

Mr. Tavenner. When and where were you born? 

Mr. Olim. May 25, 1911, in Boston, Mass. 

Mr. Tavenner. Where do vou now reside? 

Mr. Olim. Chicago, III. 

Mr. Tavenner. What is your present occupation or profession? 

Mr. Olim. I work for the Land Clearance Commission. 

Mr. Tavenner. Of what place? 

Mr. Olim. Chicago. 

Mr. Tavenner. What position do you hold with the Land Clearance 
Commission? 

Mr. Olim. I am in charge of general services. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long have you been so employed? 

Mr. Olim. I have been employed bj'' the commission for about 3 
years, since June 1952, I believe. In my present capacity- it is a 
little less than that. 

Mr. Scherer. What is the title of the position you hold? 

Mr. Olim. Chief of the general services division. 

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



3104 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 

Mr. Olim. I am a graduate of Harvard College in 1931, and I did 
graduate work at the American University in Washington, D. C. 

Mr. Tavenner. In what field did you take your graduate work? 

Mr. Olim. Public administration. 

Mr. Tavenner. Have you at any time been employed by the 
Federal Government. 

Mr. Olim. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee, please, when you 
first became so employed? State successively the positions you 
have held and the nature of your employment with the Federal 
Government? 

Mr. Olim. I believe I first became employed by the Federal Gov- 
ernment in June of 1937. It was with the Interstate Commerce 
Commission in Washington, D. C. I was employed as a stenographer. 
I remained there for alwut a year, and I think in about June of 1938 
I transferred to the United States Houshig Authoiity, also in Wash- 
mgton, D. C. I transferred there also to work as a stenographer. 

Shortly thereafter I became an editorial clerk and worked on tech- 
nical publications in the Technical Division of the United States 
Housing Authority. 

Mr. Tavenner. When did that employment begin? 

Mr. Olim. When 1 went to the United States Housing Authority 
sometime in 1938, I believe, during 1938 I switched over into work- 
ing as an editorial clerk, or in 1939. 

About 1940 I became a procedures examiner in the Budget and 
Procedures Section, I believe, of the agency. I don't recall the exact 
titles of these. I did not expect to be asked about them. I 
remained in organizational and methods work, organizational studies 
and procedural studies, and was in various jobs from then on until 
about 1944. 

My last job in organizational and procedural work was as Chief ot 
Procedures for tl^^ agenc}^. 

In about 1944 I went into a job involving a program which the 
Government had, whereby the Government had leased buildings for 
7 years from private owners, and converted them into apartments for 
war workers. I remained in that job for about a year and a half. 
Then under the war housing legislation that Avas in effect at the time — 
that is, it was one of the programs of the agency, came the problem of 
disposing of housing that had been built by the Government; that is, 
the temporary housing — both the temporary and the permanent 
housing. 

I then switched over into what was called, I think, the Disposition 
Branch, and I worked on administration and procediu'es, and so forth, 
that would be required in the disposal of Government housing. That 
was until about 1950, I believe. 

I thereupon transferred over to another part of the Housing Au- 
thority, which was the Division of Slum Clearance and Urban Rede- 
velopment, as an assistant executive officer of that Division, and re- 
mained there until the early part of 1952. 

Mr. Scherer. Is your present position in the classified civil service 
of the city of Chicago? 

Mr. Olim. No, sir. 

Mr. Scherer. Do you hold your position by appointment? 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 3105 

Mr. Olim. Yes, sir; by appointment. My present position — in fact, 
the organization I work for is not a department of the city of Chicago 
and the employees of the organization are not civil service employees. 

Mr. ScHERER. I did not understand that. 

Mr. Olim. This is a separate municipal organization created under 
State law, and it derives its powers from State law, and it is a public 
municipal corporation, but it is not in any way a part of the city of 
Chicago, nor are any of its employees civil service, or subject to any 
of the civil service regulations of the city of Chicago, nor of the State 
of Illinois. 

Mr. ScHERER. But is it a governmental body? 

Mr. Olim, Yes, sir; it is a local governmental body. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you acquainted with a person by the name of 
James Gorham? 

Mr. Olim. Mr. Chairman. I respectfully decline to answer that 
question on the grounds of the first and fifth amendments, and all other 
constitutional privileges available to me. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you in the hearing room day before yester- 
day during the testimony of Mr. Herbert Fuchs? 

Mr. Olim. Yes, sir; I was. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you hear Mr. Herbert Fuchs identify you as 
one of the persons belonging to an organized group of the Communist 
Party consisting principally of employees of the Wheeler committee? 

Mr. Olim. Yes, sir; I did. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did he tell the committee the truth about that 
matter, insofar as you were concerned? 

Mr. Olim. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully decline to answer the 
question on the same grounds as stated before. 

Mr. Scherer. Do you know Professor Fuchs? 

Mr. Olim. I respectfully decline to answer on the same grounds. 

Mr. Fanelli. May it be understood that when he declines to 
answer it is on the same grounds, and we can save a lot of time? 

Mr. Willis. He has not completely stated the grounds. I pre- 
sume, you mean to say, that you refuse to answer, or that you invoke 
the protection of the ififth amendment on the grounds that to answer 
might tend to incriminate you? 

Mr. Olim. Yes, sir; the fifth amendment, and all other constitu- 
tional privileges available to me. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you acquainted with Samuel Koenigsberg? 

Mr. Olim. I respectfully decline to answer on the same grounds. 
Is it understood when I say that, Mr. Chairman, that the rest of it 
follows? 

Mr. Willis. It may be so understood. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you a member of the Communist Party 
group composed of Herbert Fuchs, Samuel Koenigsberg, and James 
Gorham? 

Mr. Olim. I respectfully decline to answer, on the same grounds. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you acquainted with Arthur Stein? 

Mr. Olim. I respectfully decline to answer the question, Mr. 
Chairman. 

Mr. Tavenner. I hand you a photostatic copy of Government 
Form 57, purporting to be an application for Federal employment by 
Ellis George Olim, bearing date of November 1951. 



3106 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 

I ask you to examine it, please, and tell the committee whether the 
signature of the applicant at the bottom of the last page is your sig- 
nature. [Handing document to witness.) 

(Witness and counsel confer and examine document.) 

Mr. Olim. I respectfully decline to answer the question, on the 
same grounds as previously stated. 

Mr. Willis. Is that the usual form 57 which is required to be 
filled out by all applicants for Federal positions, Counselor? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Willis. And does it contain the usual question as to whether 
the applicant is a member of the Communist Party or other sub- 
versive organizations in opposition to our recognized form of Govern- 
ment? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes, sir; and I will read the exact question. I 
desire to offer the above referred to document in evidence, ask that 
it be marked "Olim Exhibit No. 1" for identification purposes, and 
to be made a part of the committee files. 

Mr. Willis. It will be so received and marked. 

Mr. Tavenner. I ask the witness to examine Question No. 27, 
which is in this language: 

"Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist 
Party, U. S. A., or any Communist organization?" 

I ask the witness what answer he gave to that question? 

Mr. Fanelli. Do you have a date on this? 

Mr. Tavenner. The date is November 1951. 

Mr. Olim. I respectfully decline to answer the question. 

Mr. Willis. Will you read the answer given by him when he filled 
out that questionnaire? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes, sir; there are two columns opposite these 
various questions with instructions to place an "X" mark in the 
columns to indicate "yes" or "no." The "X" mark opposite this 
question is in the "no" column, meaning that his answer is "no," 
that he was not a member of the Communist Party. 

Mr. Willis. Does that document contain the usual warning that 
failure to accurately answer the questions constitutes a Federal 
offense? 

Mr. Tavenner. There is a certification at the bottom, I believe, 
in lieu of the matter to which you are referring, reading as follows: 

Before signing this application check back over it to make sure that you liave 
answered ALL questions correctly. 

Then follows this oath: 

I CERTIFY that the statements made by me in this application are true, 
complete, and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, and are made in 
good faith. 

False statement on this application is punishable by law (U. S. Code, title 18, 
sec. 80). 

Mr. Willis. Were the answers given by you to these questions 
true at the time you made them? 

Mr. Olim. I respectfully decline to answer on the same grounds. 

Mr. Scherer. Mr. Olim, up to this point in your testimony you 
have refused to answer all significant questions asked you by Mr. 
Tavenner, on the ground that to answer those questions might tend 
to incriminate you. 

I believe that you have properly invoked the fifth amendment in 
refusing to answer those questions. However, the committee feels 



COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 3107 

that you do possess some valuable information which would be 
iielpful to the committee, to the Government, and to your country, 
if you would answer those questions. 

The law provides that this committee, with the approval of the 
Federal court, can grant you immunity, that is, say to you that if 
you answer those questions you cannot suffer the incrimination or 
prosecution you now feel might result from answering those questions. 

Now, I, for one, am inclined to agree that we should invoke that 
provision of the law which gives us the right to grant immunity, and 
if such immunity is granted to you, would you then answer the 
questions asked in order that we might have the benefit of the infor- 
mation you possess? 

Mr. Olim. Mr. Scherer, may I consult with counsel for a minute? 

Mr. Scherer. Certainly. 

(Witness confers with counsel.) 

Mr. Olim. Mr. Scherer, and Mr. Chairman, I don't have any 
present thoughts on that matter. I will make up my mind on that 
question if and when the immunity is offered or granted. 

Mr. Scherer. You understand that we are not asking you at this 
point to answer the questions, but we merely want to know, without 
going through all of the procedure that is required to obtain that 
immunity, whether or not if that immunity is offered to you by this 
committee, you will then answer the questions. 

You say your only reason, and that is the only reason that you 
have stated for not answering the questions, is because you feel that 
answering them might result in some criminal prosecution. Now, 
if you are relieved of any possible criminal prosecution by the action 
of the committee — we will not ask you to answer those questions 
today — we merely want to know would you then answer those 
questions? Otherwise we will be compelled to go through unnecessary 
motions in getting to that point where we are able to offer you that 
immunity. If you tell us that you will answer the questions if that 
immunity is granted, then we can go forward and obtain that immu- 
nity, so that at some later date you can answer the questions without 
fear of criminal prosecution. 

That is the only thing I want to know. We do not want you to 
answer the questions today, we merely want to know if you are granted 
immunity whether you will then answer the questions. 

(Witness confers with counsel.) 

Mr. Olim. Mr. Scherer, I have never discussed that with counsel, 
the question of immunity, and since I am not an attorney and I don't 
know very much about the subject — ^in fact, 1 know practically nothing 
about the subject — I would have to seek advice on that question before 
I could give any answer. 

Mr. Scherer. Assuming after you sought that advice, and your 
counsel tells you what I have said is the law, and assuming this com- 
mittee does grant you immunity so you cannot possibly suffer in- 
crimination or prosecution, which you now say prevents you from 
answering these questions, I merely want to knoM^, whether you will 
then answer the questions? 

(Witness and counsel confer.) 

Mr. Scherer. I take it the record will show, Mr. Reporter, that 
the witness is consulting with his counsel before finally replying. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Chairman, may I make a suggestion? 



3108 COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF GOVERNMENT 

Mr. Willis. Certainly. 

Mr. Tavenner. The witness has said he wanted the opportunity 
to confer fully with counsel on this, and I would suggest that he be 
given a little time in which to do so. I think it is a very important 
matter. 

Mr. ScHERER. I suggest we have a 10-minute recess. 

Mr. Fanelli. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Willis. We will recess for 10 minutes. 

(Whereupon, a 10-minute recess was taken, after which the follow- 
ing proceedings were held:) 

Mr. Willis. The subcommittee will come to order. Proceed. 

Mr. Tavenner. I understood that during this period of recess the 
witness would be given ah opportunity to confer additionally with 
counsel regarding the matter of immunity. 

Mr. Olim. Mr. Counsel, and Mr. Chairman, the answer to the last 
question that was asked me is "yes." 

Mr. Fanelli. Yes, he would testify, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Tavenner. I think in light of that, Mr. Chainnan, I should not 
ask any further questions at this time. 

Mr. Willis. Very well. 

Mr. Fanelli. Is the witness excused for the time being, Mr. 
Chairman? 

Mr. Willis. Mr. Tavenner, will you come forward, please. 

(The subcommittee and counsel in conference.) 

Air. ScHERER. Mr. Chairman, I move that the subpena of this 
witness be continued until March 5, 1956. and that this subcommittee 
recommend to the full committee, that it take such steps under the 
law as are necessary to obtain the consent of the Federal court for this 
committee to grant this witness immunity. 

Mr. Willis. The Chair will so order. 

Mr. Fanelli. Sir, shall I keep in touch with counsel? Will this be 
in Washington, or where, or shall I get in touch with the clerk and he 
wiU let me know? 

So far I have a date, but do not have the city or time of day. 

Mr. ScHERER. March 5, 1956, at 10 a. m. 

Mr. Willis. I suggest that you keep in touch with the clerk of the 
committee. 

The witness is excused until March 5. 

Mr. Fanelli. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I appre- 
ciate the courtesies extended to me. Thank you, Mr. Tavenner, 

Mr. Willis. Before the committee concludes its hearings I want 
to express the committee's thanks and appreciation to Mr. Frank 
Allen, the superintendent of the building, who has been so helpful and 
cooperative in making available to the committee the courtroom we 
have used for the last few days. 

Likewise, I wish to express the committee's appreciation to Marshal 
Kipp and his staff for the services they have rendered during the 
course of the hearings; and to express our appreciation to the press, 
the radio, and the television fraternity for their objective coverage of 
our hearings ; and to the audience for their demeanor. 

The subcommittee will adjourn subject to the call of the Chair. 

(Whereupon, at 4:45 p. m., Thursday, December 15, 1955, the 
subcommittee adjourned subject to the call of the Chair.) 



INDEX 



Individuals 

Page 

Abt, John J 2971 

Anderson, Hurst R 2990, 2991, 3018 

Asher, Lester 2976, 2984, 3043-3055 (testimony) ; 3066 

Asher, Mrs. Lester 3052-3054 

Bassoff , Isadore 3025 

Bentley, Elizabeth T 2956, 3015, 3016, 3022 

Bloom, Frank 3036 

Brodsky, Joseph 3025, 3033 

Brown, Lawrence 2969 

Brown, Sam 2961 

Burdett, Winston 2989 

Burke, Thomas A 3022 

Chambers, Whittaker 2955, 2956 

(^hancev, Martin 2961 

Cooper," Harry 2980, 2985, 3039, 3040 

Cooper, Helen A. (Mrs. Lvle W. Cooper) 3088-3092 (testimony) 

Cooper, Lyle W _' 3083-3088 (testimony) 

Davis, Robert Gorham 3024, 3038, 3039 

Denham, Robert N 3096 

Diamond, Ben 3061, 3064, 3070 

Diamond, Bert 2981, 2985 

Dillon, WiUiam H 3055 

Donner, Frank 2980, 2985, 3003, 3007, 3040 

Earle, Glen 3000 

Emerson, Thomas 2982, 2983, 3045 

Ernst, Morris 3035 

Fanelli, Joseph A 3102, 3103, 3108 

Feinglass, Abe 3100 

Fitzgerald, Edward J 3015, 3016, 3022 

Fletcher, R. V 2991 

Freedman , David 3025 

Fuchs, Herbert (also known as Herbert Hacker) 2957- 

3019 (testimony); 3022, 3037, 3039, 3041, 3042, 3044-3055, 3057- 
3059, 3062-3066, 3070, 3071, 3077, 3081, 3105. 

Furry, Wendell H 2989, 3019 

Gaines, Janet Buck. {See Stern, Janet.) 

Gannett, Bettv 2998 

Gerson, Simon' 3024, 3026 

Glasser, Harold 3015, 3016, 3022 

Gojack, John T 3100 

Goldberger, Alexander, {see Peters, J.) 

Golos, Jacob N. (also known as John Friedman; Jacob R. Raisin) 3015, 3016 

Gorham, James 2963, 3105 

Graham Charles A 2994, 2995, 3001 

Grav, J. Copeland 3096 

Haas, Francis J 3089, 3091 

Hacker, Herbert. {See Fuchs, Herbert.) 

Heald, Allen 2980, 2984, 3055-3072 (testimony) 

Herzog, Paul M - 3095-3098 

Hessen, Michael 3076 

Hill, Helen (also known as Helen Himmelfarb; nee Roark) 3003 

Hiss, Alger 2956, 3022 

Holzman, Henry 3025 

Houston, John M 3096 

Hutchison, John A 2968 



ii INDEX 

Page 

Kaijlan , Irving 3077 

Kassner, Minna 3025 

Katz, Julia (Mrs. Sidney Katz) 2968 

Katz, Sidney 2968 

Koenigsberg. Samuel 2963, 3105 

Kramer, Charles (also known as Charles Krevitsky) 3015. 3022 

Kreyitskv, Charles. {See Kramer, Charles.) 

Krug, Jacob H 2978, 2984, 3068 

Kuntz, Edward 3025 

Kiirasch, Lilhan (Mrs. Martin Kurasch) 2996, 2997 

Kurasch , Martin 2971 , 

2972. 2975, 2983, 2995. 2996. 3025, 3045-3048, 3051, 3066 

LaVallee, Corina (Mrs. Raymond LaVallee) 2999 

LaVallee, Raymond 2999 

Lowenthal, Max 2971, 2972 

Magdoff, Harry 3015, 3016, 3022 

Markward, Mary Stalcup 2956, 2974 

Matchett, Gerald J 2999, 3072-3078 (testimony) 

Matchett, Margaret Ellen (Mrs. Gerald J. Matchett; nee Stump) 2999, 

3079-3081 (testimony) 

Meyers, Irying 3092 

"M'ike." {See Perlo, Victor.) 

Miller, Helen 3007 

Morris, Willard 3002 

Mortimer, Robert. {See Riemer, Mortimer.) 

Murdock, Abe 3096 

Nelson, Eleanor 2966, 2967, 3007 

Nixon, Russ 3077 

O'Laughlin, Charles J 3083, 3088 

Olim, ElHs George 2963, 3021, 3102-3108 (testimony) 

Oxnam, G. Bromley 2990, 2992 

Pecora, Ferdinand 3035 

Perlo, Victor (also known as "Mike") 2985, 3004-3006, 3011, 3014-3016 

3041, 3050, 3051, 3058-3060, 3063-3066, 3068 
Peters, J. (real name Alexander Goldberger; also known as Alexander 

Steyens) 2955 

Plumb, Arlyne (Mrs. Don Plumb) 3000 

Plumb, Don 3000 

Popper, Martin 3025 

Porter, John W 2964, 2979, 2984, 2995, 2996, 3057-3060, 3063, 3066, 3068 

Porter, Margaret Bennett (Mrs. John W. Porter) __ 2963, 2979, 2984, 2995, 2996 

Pratt, George 3036, 3037 

Pressman, Lee 2980 

Racobin, Alex 3025 

Rein, Dayid 2976, 2977, 2984, 3003, 3039, 3052, 3054, 3066 

Rein, Selma (Mrs. Dayid Rein) 3003 

Remington, William W 2956 

Reno, Philip 2967, 2968, 2995-2999, 3074, 3081 

Reynolds. James M., Jr 3096 

Rhine, Henry 2966, 2967, 2969, 3091 

Rhine, Jessica (Mrs. Henry Rhine) 2969 

Riemer, Mortimer (also known as Robert Mortimer) 2978 

2984, 3022-3043 (testimony) 

Robison, Joseph 2971-2973, 2975, 2983, 3033, 3048, 3057, 3060, 3066 

Robison, Leah 2961, 2973 

Rosenberg, Allan 2971, 2972, 2975, 2983, 2993, 2994. 3006. 

3015, 3016, 3022, 3040, 3048, 3049, 3059. 3063, 3066, 3068 

Rossen, Robert 3028 

Sacher. Harry 3025. 3033 

Sandler, Woodrow 2978, 2984 

Scheiner, Frank 3025 

Scheunemann, Cecelia (Mrs. Edward Scheunemann) 2997, 3000 

Scheunemann. Edward 2980, 2985, 2995-2997, 3000, 3007, 3074, 3081 

Scribner, Dayid 3025 



INDEX iii 

Page 

Sherwood, Bill 3060, 3063-3065, 3068, 3069 

Shields, James M 3092-3101 (testimony) 

Silberstein, Robert J 3006, 3025-3027, 3029, 3033 

Silverman, Arthur 3026 

Silvermaster, Nathan Gregory 3015 

Smith, Oscar S 3096 

Spencer, Dwight 3000 

Spencer, Mary (Mrs. Dwight Spencer) 3000 

Stasinos, James 2960 

Stein, Arthur 2962, 2964-2967, 2970, 2985, 3004, 3007, 3011, 3041, 3105 

Stern, Bernard 2968 

Stern, Janet (formerly known as Janet Gaines; nee Buck; Mrs. Bernard Stern) 2969 

Stevens, Richard James 3072, 3079 

Tauber, Joseph 3026 

linger, Abraham 3026 

Wallace, Henry A 3064 

Walsh Frank 3032 

Weyand, Ruth__ 2979, 2984, 3003, 3046-3051, 3056, 3059, 3060, 3063, 3066, 3068 

Wheeler, Donald Niven 3015, 3022 

White, Harry Dexter 3014, 3015 

Williams, Robert W 2999 

Witt, Nathan 2970, 

2972, 2982, 2983, 3002, 3035, 3036, 3044-3047, 3050. 3051, 3062 

Organizations 

American Bar Association 3030, 3031 

American Civil Liberties Union 2990 

American Labor Party 3032 

American League for Peace and Democracy 3064, 3071 

American Peace Mobilization 3064, 3071 

American University 2957, 2980, 2989-2993, 3018, 3019 

Brookings Institution 30 14 

Chicago Housing Authority 3057 

Columbia Broadcasting System 2989 

Communist Party, U. S. A.: 

Colorado, Denver: Cell within National War Labor Board 2996-3002 

District of Columbia: 

Cell within National Labor Relations Board 2968-2988, 

2996, 2998, 3002-3008, 3011-3014, 3037-3041, 3057 
Cell within the Wheeler committee (Subcommittee to Investigate 

Railroads, Holding Companies, and Related Matters) 2961-2966, 

2970, 2979 

Perlo, Victor, Group 3015, 3022 

Silvermaster, Nathan Gregory, Group 3015 

New York City area, Manhattan: Lawyers Group. _ 3024-3028, 3030, 3033 

Consohdated Edison Powerplant 2960 

Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers of America, United 3025, 

3094, 3098-3101 

Federal Workers of America, United, CIO 2962, 2967 

Government Employees, American Federation of, AFL 2965 

Harvard University 2989 

Illinois Institute of Technology 3072, 3074, 3077, 3078 

Indiana University 3080 

Lawyers Security League 3028-3031 

Marquette University 3084, 3087 

Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers, International Union of 3002 

National Lawyers Guild 2978, 

3006, 3023, 3025, 3026, 3032-3035, 3037, 3059, 3063, 3064, 3071 

District of Columbia Chapter 3037 

Convention, February 1937, Washington, D. C 3033 

Convention, February 1939, Chicago, 111 3034, 3035 

Packinghouse Workers of America, United, CIO 3084, 3085 

Progressive Party 3064 

Public Affairs Institute 2958 



iV INDEX 

United States Government: Page 

Agriculture, Department of 3076 

Board of Economic Warfare 2958, 2971, 2988, 2993, 2994, 3085 

Civil Service Commission 3085, 3086 

Civilian Production Administration 3014 

Commerce, Department of 3014, 3076 

Federal Emergency Relief Administration 3089, 3092, 3093 

Federal Home Loan Bank Board 3014 

Foreign Economic Administration 3085 

House of Representatives U. S. : Tolan committee (Select Committee to 

Investigate the Interstate Migration of Destitute Citizens) 3084 

Interstate Commerce Commission 2963, 3104 

Justice, Department of 2979 

Labor, Department of 2966-2968, 3007, 3069, 3089 

Children's Bureau 3089-3091 

National Labor Relations Board 2958, 

2966, 2968-2988, 2990, 2993, 2994, 2996, 2998, 3002-3008, 3011- 
3013, 3016, 3017, 3023, 3035-3041, 3043-3054, 3056-3063, 3066- 
3068, 3070, 3084, 3085, 3087, 3093-3098, 3101. 

Minnesota, Minneapolis regional office 3093, 3096 

National Recovery Administration 2967, 3014, 3089, 3091, 3092 

National War Labor Board 2958, 2993, 2994, 2997 

Colorado, Denver regional office 2958, 2968, 2995-3002, 3073-3077 

Office of Militarv Government for Germany 3077 

Office of Price Administration 2981, 2996, 3000, 3014, 3056, 3061, 3064 

Rural Electrification Administration 2996 

Senate, United States: 

Committee on Education and Labor 2958 

La Follette Civil Liberties Committee (Subcommittee of the Com- 
mittee on Education and Labor) 297 1 

Wheeler committee (Subcommittee To Investigate Railroads, 
Holding Companies, and Related Matters of the Committee on 

Interstate and Foreign Commerce) 2957, 

2958, 2961-2966, 2969, 2970, 2979 

Social Security Board 2968, 2995, 3084 

Tolan committee. (See House of Representatives, U. S.) 

Treasury, Department of the: Office of Monetary Research 3014, 3015 

United States Housing Authority 3056, 3061, 3063, 3104 

War Production Board 3014 

Works Progress Administration 2962, 2967, 3085, 3089, 3093 

University of Colorado 3073, 3074 

University of Denver 3080 

University of Maryland 3080 

Washington Bookshop (District of Columbia) 3064, 3071 

Washington Committee for Democratic Action 3006, 3007 

Publications 

Daily Worker 3024 

I Protest (book) 3018 

Washington Post and Times Herald 2990 

o 



3 9999 05706 3206