Skip to main content

Full text of "Investigation of Communist activities in the State of California. Hearing"

See other formats





:| l-'Q 



Given By 

W S. Sol- ^IviENTS 




/}n, Ay^l^ . HtHiU • BEFORE THE 




FEBRUARY 24/1954 

I 24/195 

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


47718 WASHINGTON : 1954 

'' POBl 


Boston Public Li" vary 
Superintendent of Documents 

SEP 8 - 1954 


United States House of Representatives 

HAROLD H. VELDE, Illinois, Chairman 


KIT CLARDY, Micliigan CLYDE DOYLE, California 


ROBEKT L. KuNziG, Couusel 

Frank S. Tavenner, Jr., Counsel 

Thomas W. Beale, Sr., Chief Clerk 

Raphael I. Nixon, Director of Research 

Courtney B. Owens, Acting Chief Investigator 




February 24, 1953, testimony of Stanley B. Hancock 4517 

Index i 


Public Law 601, 79th Congress 

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

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


Rule X 


* * 4c * * * * 

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

Rule XI 


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

(A) Un-American activities. 

(2) The Committee on Un-American Activities, as a vrhole or by subcommit- 
tee, is auttiorized to malie from time to time investigations of (i) the extent, 
character, and objects of un-American propaganda activities in the United States, 
(ii) the diffusion within the United States of subversive and un-American propa- 
ganda that is instigated from foreign countries or of a domestic origin and at- 
tacks 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 in- 
vestigation, together with such recommendations as it deems advisable. 

For the purpose of any such investigation, the Committee on Un-American 
Activities, or any subcommitee 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. 

House Resolution 5, January 3, 1953 

Rule X 


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

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

* 4s * * * * * 



****** m 

17. Committee on Un-American Activities. 

(a) Un-American activities. 

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

The Committee on Un-American Activities shall report to the House (or to the 
Clerk of the House if the House is not in session) the results of any such 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 such chairman, and may be served by any person desig- 
nated by any such chairman or member. 




United States House of Representatives, 
Subcommittee of the Committee on Un-American Activities, 

Washington, D. G. 

executive session ^ 

The Subcommittee of the Committee on Un-American Activities 
met, pursuant to call, at 10 : 48 a. m., in room 225, Old House Office 
Building, Hon, Donald L. Jackson, presiding. 

Committee members present: Representatives Donald L. Jackson 
(presiding), Clyde Doyle, and James B. Frazier, Jr. 

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

Mr. Jackson. The committee will be in order. 

For the purpose of taking the testimony this morning, the chairman 
has appointed a subcommittee consisting of Messrs. Doyle, Frazier, 
and Jackson as acting chairman. 

Will you stand and be sworn. 

Do you solemnly swear in the testimony that you are about to give 
before this subcommittee that you will tell the truth, the whole truth, 
and nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Hancock. I will. 

Mr. Jackson. You may sit down. 

Are you ready to proceed, Mr. Counsel ? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes, sir. 


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

Mr. Hancock. Stanley B. Hancock. 

Mr. Tavenner. It is noted that you are not accompanied by coun- 
sel. You are advised that you are permitted to have counsel if you 
want counsel. 

Mr. Hancock. I don't consider it necessary. 

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

Mr. Hancock. In Heber, Calif., in 1908. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you give the committee, please, a resume of 
your formal educational training? 

Mr. Hancock. Entirely informal. I went to a year and a half of 
high school in San Diego, Calif., and about 8 months of business col- 
lege in San Diego. 

' Beleased by the committee. 



Mr. Tavenner. "Wliat is your present occupation or profession? 

Mr. Hancock. My profession is that of circulation manager of the 
Long Island Daily Press in Jamaica, Long Island. 

lilr. Tavenner. How long have you been so employed ? 

Mr. Hancock. Since December 1951 ; December 1951. 

Mr. Tavenner. Have you had other newspaper experience besides 

Mr. Hancock. Yes; I have. I worked for the San Diego Sun, now 
defunct, beginning in about 1926, until, I think, 1932. I worked for 
the San Francisco 

If it has any significance, I worked for 2 or 3 months for the Western 
Worker in, I think, 1933, as circulation manager. 

Mr. Tavenner. Let us start out by taking your record of employ- 
ment beginning in 1926, regardless of whether it was with a paper 
or what. 

Mr. Hancock. All right. About 3 months with the Western 
Worker in San Francisco, as circulation manager. My first position, 
as I have just mentioned, was that of district manager for the San 
Diego Sun. In 1928 to 1929 

Mr. Tavenner. Just a minute. What was the second paper you 
worked for? 

Mr. Hancock. Well, I have to recover now. 

I worked for the San Diego Sun from somewhere around 1925 or 
1926 to about 1928. 

I went to work for the Pasadena Star-News, as district circulation 
manager, for something over a year, into 1929 ; back to the San Diego 
Sun until about 1932, possibly 1933. 

Some time in 1933 I was for perhaps 2 or 3 months circulation man- 
ager of the Western Worker. 

]Mr. Tavenner. Where were you engaged in that work ? 

Mr. Hancock. In San Francisco. 

Mr. Tavenner. Off the record. 

(Discussion off the record.) 

Mr. Tavenner. On the record. 

At that point did you leave San Diego and go immediately for em- 
ployment with the AVestern Worker in San Francisco ? 

Mr. Hancock. Yes ; I did. 

Under the term of employment, it is kind of hard to state. I was 
not formally emploj^ed — somewhere around 1935 or 1936 I was on 
some of these WPA projects, but it is very vague in my mind. 

In September 1937 I became organizer for the CIO, UCAPAWA — 
UCAPAWA are the initials. United Cannery, Agriculture — -I forget 
the full title. 

Mr. Beale. Allied Workers of America. 

Mr. Hancock. Thank you, sir. 

That lasted 3 months. 

INIr. Tavenner. Where were you engaged in that work ? 

Mr. Hancock. For a while in Bakersfield, Calif. ; I think maybe a 
month and a half, perhaps 2 months there; the last month in Saji 
Francisco, and that work ceased. The allotment was Avithdrawn for 
that activity. 

I became east bay manager for the People's World, which was an 
extension of the Western Worker, which had become at that time, or 


about that time, a daily paper. This was the 2d of January 1938. 
I held that position for 6 months. 

Mr. Tavenner. What was that position ? 

Mr. Hancock. East bay manager for the Daily People's World. 

Mr. Jackson. Would that be, substantially, Oakland? 

Mr. Hancock. Yes ; it was the Oakland territory. The office was 
in Oakland. 

Six months later, or about July 1938, I became general circulation 
manager for the Daily People's World. I held that position until 
about April or May 1940, at which time I resigned, and had no 
employment, but about 3 weeks later I became circulation manager 
of the Santa Cruz Sentinel News, Santa Cruz, Calif. 

Mr. Tavenner. About what was the date ? 

Mr. Hancock. Some time around May 1940. I held that position 
until October 1942. 

Around that time I was negotiating to try to get into the Air Corps ; 
I passed some tests, failed in some others. 

I left the Sentinel News preparatory to going into the merchant 
marine. I actually went into the merchant marine in January 1943, 
but for 2 or 3 months I worked; I had 2 jobs. One was — I can't 
remember the name of that ; I was a machinist's helper. I don't know 
the name, some kind of a belt company. 

Mr. Tavenner. Link Belt Macnine Co. ? 

Mr. Hancock. Link Belt Machine Co., yes, for a month or two — 
a month, I guess; then for another month or two I worked in ship 
maintenance and repair crews in San Francisco harbor, and in Jan- 
uary 1943, went into the merchant marine. 

In January 1946 I came out of the merchant marine. 

In April or May 1946 I became circulation manager for the Lock- 
port Union Sun and Journal. 

Mr. Tavenner. In what State ? 

Mr. Hancock. That is Lockport, N. Y. 

Sometime around February 1948 I became public-relations director 
of the Erie Dispatch in Erie, Pa. 

I lost that position in December 1949, as a direct result of my 
testimony before the Harry Bridges trial in San Francisco. 

Mr. Doyle. For whom ? 

Mr. Hancock. The last Harry Bridges trial in December of 1949. 

Mr. Jackson. You mean you were discharged because you testified 
in that trial ? 

Mr. Hancock. Yes, sir ; under very sympathetic circumstances. 
• Mr. Jackson. You mean you were fired sympathetically ? 

Mr. Hancock. Sympathetically. 

Mr. Jackson. That doesn't take much of the sting out of it. 

Mr. Hancock. I think there was no other choice in the way the 
thing happened. 

In Januar}^ of 1950 I went to work for an old friend of mine, 
Harry Pollack, of San Francisco, who conducts a business of creating 
and carrying out special circulation campaigns around the country. 

I never worked in San Francisco. My territory was the East, Mid- 
west, and South. 

I traveled for 1950, 1951, and until December 1951, when I became 
circulation manager of the Long Island Daily Press, my present 

47718— 54— pt. 1 2 


Mr. Jackson, Is the management of the Long Island Daily Press 
aware of your appearance here today ? 

Mr. Hancock. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Your employment with the San Diego Sun began in 
1925 or 1926. How long did you remain in San Diego from the time 
of the beginning of that employment ? 

Mr. Hancock. Well, I was in Imperial Valley, which was my home, 
where I was born, for 6 months, and I remained in San Diego until 
some time in 1928 ; as previously stated, I went to work for the Pasa- 
dena News in the same capacity, circulation manager, and a year later 
was persuaded to return to the San Diego Sun, so I remained there un- 
til some time in 1933, when I think there would be some question as to 
whether I lost my job or I quit. It was a combination of not being 
too eager to keep the position and quitting my employer, and I had 
the rather difficult position of someone not too interested in their 

By that time I was quite involved in Communist activity, so I re- 
mained in San Diego ; in 1933 I went to San Francisco for this 2- or 3- 
month period, and came back to San Diego — are you interested in de- 
^^eloping party activity ? 

Mr. Tavenner. As soon as I get clearly in mind the period of time 
that you were in San Diego I want to ask you about your knowledge of 
Communist affairs in San Diego. 

Mr. Hancock. Around 1934 I was in and out of San Diego. I was 
in Imperial Valley for a good part of that time. I was in San Diego 
most of 1935, 1936, and into September of 1937. I haven't lived in San 
Diego since. 

Mr. Tavenner. You stated that you had knowledge of Communist 
Party activities while at San Diego. Were you a member of the party 
during any part of the time you were in San Diego ? 

Mr. Hancock. Yes, sir. From sometime in 1931 — I can't be ab- 
solutely sure of these dates ; it is a long time ago, but I believe it was 
sometime in 1931. It might even have been the latter part of 1930, I 
am not absolutely sure, until I left, and after I left. 

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

Mr. Hancock. No, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. When did you withdraw from the Communist 

Mr. Hancock. Wlien I left the Daily People's World in 1940. That 
was the final break. My party activity, as we understood party 
activity, practically ceased in 1937 when I went into the People's 
World activity, or rather in January of 1938. 

While we held nominal party membership and attended meetings of 
the party, well, let's say, 99 percent of our activity was professional 

Mr. Ta\^nner. I will ask you questions a little later about the cir- 
cumstances under which you left the party; but at this point, let us 
confine our questions to matters relating to your entrance into the 
party and your experience in the party. 

Will you tell the committee the circumstances under which you 
became a member of the party, the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Hancock. I will do the best I can. 


Mr. Tavenner. By that I mean what were the influences that 
brought you into the Communist Party and who, specifically, was re- 
sponsible for your recruitment into the party ? 

Mr. Doyle. How old were you in 1930 or 1931 when you joined? 

Mr. Hancock. My early twenties, 21 or 22 ; somewhere around there. 

I will do the best I can. 

The family environment, family economic circumstance, without 
question, played a part. My father, for whom I have the greatest 
respect, now dead, was a Socialist. To the best of my knowledge, h© 
was never a Communist, but he loved to talk and vote Socialist. 

His brother was very much the same. They were Socialists. They 
went through stages where, at one time, the greatest man on earth to 
my father was Henry Ford, because he brought in the $5-a-day pay 
scale for the first time in history. 

They were great La Follette supporters, but they were, as far back 
as my memory goes, left of center and loved to consider themselves 

We, in my family, did not have a particularly religious background, 
but we were not antireligious ; we were passive on the subject. 

In this home environment as a child, I thought along the lines of 
underprivileged people. We, ourselves, were somewhat underprivi- 
leged. My father died penniless; my mother worked in laundries, 
and places like that. 

My getting into the newspaper business resulted from never being 
able financially to stop carrying newspapers. I delivered newspapers 
as a kid; went to high school for a vear and a half while I still de- 
livered newspapers, and then couldn't go back to high school because 
we needed the income. 

In California, in the early thirties, I truly believe the economic 
circumstances were much worse than they were throughout the coun- 
try. All this impressed itself on my mmd and made me subject to 
radical influences, which were plentiful at that time in the persons of 
my father and my uncle. 

The actual way I got interested in the Communist Party was : I was 
working at the San Diego Sun as a district manager when my uncle 
brought around a fellow by the name of Meyer — Meyers — Levin, it 
sounds like, but not quite right — Meyer — he is a real old-timer ; in fact, 
he disappeared from the California scene and located around New 
York somewhere, but he was a representative of the California Com- 
mittee to Repeal the California Syndicalism Act. The Scripps- 
Howard newspapers, for whom I worked, were opposed to the Cali- 
fornia Syndicalism Act. 

_My uncle brought this person around and asked if I could introduce 
him to the editor, and maybe get a little publicity for him. I not only 
did that, but went to a couple of meetings as a raw, green kid, and 
was looked upon, I learned later, as a likely recruit for this chain belt 
into the Communist Party, which is exactly what the anti-CS com- 
mittee was. 

This Meyer Levin, if that is his correct name — I will get it in a 

Mr. Tavenner. Could it have been Frank S. Meyers? 

Mr. Hancock. No ; it couldn't. His first name "is Meyer, M-e-y-e-r. 

So I was cultivated, and in the atmosphere where my paper sup- 
ported the appearance of this group activity in town, I came in con- 


tact with this person, and my uncle and this Meyer persuaded me 
that it was — without any particular difficulty — that it was a fine thing 
to do, and I accepted some position, I think publicity representative 
for this committee, and, in the course of contact with this Meyer 
person I, without any particular difficulty, was readily convinced 
that the Communist Party was the solution for all evils. 

My father never agreed with me. He was a Socialist, but no more. 
But my uncle agreed with me and later also become a party member. 

Those are really the circumstances. I suppose I should say that 
this is a skeleton outline of the circumstances. 

The influences of the period were great poverty and I had become 
sensitive to such conditions and very sincerely wanted to do some- 
thing about it, although it was a complex period. I felt that I sin- 
cerely wanted to do something about the appalling economic condi- 
tions. So, I would be willing to concede that it could be a small boy 
trying to be a big shot, I don't know. 

Mr. TA\T3]srNER. "When you became a member of the Communist 
Party, did you immediately sign a card or an application for mem- 
bership ? 

Mr, Hancock. To the best of my knowledge, yes, that would have 
been the procedure. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you recall at this time the circumstances under 
which you signed the application, that is, to whom you made your 
application ? 

Mr, Hancock, I am almost certain that I made it to this Meyer 
Levin, L-e-v-i-n, and I will correct that if I can think of it. It doesn't 
sound quite right, but very nearly right. 

At that time there was no Communist Party in San Diego; there 
had been, I was later informed, at an earlier period. Some years 
before the party, such as it was, had been broken up by the Trotsky ite- 
Lovestone conflict. It was nonexistent; but there were a few party 
sympathizers or former party members around. It was broken up 
prior to my entrance into the organization by the process of some- 
body coming around and picking up all the books and never coming 
back with them. 

So, there were a few people — a fellow by the name of Sol Bern- 
hart, who was a local tailor ; a local produce wholesaler, who was not 
a party member but very sympathetic, by the name of Saul Hill- 
kowitz. Those were the earliest contacts. 

Now, I can see 2 or 3 other people, but their names just aren't in 
my mind right now. 

It was then a part of my earliest activity to pull these people to- 
gether to try to form some kind of a unit, which we did, 

Mr, Tavenner, Did that unit have a name ? 

Mr. Hancock. I doubt it, unless it was called the San Diego unit. 

Mr, Ta-stsnner. How many persons composed that unit after you 
perfected its organization or after its organization was perfected? 

Mr. Hancock. As I recall, the creation of a unit wouki involve any- 
where from 4 to 12 to 15 people; above 12 you would then split and 
form another unit. 

Mr. Tavenner. Can you give us the names of any additional persons 
who were members of this original unit? 

Mr. Hancock. Well, it is very hard for me to do that. I can't 
even say with certainty that Bernhart was a member of the original 


I have in mind this Meyer Levin introducing me to this group of 
people, and that is 1931, a long time ago. The best I could do would 
be to recall names in that general early period, but it would be unfair 
for me to say they were definitely attached to that. 

Mr. Tavenner. Before attempting to do that, let's trace the organ- 
ization of the Communist Party a little more definitely in San Diego. 

Did this original unit grow to the point where it was divided into 
additional units ^ 

Mr. Hancock, Yes ; it did. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you recall how many units there were in the 
Communist Party in San Diego by the time you left there, which I 
believe w-as in 1937 or 1938 ? 

Mr. Hancock. 1937. Not exactly, but it is in my mind that the 
greatest growth we achieved would have been somewhere around 12 
units, not necessarily at the time I left, but somewhere around 1934 or 
1935 would have been the largest membership, which would have, 
given us around 150 party members. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you at any time occupy any position within 
the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Hancock. Yes ; I did. 

The terminology changed; the activity was called one thing at 
one time and another thing at a later time. 

In the early period we dealt with such expressions as "org. secre- 
taries," "agit. props," — the term "agit. prop." later became educa- 
tional director. This was no doubt the Russian influence of abbreviat- 
ing American words and combining them. 

My first activity was that of organizer in the Communist Party. 
The position in those days of the leading person was called organizer. 

Mr. Doyle. Called what ? 

Mr. Hancock. Organizer; organizer. 

Mr. Tavtenner. Can you fix the approximate period when you were 
the organizer for the Communist Party in San Diego ? 

Mr. Hancock. Well, I believe it is truthful to say that I was the 
leader of the Communist Party from the first date I have given you 
here until some time in 1936 — the early part of 1937. The title 
changed, but I was in nominal leadership of the organization. 

Mr. Tavenner. AVliat other positions did you hold besides that of 
being the leader of the Communist Party? Did you have any official 
position in any particular group or cell of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Hancock. Well, I was, as the organizer of the party, in charge 
of the executive committee. It wasn't called the executive committee 
at that early period. The language escapes me, but it is a pyramid 
structure organization where you have units, and 2 or 3 members 
of each unit are drawn together in a central committee. We would 
at one time have called it a county central committee. I was chairman 
of the county central committee. 

Mr. Tavenner. Over what period of time did you occupy that 
position ? 

Mr. Hancock. I was in charge of the Communist Party until early 
1937. I cannot honestly say what title existed. I perhaps could re- 
construct right now. 

There came a great change in 1934, 1935, the united-front approach, 
and all the party terminology changed at that time. The activity re- 


mained the same; the terminology changed — well, some activity 
changed, too, but my activity as leader of the party remained constant 
until early 1937, some 6 months before I left. 

This is another story, but I was negotiating at that point to relieve 
myself of party leadership, not activity — leadership. 

A fellow by the name of Esco Richardson, E. L. Richardson, who, 
when I met him, lived in National City, a suburb, I suppose you could 
say, of San Diego, was appointed or elected chairman of the San Diego 
Communist Party. I perhaps held some executive committee posi- 
tion while I was there, but I had surrendered leadership of the party 
about 6 months before I left in September 1937. 

Mr, Tavenner. Well, now, while you were active in the party in 
San Diego, did you hold any State position with the Communist 

Mr. Hancock. I think so. 

I must say that I have been asked these questions many times by 
the Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization when they were at- 
tempting to understand the entire picture. 

I do believe that I was a member of the State committee, but I 
couldn't swear to it. 

It is absolutely true that I attended meetings of the State committee, 
but being something of a dissident, I have in my memory — we remem- 
ber the things that are most disappointing or most pleasing to us, and 
I remember when I was barred from membership in the State com- 
mittee, considered a little to eccentric, from their point of view, when 
I was nominated but not passed by the party leadership. 

It is very possible that there comes a later lull when I came into 
membership in the State committee. Certainly I attended the State 
committee meetings as county representative from San Diego. 

Now, I do have to point out one thing that seems to be confusing to 

As a result of a law in California, I presume in all States, there must 
be a legal State committee of a political party. That requires that 
names be filed in Sacramento, Calif. That was by no means the State 
committee. We selected nonentities from San Diego who could afford 
to have their names known as State committee members. They actu- 
ally had to go to Sacramento to hold a convention, and this was the 
Communist Party. It was not the leadership. And there seems to 
be some confusion in the services about, "How is it that this was an 
official State committee?" It wasn't the State committee. It was 
the legal answer to the requirement that we have a legal State com- 

Mr. Ta\^nner. It was a mere conformance with the law ? 

Mr. Hancock. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Whereas the leadership of the party was consti- 
tuted of other people. 

Mr. Hancock. An entirely different group. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was the security feature to that the reason for that 

Mr. Hancock. Yes; no doubt it was, although we didn't speak 
about it in those terms. It was quite obvious why the Communist 
Party would not announce the names of its real leaders or gather 
them together in any single place. 


As I think about it, surely it was security; it had to be security. 

Mr. Jackson. Would it be possible to be appointed a member of 
the State committee of the Communist Party and have no personal 
knowledge of that fact, in your opinion? 

Mr. Hancock. No. 

Mr. Jackson. I have reference to the testimony of Miss Lucille 
Ball in that connection, who was appointed a member of the State 
committee, and who in her affidavit stated that she had no knowledge 
or recollection of having been so appointed. 

Mr. IL\ncock. Well, I can only speak from my relation to the 
people that I 

You are talking about this official State committee? 

Mr. Jackson. Yes; the one that held conventions, as all parties do. 

Mr. Hancock. It could conceivably happen, but it would not have 
been a part of the strategy for it to happen. 

The only way it could conceivably happen is if the party sub- 
mitted the name of so-and-so, and failed to notify that party and 
didn't want that party at the State convention. Now, there is some 
legal requirement that if you nominate some person to the State 
convention you are supposed to be there, although I suppose sick- 
ness and what-not could explain why everybody doesn't get there — 
but we nominated people whose economic circumstances were such 
that they could have their name publicized, who could make a 2- or 
3-day trip to Sacramento, and that is all, no further requirements. 

Mr. Jackson. Physical presence is not actually required. You 
can vote by proxy under the California State law. 

Mr. Hancock. Then it is theoretically possible for a person to be 
nominated without knowing that. 

Mr. DoTLE. Normally, though, if they were active in the party 
after that convention would they discover they had been named with- 
out their knowledge, as a member of the State committee? 

Mr. Hancock. It would depend on the degree of their contact with 
the party. 

Mr. Doyle. I realize that, but I say, if they were active. 

Mr. Hancock. "Wlien you use the word "active," I would say an 
active person would know that they were nominated to the State 

Mr. Ta\^nner. Now, Mr. Hancock, will you explain as fully as 
you can the activity of the Communist Party during the period you 
were its leader in San Diego ? 

Mr. Hancock. I think I will have to ask you how extensive an 
answer you want. 

Mr. Tavenner. Well, not knowing what you will testify to, it is 
impossible for me to say — 

Mr. Hancock. You stop me, then 

Mr. Tavenner (continuing). And we will stop you in the course 
of your statement and ask you questions about things that we are 
particularly interested in. Things we are not interested in, we will 
give some indication to you. 

Mr. Doyle. Off the record. 

(Discussion off the record.) 

Mr, Jackson. On the record. 


It would seem to me that that would center largely about its prin- 
cipal projects; I would like to know about them, what they were 
working on. 

Mr. Hancock. In the earliest days the principal projects were 
something that happened before I came in, but I came in at the tail- 
end of the campaign, what they called the Red Flag Case. 

Yetta Stromberg had run up a red flag and had been arrested in, 1 
think, San Bernardino, Calif., and there was some "hoop-cle-doo" in 
the courts about it, and there was a decision finding a flaw, stating that 
she couldn't be punished for it. That was a public campaign. 

I would like to interpose right here the explanation that it is the 
nature, or was at that time the nature of the Communist Party to 
utilize all issues in or bordering on the civil liberties field to further 
the movement of liberals over to the radical side. As previously 
stated, the first group activity I came in contact with was an activity 
to repeal the California Syndicalism Act, which had brought about 
the incarceration of a number of people whose names escape me, but 
there were cases in court at that time, and there was quite a liberal 
field of thought that this was a little too stringent, that here were 
ample other laws to cover situations that the CS law was being applied 

So, we have a Scripps-Howard newspaper, for example, opposing 
the California syndicalism law, and yet the only organized activity 
was conducted by the hard core of the Communist Party. 

On a local scale, the principal activity was in the relief organiza- 
tions, in the creation of — for example, the first outside organization 
I remember working on was what we called the Unemployed Coun- 
cil — not even good grammar, but that is what it was called, the Un- 
employed Council. 

Here we set up many groups, organizations, throughout the city 
of San Diego — one in downtown San Diego, one in East San Diego, 
one in National City — and here our purpose was to try to be experts 
in the field of how to tell people how to get relief. At that time there 
were people in rather desperate circumstances. 

Mr. Doyle. Those were what years ? 

Mr. Hancock. This was 1931, 1932, along in there. 

An important early activity of the Communist Party was the Com- 
mittee to Free Tom Mooney and Warren K. Billings. 

As unemployment, as the depression worsened our activity among 
the unemployed became quite extensive. There were State conven- 
tions. We organized, or participated in the organization, of one and 
possibly two of what we called hunger marc^ies. This is not the 
bonus march. That is a little vague in my mind. These were un- 
employed people getting in jalopies and driving up here to Wash- 

I remember well a campaign to buy an old Willys-Knight and load 
it full of 8 or 10 people and start them out to collect money, and we 
sent wires, and sent tliom on, and so forth. 

Mr. Jackson. Sent them to Wasliington? 

Mr. Hancock. Sent them to AVashington ; yes. 

The main drive at that time was for some kind of an unemployment 
insurance bill. It had a name, and some Congressman from Minne- 
sota was identified with it. He had introduced it in Congress, and 


the Communist Party, with all its affiliates, was rallying support 
behind it, and the hunger march was to try to create pressure along 
that line. 

Somewhere around, I think it is 1934, there was an international 
gathering in Moscow of the Comintern. Georgi Dimitroff had just 
been released by Hitler — or Hitler wasn't in power then, but he had 
just had Cliis — this would have been later, then; the Reichstag trial 
was in 1936 or 1937. 

Anyway, somewhere around 1934 or 1935 there was a vast change 
in the procedures of the Communist Party. It could be termed and 
was termed as the united-front approach. It was the immediate re- 
duction of the use of revolutionary terminology, and the attempt to 
invade existing organizations, including the trade unions. 

On the basis of achieving minor social or economic gains, I perhaps 
should say that this represented a very substantial change because up 
to that time the party would run people for office, but while they 
were running for office they were talking about "Defend the Chinese 
Soviets," even back in 1933, and all, "Support to Revolutionary Rus- 
sia," and such nonsense as that. 

So that that was subjugated, put in the background, and the main 
drive became the united-front appeal, which was to infiltrate organi- 
zations and bring them not into revolutionary status, but a more re- 
ceptive atmosphere for a later revolutionary appeal, so that in some- 
where around 1934, 1935, there was a greatly heightened penetration 
of the trade unions carried down to the lowest level, including our 
San Diego level. 

We were more successful in San Diego than most places, but we 
only followed the policy that had been set up internationally, and we 
strove for leadership, tried to take charge of the activity, gain elected 
positions, that sort of thing. 

The party, with a much watered-down public appeal, went exten- 
sively into electioneering. Under the united-front approach they 
endeavored to combine with, first of all, the Socialist Party ; secondly, 
with the left or radical wing of labor ; and would set up united-front 
committees that would in themselves project candidates for election. 

This atmosphere prevailed until, as far as I can remember — it had 
its heyday of success, such as it was — that is, it reached its peak of 
success, which wasn't too much, around 1936. 

In 1939, I think I am correct on these dates, Septembar 1939, when 
Russia invaded Poland, there came another abrupt change, and I sup- 
pose due to necessity, since the united front was no longer possible, 
then the party drew into itself, maintaining its trade-union and other 
organizational contacts, and did everything possible to win support for 
its program at that time, which was "a plague on both your houses," 
the effect of which was to weaken support for England and France. 

It was never presented tliat way, but when you say "You are both 
a bunch of rotters," the only possible support America would give 
would have been to the allied side, so when we saj^ "They are both 
stinkers," the net effect is to reduce support for the allied side. That 
is the official position of the party at that time. 

I have lost contact; I don't know how they have changed since. 

Mr. Doyle. When you said "A plague on both your houses," that 

47718—54 — pt. 1 3 


Mr. Hancock. 1939 was the Russian invasion of Poland — maybe 
no; maybe 1940. Hitler went in in 1939; I think Russia went in in 

There was a time lag in there, but the fact that there are a large 
percentage, or were a large percentage of Jewish people in the Com- 
munist Party made them violently anti-Hitler, and it was a real revo- 
lution when they had to, in effect, become friendly with Hitler, and it 
was somewhere, perhaps 6 months of so — history books will show, 

Mr. Jackson. To what extent were you successful in bringing in to 
the support of these various movements, either through front organ- 
izations or otherwise, well-meaning citizens of the community ? 

Mr. Hancock. We thought we were highly successful. 

Mr. Jackson. In what particular areas did you 

Mr. Hancock. Well, of course, I am only aware of what happened 
in San Diego. 

We did some work in Imperial Valley, but we had no such accom- 
plishments in Imperial Valley. 

I might say that I heard, aside from what I have been saying in San 
Diego, there was an atmosphere at that time where we heard more than 
just rumors; we heard that various prominent people were either 
identified with or were close to the Communist Party outside of San 
Diego. None of it is to my personal knowledge, but in San Diego we 
worked very closely with several people who might be termed com- 
munity leaders, including the leaders of the San Diego Labor Council, 
including a couple of teachers, and there is a third one but I can't 
think of his name, a fellow who was an engineer — what might be 
termed at least a small segment of an intelligent group in San Diego. 

Mr. Jackson. To what extent were you successful at all in obtain- 
ing the use of ministers, the use of their names for the various activi- 

Mr. Hancock. I think not at all. I don't recall any ministers. 

Mr. Jackson. Not at all in San Diego. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was it the purpose of the Communist Party in se- 
curing the cooperation and assistance of these various groups that 
you have spoken of to ultimately recruit into the Communist Party 
those who became close to the movement ? 

Mr. Hancock. Yes; it was, with the qualification that we would 
not want to recruit everybody. The purpose was to draw the entire 
group closer to us so that we could select the people that we wanted 
out of that group. 

We didn't want the mass in the Communist Party ; we wanted the 
leadership, and down into secondary and third leadership, but we 
didn't just want a person; we wanted somebody with some capacity 
for leadership. 

The Communist Party was not a mass organization. Its essential 
structure was one that required everybody to have some leadership 
capacity, perhaps minute, but some leadership capacity. 

Mr. Tavenner. And by securing that leadership as members of the 
party, you could more nearly direct the activity of the group that he 
was otherwise identified with ? 

Mr. Hancock. Exactly. The purpose then was — when you speak 
about a hundred Communists, you speak about people who have real 
influence over a few thousand people. 


Mr. Tavenner. Now, I assume that the purpose of recruiting lead- 
ers of various groups as members of the Communist Party was to 
increase the power of the Communist Party to project its own policies. 

Mr. Hancock. No question about that. 

Mr. Tavenner. Can you describe more fully the efforts that were 
made by the Communist Party to infiltrate other organizations ? 

(At this point Representative James B. Frazier, Jr., left the hearing 
room. ) 

Mr. Tavenner, For instance, you began in your statement to tell us 
about the Unemployed Council. 

Mr, Hancock. Well, we created— no, we created the Unemployed 
Council. There later came into existence a similar group, the name 
of which escapes me. We infiltrated that group and took it over. 
The process was a rather simple one. 

Mr. Tavenner. Well, in what field was this other group interested ? 

Mr. Hancock. It was unemployment. It was a period when people 
grouped together to try to find some way to pay their rent or get relief. 
At that time there were all kinds of redtape restrictions on getting 

Mr. Tavenner. Was it the Workers' Alliance? 

Mr, Hancock. That name sounds like it ; sure sounds like it. Yes, 
I — there was a Workers' Alliance at that time, and it was a rapidly 
changing period, and I think that that is the group that I now have 
in mind, the Workers' Alliance. 

Mr, Tavenner. Can you be specific as to how your work was done 
in infiltrating that and other organizations ? 

Mr. Hancock. Yes — if you will just allow me this margin, that I 
may be describing what happened in some other organization, but it 
is the same tactic. 

The tactic is, we learn of or we see the existence of an organization 
in which we would like to have influence or control. We put a few 
people into it as members. They cultivate other existing members. 

Prior to the time this group is going to have a meeting, we have 
what we call a fraction meeting. We discuss the issues that are coming 
up at that meeting. We discuss how we may gain influence or leader- 
ship by what we will say. We discuss how to prevent something 
from being done that we disagree with. This might be done by wearing 
out, by a succession of speakers getting up and wearing out the patience 
of the group. 

But our major purpose is to, first of all, go in there with our own 
members; secondly, to recruit other members into a committee that 
thinks along the same lines, and sooner or later to draw these people 
back into the Communist Party and then to conduct ourselves on the 
floor of these meetings in a way that will give us leadership, elected 
to — for example, they are going to send a committee down to the city 
to protest about something. AVe will volunteer to be on that committee. 
Since we are the vocal means, most likely one of our committee will 
be elected chairman of the committee, and we will come back and talk 
about all we accomplished, and the first thing you know we are 
in charge of the organization. 

I think it is important to understand that we gained leadership by 
doing something. We were very active. Most people are inclined to be 
hesitant, timid, don't want to take charge, and so forth. We were 
very bold — very stupid, I might say, very stupid, too. 


Mr. Jackson. You came before your own people with a determined 
course of action, voluntarily while you were there, and you stayed 
until the last ? 

Mr. Hancock. We were quite willing to do the dirty work, and 
people said "let them do it." 

Mr. Jackson. That is the weakness of so many organizations that 
have been infiltrated in that area. 

Mr. Hancock. No question, it is a powerful approach, highly suc- 
cessful, but I think not as successful today because I think it is pretty 
well known that this is a Communist tactic. In those days it was 
not known. 

Mr. Jackson. The Waldorf peace conference ^ was very successful. 

Mr. Hancock. The what ? 

Mr. Jackson. The peace conference at the Waldorf. 

Mr. Hancock. I am not familiar with it. 

Mr. Jackson. And certainly they are experiencing that today in 
bringing in a lot of substantial names to the Committee for Amnesty 
to the Smith Act Victims. 

That committee is flourishing; it is flourishing out in Los Angeles. 
The Communists have obtained the use of the names of a number of 
substantial community leaders. Anyone who can look past the false 
facade of the organization must know that it is Communist domin- 
nated and directed. 

Go ahead, Mr. Counsel. 

Mr. Tavenner. Would you say that one of your greatest allies in 
your successful infiltration of various organizations was complacency 
on the part of the membership of that organization, that is, an attitude 
not to vote in their meetings or not to take active parts in the 
organizations of which they were members ? 

Mr. Hancock. No doubt that element existed. 

I would say that our greatest ally was the economic circumstance 
of the period. The fact that we were in motion and other people were 
motionless. The secondary ally was the normal, human bewilderment 
of how to cope with committees and stand on your feet when your legs 
are shaking and people are looking at you, and the average guy, he 
might think that is a wonderful thing to be a leader, but he doesn't 
quite have the courage to get up and do these things, and when someone 
else is very vociferous and holds out the verbal promise that "follow 
my leadership and everything will be wonderful" — here you have what 
might be termed an element of complacency. 

No. 1, though, was the economy of the period. If we hadn't been in 
such economic straits nothing as peculiar as the Communist appeal 
could have taken place. 

Mr. Jackson. I don't want to go too far astray here, but I think 
you are making a very valuable contribution to the committee in your 
testimony on the effective work done by Communist minorities in 
organizations, and I shoidd like to explore a little further the eco- 
nomic aspect of communism. 

Communism undoul)tedly holds an appeal to the underprivileged, 
those who are hungry, but how do you account, out of your own ex- 

' The Cultural find Scipntific Conference for World Teacp, held nt the Wnldorf-Astoria 
Hotel, New York City. March 25-27, 1949, under the auspices of the National Council of 
the Arts, Sciences, and Professions. 


perience, for the noneconomic Communists, the Alger Hisses, the 
people in the motion-picture industry who were making two or three 
thousand dollars a week when they joined the Communist Party? 
To what do you attribute their association with the party ? 
' Mr. Hancock. I think there is no all-encompassing answer. You 
ask a question that would have to be answered in a dozen different 
ways. I would just like to approach it in the following way : I will 
talk about the movie actors. 

We have a phenomenon of modern-day life where people are recom- 
pensed far beyond their possible talents 

Mr. Doyle. Far beyond what ? 

Mr. Hancock. Their talents. A person suddenly makes a million 
dollars. They live then with great inner fears of insufficiency. They 
have guilt complexes ; they try to assuage these complexes by saymg, 
Well, I will do something for somebody else." 

That would be a very partial approach to the movie actor problem. 

The intellectual is something of a different problem. He also has 
guilt complexes. He also has traces of desire for leadership. He sees 
a ripe field for leadership. As he moves over to the left he becomes in 
his own mind a Messiah to the downtrodden. And some of the people 
that I have been in touch with seem to be that type, that they fully 
relish the leadership role and the poor people looking up to them. 

I think in the troubled mind of the intellectual there is sometimes 
an incapacity to balance the problems of modern-day living. As a 
person — they say "sometimes a lot of knowledge is worse than a little," 
and some of the intellectuals get themselves far afield to the point that 
they believe that the capitalist society as we know it cannot continue, 
that it historically will disappear, and that they, therefore, believe 
that it is intelligent to ally themselves with what seems to them to be 
the new society. 

You see, it is a part of Communist philosophy, we learned — my edu- 
cation was not very much, but I went through the same study activity 
of all Communists. 

We are taught this, for example, if I may digress for just a moment, 
that history shows a succession of civilizations, savagery itself being 
one of the earliest forms, barbarism being a horrible thing in our 
modern-day lights, but a vast improvement over the social structure 
of savagery. Feudalism was a step forward, but by our modern-day 
lights would not be good; however, it was a way of life. And after 
feudalism came capitalism, which was a great step forward, but by 
modern or future lights a terrible condition. Then after capitalism 
will come this glowingly wonderful state of communism. 

You can't pursue it much further because logic won't take you 
much further. 

You learn that up to this point one of the essentials of life is con- 
flict ; yet, when they are selling you communism they tell you all con- 
flict ceases. It is a contradiction, but they wrestle with it, and they 
believe it, up to a certain point. I could surely say I believed it. I 
wasn't equipped to believe anything else. I believed it. I don't be- 
lieve it now. 

I think that intelligent people, intellectuals, wealthy people, have in 
some measure guilt complexes combined with messiah impulses, and 
that brings them into this activity. 

Mr. Jackson. Thank you. 


Mr. Tavenner. Will you give us instances in which the Commu- 
nist Party was successful in infiltrating groups in the San Diego 

Mr. Hancock. Yes. 

Mr. Jackson. Infiltrating, let me add, to the extent that it became 
the dominating influence in the group, because I assume they infil- 
trated everything, sometimes successfully, and sometimes not. I think 
what we are trying to determine is the point at which they did suc- 
eeed in actually taking over the physical direction. 

Mr. Hancock. Well, actually, the field is quite limited. 

At that time this considerable turmoil over unemployment brought 
organizations into existence, and it would be true to say that they 
all came under the domination of the Communist Party. They had 
no great significance or any great lasting quality. 

The most significant activity of that period that I am familiar with 
was the infiltration of the American Federation of Labor, which is a 
rather remarkable story in that it was done with a half a dozen men, 
and at one point it consisted of capturing the control of the Central 
Labor Council. 

Mr. Jackson. Wlien would that have been ? 

Mr. Hancock. I am quite sure it was 1935 and 1936, or one of the 
two. There was a — it could be tied down because there was a State 
federation of labor meeting in San Diego which was, it seems to me, 
in the early part of 1936, in that area, 1935 or 1936. 

Mr. Jackson. And by saying that they achieved complete domina- 
tion, you mean to say that the policies of the Communist Party were 
actually effected in the Central Labor Council during that period ? 

Mr. Hancock. By and large. Sometimes you have a recalcitrant 
membership, but by and large, we were successful in getting the things 
across that we wanted. 

Mr. Jackson. From a practical standpoint and in most organiza- 
tions the recommendations of the board of directors or those who are 
in charge of the development of a program are generally accepted by 
the membership. I don't know how many times I have listened to 
nominating committees' reports, and very seldom does the conven- 
tion go off on a tangent and introduce another slate. It has been done, 
but I gather when you say that the Communists achieved domination, 
that was political domination of the council at that time ? 

Mr. Hancock. That is right. So you could say 80 percent of what 
the Communists wanted done was accomplished, and the Communists 
didn't want some things done because they knew it wasn't possible, but 
80 percent of what the Communists wanted came into being in the 
form of resolutions, and so forth. 

Mr. Jackson. Would you say that, conversely, 80 percent of the 
things they didn't want done were not done? 

Mr. Hancock. I would say so. 

Mr. Tavenner. I am informed that there was a convention in San 
Diego in 1935 of the California State Federation of Labor. 

Mr. Hancock. Then it was 

Mr. Tavenner. Is that the event you are referring to ? 

Mr. Hancock. Yes; that is the one I tie my memory to, because 
we build up to a certain point there and I can recall this thing I am 
talking about in relation to that convention. 


Mr. Tavenner. Well, will you give us the full history of that, both 
what led up to it and what occurred at the time of the convention ? 

Mr. Hancock. Yes. Somewhere, perhaps a year earlier, my uncle, 
Henry Hancock 

Mr. Doyle. Wliat is his name ? 

Mr. Hancock. Heniy; Heniy Hancock. 

Mr. Doyle. Henry Hancock. 

Mr. Hancock. Who was a member of the carpenters' union, spoke to 
me about A. C. Eogers, secretary of the Central Labor Council, who 
seemed to be quite radical in his expressed belief. His original 
organization was the office workers, which is to say that he was not 
a union man, or at least he didn't come from a basic group, but his 
qualities were such that he had been elected secretary of the Central 
Labor Council, which was the dominant position. 

We had at that time, perhaps, 1 or 2 or 3 delegates to the Central 
Labor Council who observed the actions there. I say "we had" — 
the Communist Party had members who were delegates from their 
own organization to the Central Labor Council, so that his name came 
to our attention, A. C. Rogers, in a 

Mr. Tavenner. May I interrupt you there. 

Wio were the delegates? 

Mr. Hancock. Well, my uncle would have been one of them, and I 
am really vague on the others. 

There is a fellow by the name of Jones, also a carpenter, from the 
East San Diego branch of the carpenters' union, who was a delegate. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you mean he was a member of the Communist 

Mr. Hancock. Yes; and a member of the carpenters' union, and, 
as such, elected a delegate to the Central Labor Council. 

At various times my difficulty — the name is Claude Jones — my 
problem is pinning down names and activity to a certain period. I 
cannot with accuracy tell you that these people were the delegates at 
the time I am talking about, which is at the beginning. 

Mr. Jackson. That will be understood. 

Mr. Hancock. I hope you will understand. 

Mr. Jackson. To the best of your recollection; and in discussing 
any names of any individuals, of course, would you please indicate 
whether they were or were not members of the Communist Party? 

Mr. Hancock. Yes. 

Now, somewhere along the line — anyway, this was the original, just 
2 or 3 — my recollection is that some time around early 1935, anyway, 
I went to see A. C. Rogers. He knew who I was, I persuaded him 
to join tlie Communist Party. It is in my recollection I walked out 
of there with a signed card. It is very hard to recall 20 years ago, 
but it is in my recollection that that is what happened. 

Mr. Doyle. Wliat were you then in connection with the Communist 

Mr. Hancock. I was the leader of the Communist Party. 

Mr. Doyle. And he knew that? 

Mr. Hancock. Yes; he knew it. When I walked in the door he 
knew it, and when I walked out he knew it for damned sure, because 
I had his application. 


Mr. Jackson. You were an open member of the Communist Party, 
generally known throughout San Diego to be the organizer or head 
of the party in that area ? 

Mr. Hancock. That is correct. 

Mr. Jackson. And in all of your contacts throughout the city 
generally, that fact was known ? 

Mr. Hancock. Yes ; I was an open party member. 

The recruitment of A. C. Kogers was a considerable step forward 
for us because it gave us advance knowledge of what was to come 
before the meetings, and through his offices we were able to plan our 
strategy, but I think I might develop this a little further. 

Somewhere in the coming year and prior to the State federation 
convention, we had succeeded in creating a group, and it is in my mind 
that quite possibly all of them were party members. 

I have searched my mind to find the specific instance when they 
became such, and I am unable to do so, but I want to give you the 
names; I think I have already given them here, but in the event I 

One was a Daisy Lee Worcester, who was a delegate from the teach- 
ers union. She ran a private school, a very intelligent woman, and 
before we came in contact with her, was pretty much of a radical. 
She was at least completely under our domination for approximately 
a year. I think she was a party member. 

I also think Harry L. Steinmetz was, but I cannot find in my mind 
when it happened, and so forth, but I have to tell you what I know, 

Mr. Jackson. Is that the Steinmetz from San Diego State College? 

Mr. Hancock. He was at that time. 

I met with these people. I will give you the rest of the names. 

David Wosk, W-o-s-k, who was an engineer; I don't even know 
what kind of an engineer, but some kind of an engineer ; he had an 

There was some broker; I gave you his name, Mark somebody — 
Mark somebody — Mark Fisher, who was a broker. 

There was another teacher whose name escapes me, but who occupied 
a relatively unimportant role in this activity. 

Meeting with the group was Paul Alexander, who was my right- 
hand man in the Communist Party, and myself. 

Mr. Jackson. I want to get this clear in the record. 

You say you met with these people on various occasions? 

Mr. Hancock. Yes. 

Mr. Jackson. For the purpose of discussing Communist Party 

Mr. Hancock. Yes ; I think you would have to say it that way. 

Mr. Jackson. That is, it was not 

Mr. Hancock. I didn't say it that way, but I think it was even 
accepted that way. 

Mr. Jackson. I don't want to put any words in your mouth, but 
I do want to get it very clear that in your discussions with these 
people, you were known to them as a member of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Hancock. Yes. 

I am going to give you another name before it gets away from me : 
Johnnie Leyden, L-e-y-d-e-n.^ 

^ This individual later identified by witness as John Lydick. 


I think that is about the sum total of the group. 

Now, in the next several months in meeting with this group, of 
whom most, if not all, were eventually party members, we took over 
control of the Central Labor Council, I think it is no exaggeration 
to say that we maneuvered the election of Harry Steinmetz as presi- 
dent of the Central Labor Council. A. C. Rogers was already secre- 
tary, and we had him reelected, or, at least, it was our wish, and it 
came out that way, that he be reelected. 

We had several more delegates in the council by then ; this being the 
heyday of union organization, we put this fellow Sol Bernhart in as 
a delegate from the tailors union, if I remember correctly, and we had 
a fellow from the electrical union; I can't think of his name. He 
wasn't too important anyway, but I suppose we had 8 or 10 delegates 
on the floor, so that when an issue came up, this being a group of 60 
to 100 men, with the president and secretary following the line, and 
a number on the floor, it was sufficient to bring about the things that 
we wanted, except for certain problems, like we wanted to take over 
the San Diego Labor Leader, which was the weekly voice of the labor 

There was another fellow by the name of Eogers, who was an old- 
time editor of that paper, an old-time radical, but a violent opponent 
of communism. He was in his declining days, and one of our big 
fights was to take over that paper. 

The opposition, headed by a fellow by the name of Dowell, from 
the projectionists' union, motion picture projectionists union, Stan- 
ley Gue, the labor commissioner, and this old fellow Rogers, were the 
rallying center for the opposition, and somewhere along the line 
Rogers, the editor, got sick — and now comes the name that you asked 
me about. Brick Garrigues — we maneuvered his appointment as editor 
of the San Diego Labor Leader. 

Mr. Jackson. By "we" you mean the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Hancock. The Communist Party, yes. And I should say that 
by "we," so as to give you a complete picture of this, I don't mean 
that this group I have just named originated — Paul L. Alexander 
and I and the San Diego Central Committee, in consultation with the 
San Francisco Central Committee, as it was called 

Mr. Tavenner. Of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Hancock. Of the Communist Party — would work out the over- 
all strategy. We would then decide how and when we would present 
it to this group, which contained a number of party members, and on 
the basis of that we would take it on to the floor of the Central Labor 

Anyway, we took over the editorship of the San Diego Labor Leader, 
and I am not clear about Brick Garrigues. He was working on the 
San Diego Sun. I don't know how his name came to us, but he 
fitted into the group and, to the best of my recollection, was a party 
member. We recruited him as a party member. 

So I remember driving over to Coronado in the greastest secrecy 
one night to meet him and discuss whether or not he was prepared 
to give up his job on the San Diego Sun and take over the Labor 
Leader. He was, and it was accomplished. 

There was a gathering storm. Dowell, Gue, and Rogers, being 
in touch with the main office of the American Federation of Labor, 
had said, what I must say was quite truthful, that the Communists 
were taking over the labor council. 

47718— 54— pt. 1 4 


There came a day when they sent somebody in, Kelly somebody, 
to remove the charter; on order from Bill Green he just came in and 
yanked the charter of the central labor committee. That started our 

I must say it was a very sagacious move. We went to court and 
did one thing or another, but they took over again. 

Mr. Doyle. What year was that, 1935, 1936? 

Mr. Hancock. 1935 or 1936. 

We held some rump sessions, but these people that we were leading 
began to realize that the full strength of the American Federation of 
Labor was alined against us, and so we were unable to hold our con- 
trol and they set up an entirely new central labor council, would not 
admit our known members or suspected members, and, to the best of 
my knowledge, we drifted away from control, but that control brought 
about the following: 

First of all, it gave us domination of the San Diego delegation to 
the State federation of labor convention in San Diego. The record 
will show that for the first and the last time San Diego voting strength 
went to Harry Bridges and the line that he pursued, being very 
intricate and involved, but Harry Bridges was the rallying point for 
the left of center group, and Vandeleur was the rightist, but we made 
a bid for power, stronger than ever, but not strong enough to take over 
the State federation of labor. 

Mr. Jackson. I assume Bridges was known to you to be a member 
of the Communist Party. You said you testified at his trial ? 

Mr. Hancock. I was so informed. I was not a participant in any 
of the activity that brought him into the party. 

Mr. Jackson. You never met in a party meeting ? 

Mr. Hancock. In a party meeting ? No. As a matter of fact, the 
thing I testified on at the Bridges trial was a fraction meeting. 

Our definition of a fraction meeting is that it is party members 
drawn from various organizations. Now, it is possible for a nonparty 
member to be present at a fraction meeting, but at this particular 
meeting the people that I recalled who were there were party members, 
and I so testified. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was that a meeting attended by Harry Bridges? 

Mr. Hancock. Yes ; and that was in relation to this State federa- 
tion convention. It was primarily as to the State federation meeting. 
For example, A. C. Rogers either was at that meeting or we brought 
him into contact with Harry Bridges to lay out our plans for the floor 
fight at the federation. 

Mr. Jackson. Had Eogers' membership in the party become gen- 
erally known by that time or at that time ? 

Mr. Hancock. No; it had not. In fact, it was never known. It 
would have destroyed his capacity as a known member of the party. 

Mr. Jackson. Do you have any knowledge as to his present where- 
abouts ? 

Mr. Hancock. No. You see, he was sacrificed in this struggle. I 
heard he went to Arizona ; that is the last I heard. 

Mr. Tavenner. Off the record. 

(Discussion off the record.) 

Mr. Jackson. On the record. 

Mr. Hancock. And I would just like to say this: I think he is a 
hell of a nice guy, Rogers. So many people of that period just wnnted 


desperately to do something. I honestly believe that he did not have 
an evil thought in his mind. 

Mr. Doyle. An evil thought? 

Mr. Hancock. Yes. I think that everything that he did was moti- 
vated by a desire to do good. Of course, we are all motivated by a 
desire to improve our own position, but I believe Rogers is a very line 
fellow, and I believe you will think so if you come in contact with 

Mr. Jackson. Do you know if he later broke with the party? 

Mr. Hancock. Yes ; but it is not firsthand ; it is second or third- 
hand. He just drifted away — wouldn't come to any more meetings. 

Mr. Tavenner. You have mentioned the name of Garrigues. Ts 
that Charles H. Garrigues ? 

Mr. Hancock. It is C. H., parentheses "Brick" Garrigues, and I 
can't remember his first name; it probably is Charles. 

Mr. Tavenner. He has testified in executive session before this com- 
mittee and stated that he was recruited into the Communist Party 
by you, so if there is any uncertainty in your mind as to his being 
an actual member he has admitted his membership. 

Mr. Hancock. No; I have the feeling that he was a member. I 
remember driving to Coronado to talk to him as a party member in 
the matter of his becoming a labor leader, but I just don't have the 
picture of how and when I recruited him. 

I am reasonably sure he was a party member. Now you say he was. 

Mr. Tavenner. You mentioned the names of a number of other 
people, and it is not quite clear in my mind whether you identified 
them definitely as members of the party or not, and I want to see what 
you say about that. 

You mentioned the name of Mark Fisher. Was he known to you 
to be a member of the party ? 

Mr. Hancock. Well, Mark Fisher was one of this intellectual group 
that we met with. I think it is quite possible that everyone of those 
groups were actually members of the party. My problem is to try 
to say or recollect in my mind the actual physical action of them be- 
coming members of the party. 

We considered them fully in support of our program. With the 
peculiar arts that all individuals have, we considered them as exten- 
sions of the Communist strength in whatever activity we had been in. 

I, for example, don't remember recruiting Mark Fisher. Maybe 
somebody else did. I just don't remember. 

Mr. Tavenner. But, at any rate, he engaged in Communist Party 
activities with full understanding of the nature of those activities? 

Mr. Hancock. No question about that. 

Mr. Doyle. May I ask this right there : 

I notice this man Rogers, you said everytliing he did was with a 
desire to do good. 

Now, was he the revolutionary type of Communist that you testified 
to prior to the time the line changed ? 

Mr. Hancock. No, sir, he wasn't. His connection with the Com- 
munist Party was confined entirely to his trade-union activity. He 
participated in no party activity except accepting from us directions 
on what to do in his trade-union. At that period the directions we 
gave had some semblance of reasonableness to them. 


Mr. Tavenner. You mentioned the name of John Leyden. 

Mr. Haddock. Lidick, yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. I understood you to say Leyden. 

Mr. Hancock. I will correct that now. It is Lidick, I believe. 

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

Mr. Hancock. I am quite sure I recruited him. 

Incidentally, he, at a later time, identified himself with the revolu- 
tionary forces and f ouo;ht us quite vigorously. 

Mr. Tavenner. Which would indicate he withdrew from the Com- 
munist Party ? 

Mr. Hancock. Somewhere about half-way along he did a reversal, 
so that he was fully identified with the group that was fighting us. 
At an earlier period he was one of our delegates. We recruited him 
through A. C. Rogers. He was in the plasterers union, and he was 
one of our floor delegates. 

At the time that we had the president and the secretary, Lidick 
went over to the other side and fought us most vigorously, and later 
became secretary of the Central Labor Council. 

Mr. Tavenner. You mentioned a person by the name of Wosk, 

Mr. Hancock. L. David Wosk. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was he known to you to be a member of the Com- 
munist Party ? 

Mr. Hancock. He was in this group. 

I have to repeat — I think so ; I think so. 

Mr. Tavenner. Is it true from the descriptions you have given that 
he was a person who carried out the directions of the Communist Party 
and participated in Communist Party activities with Iniowledge of 
the character of those activities, that is, with knowledge that he was 
performing the will of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Hancock. The answer is "Yes." 

Mr. Jackson. Mr. Tavenner. 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes. 

Mr. Jackson. Whenever you reach a point which is convenient as a 
breaking point, I think perhaps we could all stand some lunch. 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes, sir. I would like to have just a few minutes. 

Mr. Jackson. Very well. 

Mr. Tavenner. You referred to Daisy Lee Worcester as a member 
of the Communist Party. I think you identified her definitely as a 
member of the Communist Party? 

Mr. Hancock. I simply have a stronger feeling that she was a mem- 
ber. I think they all were, but I can't pin it down. 

Mr. Jackson. Well, can we put it on this basis, that all of these 
people of whom Mr. Tavenner is inquiring now and whom you have 
named as those who did the work of the Communist Party in one way 
or another, these are all individuals with whom you have conferred 
on Communist Party problems, and I assume there were no non-Com- 
munists or anti-Communists present at the time you had these 

Mr. Hancock. There were no anti-Communists. There could have 
been non-Communists. 

Mr. Jackson. There could have been non-Communists present? 

Mr. Hancock. And with that qualification, the answer is "Yes." 


Mr. Jackson. And again, I am certainly not trying to direct your 
answer, but I am trying to pin tliis point down because it is an ex- 
tremely important point. 

Mr. Doyle. Right in there, may I add this to identify my own 

I remember, I think you said in 1934 or 1935 there was a radical 
change from the revolutionary line; that there was an unemployed 
condition around, people on relief, and then the Communist Party 
later changed to emphasize minor social changes. 

Mr. Hancock. That is correct. 

Mr. DoTLE. Well, now, does that mean that you active Communists 
and leaders stopped emphasizing the revolutionary line in fact, I mean 
you top leaders ? 

Do you get the difference? In other words, when later on? 

If I may, I want to ask more in detail on that, but I would be inter- 
ested to know when these Communist leaders in our State, Mr. Chair- 
man — because you and I both live in California — stopped, at least for 
a time, advocating the revolutionary line, which I am thinking of as 
the policy of advocating that sooner or later there would come a revo- 
lution, if need be, by force. 

Is that what I understand the revolutionary line to be that you are 
talking about? 

Mr. Hancock. In essence, that is correct. 

Mr. Doyle. Now, I mean did you top leaders in '34, '35, w^hen you 
said — I understood you to say that you abandoned the revolutionary 
line temporarily and began emphasizing minor social changes. 

Mr. Hancock. I think it would be more accurate to say that we 
violently shifted our emphasis. The hard core revolutionist always 
believed at all times that the end would have to be a revolution. 

Mr. Doyle. Now, right at that point, what kind of a revolution? 
I mean, how would that revolution come about ? 

Mr. Hancock. Well, you have a point of interest here, because it 
is a part of my personal history that I got involved in a rather serious 
dispute with the party around that issue, to the extent that somebody 
from New York State came out here ready to throw me out of the 
party, and that was the beginning of my decline. 

But to get back to this point, there was a controversy among the 
party leaders as to whether it was correct to say that it would be im- 
possible to have communism without a bloody revolution. There was 
an important trend of thought that in this existing period it can be 
voted into existence. 

I must say, to my eternal shame, that at that time my position was 
that, as a student of communism, that was not true ; that the revolu- 
tion would have to be a violent one. 

Mr. Doyle. And up until what year did you believe that ? 

Mr. Hancock. I believe it now — if you understand what I mean. 
I believe that if the Communists came into control they will come 
into control through a violent revolution. 

Mr. Jackson. That is basic doctrine, isn't it, in all of the writings, 
from Marx on through Lenin and the rest ? 

Mr. Hancock. Yes ; it is. 

Mr. Jackson. It is a theory of violent revolution; it is stated in 
so many words on many occasions. 


Mr. Hancock. Yes, it is ; but it was tempered in that united- front 
period where important sections of leadership temporized with the 
idea of what was happening in France, pointing possibly to a way of 
peaceful coming into power. 

Mr. Jackson. That was the period immediately preceding the 
Duclos letter, wasn't it ? 

Mr. Doyle. That was in April of 1945. 

Mr. Jackson. Was it a period of coexistence between communism 
and capitalism ? 

Mr. Hancock. Well, we thought of such things in terms of rela- 
tionship to the existence of Soviet Russia, maintaining its status 
indefinitely in the face of capitalist powers. We never thought of the 
existence of the Communist Party as something that would just go 
on and on forever in relation to existing hostile anti-Communist 

I think it would be correct to say that in that period there was 
considerable discussion on the possibility of bringing communism into 
effect by peaceful means, and I think it would also be true to say that 
these people that I have just named here were approached on that 
basis — maybe on the other basis, too — but they could have been ap- 
proached on a basis that this was an entirely peaceful activity. 

This group came into contact with us in the united front, in the 
surge of the united-front activity. 

Mr. DoYLE. After lunch, Mr. Chairman, and at the convenience of 
counsel, I wish this very fine witness could give us any conclusion he 
has as to the relationship of the firing of Earl Browder from the 
American Communist Party. 

Mr. Hancock. I am sorry, sir, but that happened after I left. 

Mr. Doyle. Then there had been no move prior to your leaving 
the activity as to Earl Browder being discharged ? 

Mr. Hancock. No ; he was the leader at the time. 

Mr. Doyle. All right. Thank you. 

Mr. Jackson. I think this is a very good time to break. 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jackson. Very well. The committee will stand in recess until 
2 o'clock, and reconvene at that time. 

(Whereupon, at 12 : 30 p. m., the hearing was recessed, to reconvene 
at 2 : 30 p. m., the same day.) 

afternoon session 

(At the hour of 2 : 50 p. m., of the same day, the proceedings were 
resumed, the following committee members being present: Repre- 
sentatives Donald L. Jackson (presiding), Francis E. Walter, and 
Clyde Doyle; the following staff members being present: Frank S. 
Tavenner, Jr., counsel, Thomas W. Beale, Sr., chief clerk, and George 
B. Cooper, investigator.) 

Mr. Jackson. The session of the subcommittee will continue at 
this time. 


Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Hancock, at the beginning of the recess you 
were talking of an experience that you had in the Communist Party 
when a high functionary was sent from New York to San Diego to 
correct certain deviations on your part. 


Will you tell the committee what you were referring to and explain 
the situation, please ? 

Mr. Hancock. Yes. 

It is a part of the party structure to encourage the establishment 
of bookstores in every possible community. These were generally 
known as peoples book stores, or something of that nature, a name 
like that. We had one such in San Diego. Most of the literature 
came directly through party channels. It consisted of little pamph- 
lets. One publishing company by the name of International Pub- 
lishers produced party books in hard covers, and some considerable 
material was apparently shipped in from Russia in the form of 
pamphlets, one magazine being somewhat in the format of Life maga- 
zine, called Soviet Russia Today ; another being U. S. S. R. Construc- 
tion; and a series of pamphlets or tracts which excited the attention 
of Paul Alexander and myself. 

The general tenor of these tracts was violently unacceptable in this 
country, consisting of long praises of Joe Stalin, the great leader, 
Joe Stalin, our father who taught us how to farm chickens, or how 
to dig gold, or how to catch fish, and it just sounded downright stupid. 

What we did in the eyes of the party was no doubt stupid, too, 
but Paul and I called a meeting of the county committee of the party 
and we put through a resolution, in the name of the county committee, 
that this nonsense ought to cease, and we sent it to the national 

Well, things happened. Within a short time, perhaps a couple of 
weeks, a party by the name of V. J. Jerome 

(Discussion off the record.) 

Mr. Hancock (continuing). Who was at that time a member of 
the national committee, an editor of the monthly theoretical magazine 
called The Communist, came into San Diego late one evening and 
gave us the task of calling the county committee together, and by all 
means to get a secretary, because every little pearl of wisdom he 
dropped had to be taken down. 

So, I got the committee and the secretary, and we were in what 
amounted to an all-night session — broke up about 4 or 5 o'clock in 
the morning — at which time he lectured to us, accusing us of being — 
sounds fantastic, but — Trotskyite deviationists. 

This is a dream world ; you know you can get so far and then you 
can begin to flounder. 

The county committee didn't accept it, didn't accept his recom- 
mendation, and we all thought the whole outfit was going to be thrown 
out, but the wheels began to grind. As a matter of fact, I think some 
kind of a motion was passed correcting our misunderstanding of the 
value of this literature, but the original motion of sharp personal 
censorship was not passed. 

So, he was somewhat disappointed at that, and some maneuvering 
began to take place, the ultimate result of which I found, not at all 
to my dissatisfaction, that I was no longer the leader of the party. 

This began the 6-month process that I spoke about some time early 
in 1937, and in that 6 months' process Esco L. Richardson was ap- 
pointed and/or elected county chairman, and I went up to Bakersfield 
as a CIO organizer. 

That would be the mainstream of the complication, there being 
others of a similar and perhaps more minor dissident nature. 


It was pretty well considered that even during the hectic days of 
1934 when I went into Imperial Valley that I, well, I had my good 
points, but I was somewhat erratic. 

Mr. Walter. Off the record. 

(Discussion off the record.) 

Mr. Jackson. On the record. 

Mr. Hancock. It goes back to the fact that in 1934, when I was sent 
into Imperial Valley as an organizer for what was then a completely 
party-dominated agricultural union, created and dominated by the 
Communists — I forget the name of it; it was the forerunner of this 
one we spoke of later. UCAPAWA — the valley was in complete tur- 
moil. We organized big strikes down there, and I was arrested. 
While awaiting trial, some kind of a meeting, I think it was a State 
committee meeting, was scheduled in San Francisco. 

Mr. Tavenner. Committee meeting of what ? 

Mr. Hancock. State committee meeting of the Communist Party. 
And at such a time elections were to be held for a new State com- 
mittee, and my name, as being somewhat in the news at that time, 
was put forth in nomination for State committee membership. 

Sam Darcy, who was the district organizer, resisted it and I was not 

I just cite this to indicate the lack of complete agreement that began 
at that point and finally led up to V. J. Jerome's appearance, and 
from his appearance, actually, my party activity or party authority, I 
might say happily, began to wane. 

I remained with the People's World for 3 years, or approximately so, 
but doing something that was largely routine newspaper work. 

Mr. Walter. When did you leave (California ? 

Mr. Hancock. Well, I enlisted in the merchant marine out there in 
January 1943. I got back 

Mr. Walter. At that time were you still in the party ? 

Mr. Hancock. Yes, I was maintaining a home in Santa Cruz, Calif. 
Some time, I suppose I could say around 1944, my official residence 

Mr. Walter. But when did you get out of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Hancock. 1940. 

Mr. Jackson. A total period of about 9 or 10 years ? 

Mr. Hancock. About 9 years, yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. Let us return at this point to your discussion of the 
group which met for the purpose of laying plans for infiltration of 
the American Federation of Labor. 

You will recall that I reviewed with you the names of some of those 
that you had mentioned. The last one that I mentioned was Daisy 
Lee Worcester. You stated that she was a member of a teachers 
union ? 

Mr. Hancock. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell us more about Communist Party 
activities within the Teachers Union? 

Mr. Hancock. Well, our contact with the Teachers Union was 
channeled through Daisy Lee Worcester, Harry L. Steinmetz, and one 
other teacher whose name escapes me. 

I actually have no recollection of any policy that we instigated 
affecting the Teachers Union. I think it would be very true to say 
that we endeavored at that time to have the same policies carried out 
in the Teachers Union as we did in the Central Labor Council. We, 


to the best of my recollection, controlled their delegates to the Central 
Labor Council, and the contest at that time was along the lines of 
rallying liberal and labor support for election activities, setting up 
united-front committees to sponsor candidates. 

We never actually set up any such group in San Diego, but we 
endeavored to get the Central Labor Council to support that program 
and to have its delegates to the State labor federation convention 
support that program. 

Mr. Walter. Did you attempt to infiltrate the Central Labor 
Council ? 

Mr. Hancock. Yes, we did. 

Mr. Walter. In what manner? 

Mr. Hancock. We covered that this morning. 

Mr. Walter. Oh, excuse me. 

Mr. Jackson. They finally succeeded in achieving complete domi- 

Off the record. 

(Discussion off the record.) 

Mr. Jackson. On the record. 

Mr. Tavenner. You spoke of Dr. Harry Steinmetz 

Will you spell that name. 

Mr. Hancock. S-t-e-i-n-m-e-t-z. 

Mr. Tavenner (continuing). Being used in connection with the 
party plans and work in the Teachers Union. Will you describe that 
a little more fully? 

Mr. Hancock, Well, my concern was not in the Teachers Union 
as such because, to the best of my recollection, it was a small group. 
I have no recollection of it being actually representative of the teach- 
ers as a unit in San Diego, but our concern was to have these teacher 
contacts that we had represent the policy we favored in the Central 
Labor Council, and my recollection of it working back the other 

(At this point Kepresentaitve Donald L. Jackson left the hearing 

Mr. Hancock. Except it would be truthful to say that consistency 
would require that you lay a foundation in the union to favor that 
policy on the floor of the Central Labor Council. 

But I think the record will show it was a small group dominated by 
Worcester, Steinmetz, and a couple of other names that escape me. 

Mr. Ta\^nner. You have spoken of Dr. Steinmetz' participation in 
the Central Labor Council and the part he played in the plans of the 
Communist Party to perfect your organization within that group. 

Are you in position to definitely identify Dr. Steinmetz as a member 
of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Hancock. No, sir ; I am not. I have no further information 
than what I said this morning. I will restate it if you wish. 

Mr. Tavenner. I wish you would state your position fully on that 
so that we may Iniow just what you know about Dr. Steinmetz. 

Mr. Hancock. I have to begin by saying I think it is quite likely 
that at one time or anbther every name mentioned was actually a 
member of the party. This happened about 20 years ago, and I can- 
not find in my memory the actual incident that would permit me to 
say T know they were members of the party. I do say that, with 


reservations that result from interrelation of human beings, they per- 
formed as we desired them to. They knew that Paul Alexander and 
I were officials of the party. When we met with them we met with 
their knowledge that we were projecting official party policy. 

The group had its beginning at a time when I was away from San 
Diego. It is a little unclear in my mind, but at a time when I was 
away, and I think it was that period when I was up 2 or 3 months on 
the Western Worker, there was a group came into existence called the 
Contradictory Social Problems Forum. So far as I know, it was just 
a belt organization into the party, but it attracted people of this stat- 
ure. It was through that original group that I was able to make my 
contacts with them. The specific chain was a fellow by the name of 
Peter Carr, and my uncle, Henry Hancock, with members of this 
forum, cultivated some or several of these people and passed informa- 
tion on to me so that I might cultivate them, myself, and Paul Alex- 

I am not trying to hedge here. I will say everything that I know ; 
but I don't want to say something that I don't know. 

Mr. Tavenner. And we are equally anxious that you do not. 

Now, referring again to Dr. Steinmetz, how frequently do you think 
you conferred in an official way, that is, representing the Communist 
Party, with Dr. Steinmetz regarding the work of the party under 
circumstances which he must have known of the nature of the Com- 
munist Party's interest in the matter ? 

Mr. Hancock. I would say, generally speaking, over a period of 
several months, possibly up to a year, once every week or two, with 
some variations ; people couldn't keep appointments or 

Mr. Ta\^nner. Well, as leader of the Communist Party in that 
area at that time, wouldn't you have known whether Dr. Steinmetz 
was a member of the party or not ? 

Mr. Hancock. Yes; yes, 1 w^ould, and no doubt at that time I did 
know. There would be no possibility of his being a member of the 
party without my knowing it. 

I think you are asking why I don't know now what I knew then. 
I give you this answer: There is no question I knew at that time 
whether he was or he was not. I am inclined to believe he was, but 
I have nothing in my memory that permits me to give you the details 
of it. 

Mr. Tavenner. Other than the fact that Dr. Steinmetz was carry- 
ing out Communist Party decisions ? 

Mr. Hancock. Well, that would not necessarily tie down member- 
ship. We dealt with many people who. in one degree or anotlier, 
carried out party wishes. 

Mr. Walter. Some of them unconsciously ? 

Mr. Hancock. That would be correct. 

Mr. Tavenner. But in the case of Dr. Steinmetz, it must have been 
with liis knowledge, if I have understood your testimony correctly. 

Mr. Hancock, Well, it was certainly in his knowledge that in meet- 
ing with me he was meeting with the local leader of the Communist 
Party. Our relationship was on that basis. 

Mr. Walter. Do you know anything of the infiltration into the 
aircraft industry in southern California of Communists? 

Mr. Hancock. There was something in 


One of these names here, this machinist, Mr. Cooper, that I spoke 
to you about 

Mr. Cooper. Kerrigan? 

Mr. Hancock. No. 

Mr. Cooper. Kepler? 

Mr. Hancock. No. 

Mr. Cooper. May I show you the list ? 

Mr. Hancock. Yes ; I think it would help. 

It seems to me that right about that time Consolidated Aircraft 
came into existence. 

Mr. Walter. Yes. 

Mr. Hancock. McDermott, James McDermott, a local — I think he 
lived in La Mesa — real-estate agent who had for years retained his 
membership in the machinists union, and was a member of the Com- 
munist Party, became active in the machinists union as it began to 
work in Consolidated Aircraft. 

It is very hazy in my mind, except to say that we were interested 
in the development of the union. I don't recall that we had any par- 
ticular influence there except through McDermott, who was our source 
of information. 

Mr. Walter. ^Yhilt happened to McDermott? 

Mr. Hancock. I have no idea, sir. 

Mr. Walter. Is he still there, do you know ? 

Mr. Hancock. My contact with the people in San Diego ceavsed 
largely in 1937. 

Mr. Walter. Oh, excuse me. 

Mr. Tavenner. What was McDermott's first name? 

Mr. Hancock. James; James McDermott. 

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

Mr. Hancock. Yes, he was. 

Mr. Tavenner. On what do you base your statement that he was a 
member ? 

Mr. Hancock. Well, it is very strongly in my mind that in all the 
contact I had with James McDermott it was that of his being a party 

(At this point Representative Donald L. Jackson returned to the 
hearing room.) 

Mr. Hancock. There is no doubt in my mind at all that he was a 
card-carrying member. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were j^ou acquainted with his wife? 

Mr. Hancock. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. What was her name? 

Mr. Hancock. Well, it is on the list. It escapes me now. 

He didn't work in Consolidated, but when Consolidated came into 
existence the machinists union, or the lAM [International Associa- 
tion of Machinists], claimed jurisdiction, went in and started organiz- 
ing, and McDermott was just a lay member; as such, entitled to attend 
the meetings. And there were other people we had contact with, 1 or 
2, but it is very vague in my mind, and the contacts, I think, would 
have come through McDermott. 

I have no knowledge of our attaining any influence in the Consoli- 
dated group. We had information, but not influence. We knew what 
was going on. 

Mr. Tavenner. What do you mean, you had information ? 


Mr. Hancock. Well, through McDermott, and I am sure there were 
1 or 2 others. We knew — I think that it will develop that McDermott 
got himself appointed as some kind of an organizer for the machinists 
union, I think without pay, but nevertheless, some kind of an organ- 
izer, and I can't think of these other people. 

One or two other minor characters were in the union in positions to 
advise us, keep us fully informed of what the union's plans were for 
extending their organization, making their contractual demands on 
management, and so forth. 

We should have been delighted to be influential. We were not at 
the time I was in San Diego. 

Mr. Tavenner. What was the general type of information which 
you received through McDermott ? 

Mr. Hancock. It would have to do with his relaying to us informa- 
tion given at the union meetings on grievances described by the shop 
stewards, plans of the officials to build up their membership to a point 
of demanding recognition of the union, wage demands, and that sort 
of thing. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was that information useful to the Communist 
Party as a basis for making the issues of the union the issues of the 
Communist Party ? 

Mr. Hancock. Well, we considered it useful for the purpose of hav- 
ing a knowledge of an important field which we hoped would permit 
us to gain further adherence from the employees there, and eventually 
assume considerable influence in the aircraft industry. That was the 
iiltimate intention. 

Mr. Tavenner. Can you give the committee any further informa- 
tion regarding Communist Party activity within the airplane field? 

Mr. Hancock. I don't believe I can ; but, to place this period in rela- 
tion to the overall situation, I perhaps should mention that at the same 
time we developed some influence in the fishermen's union and in the 
longshoremen's union. 

In the longshoremen's union, which was already in existence, we 
had — the names escape me — 1 or 2 party members. It is a small or- 
ganization in San Diego, maybe a hundred people altogether at that 

Mr. Walter. The fishermen's union, was it up at San Pedro? 

Mr. Hancock. Our union was affiliated to the one at San Pedro. 

Now, that is a development which, to the best of my recollection, 
took place in this 6-month period of my diminishing control and in- 
fluence in San Diego. I remember that somebody was sent down 
from San Pedro to take charge, and to create and take charge of the 
San Diego Fishermen's Union, and that person was a party member. 

Mr. Walter. What was his name? 

Mr. Hancock. I have no idea, and I haven't run across it in any 
of these names, either. 

Mr. Walter. Off the record. 

(Discussion off the record.) 

Mr. Jackson. On the record. 

Mr. Hancock. So this person, who was not known to me before, 
came in and introduced himself as a fellow party member, was ap- 

f)ointed as secretary of the fishermen's union, and they had a pretty 
ively group ; and about at that point I went up to Bakersfield to or- 
ganize the CIO. 


Mr. Tavenner. What about your activity in the longshoremen's 
union ? 

Mr. Hancock. We had 1 or 2 members. We succeeded by having 
people like Lee Gregovich, whose name is on the list, talk to the 
already elected officials. We succeeded in pretty well holding them in 
line for the State federation of labor convention in San Diego and, 
of course, they came in contact with Harry Bridges and his crowd, 
and the group came down. We exercised some influence 

Let me go back just a bit here. 

We issued a mimeographed newspaper, trade-union newspaper, 
called Trade Union News. We issued it for a couple of years. It 
came out every week. It was printed anonymously. I believe we said 
it was published by rank and file members of the American Federation 
of Labor. It, at one time, played a rather important part in this 
overall struggle. 

The contents of this weekly mimeographed publication consisted 
of reports from various unions on what actually went on during the 
union meeting. Also, it was heavily larded with editorials on our own 
issues or drives. 

I have in my memory getting reports from somebody in the long- 
shoremen's union as to just what went on in the meeting, and we would 
report it in there, report it anonymously. 

We also had, through some method that escapes me, secured the 
membership list of the longshoremen's union, so we sent it to all the 
longshoremen and it developed some influence on them in this manner. 
We sent it to several hundred trade unionists in San Diego, and it was 
presented in such a way that it exercised for a period some decisive 

We liad such reports from perhaps 15 or 20 unions, in addition to 
what went on in the Central Labor Council. 

Mr. Walter. How was it paid for ? 

Mr. Hancock. By donations from the trade union members of the 
Communist Party. The cost was very little. 

Mr. Walter. Was anybody else solicited ? 

Mr. Hancock. Solicited — no, no. 

Mr. Walter. Just the Communist members of the union ? 

Mr. Hancock. No, I would have to qualify that. It was a part of 
our strategy that when somebody would express interest in apprecia- 
tion of the contents then they would be asked if they didn't want to 
contribute; and I think we carried appeals in there, "Send in a dollar 
for a subscription," or something like that. But actually to put it 
out, it probably cost us $10 a week and it represented no financial 

Mr. Tavenner. This may be a very good place for you to tell the 
committee more about the [California] State Federation of Labor con- 
vention which you have mentioned several times, as to what part the 
Communist Party plaj'ed in that convention. 

You told us about the fraction meeting which occurred prior to that 

Mr. Hancock. Yes. 

Mr, Tavenner. We would like to know what the objectives of the 
Communist Party were in that convention, as well as to understand 
how tlie party manipulated its work. 


Mr. Hancx)ck. May I say to begin with that I have made a compre- 
hensive report of this activity to the Bureau of Immigration and 

Mr. Tavenner. Off the record. 

(Discussion off the record.) 

Mr. Jackson. On the record. 

Mr. Hancock. You may observe that I struggle mightily to recall 
these incidents, and it is quite possible I will deviate in some respect 
from what I have already said. I just say that that is the way things 
come back to mind, and will tell it the best I can. 

We did research very heavily into it, to the point where I took a 
couple of days in the I. & S. offices in San Francisco and read all 
the Western Workers of that period to refresh my memory, bring back 
incidents, names, and so forth, and it helped. That was 1949, 5 years 

Mr. Tavenner. Was that work done on the west coast or was it 
done in Washington. 

Mr. Hancock. No ; it was done on the west coast in the office of the 
I. & S. in San Francisco. So it is a complicated thing ; I may leave out 
things ; I may not have them in exactly the right sequence, but I will do 
the best I can with them. 

Mr. Walter. Are there any Communists coming across the border, 
1 mean in any appreciable number ? 

Mr. Hancock. You mean from Mexico ? 

Mr. Walter. Yes. 

Mr. Hancock. You know, it is rather interesting — ^first of all, I 
liave to say no. 

Secondly, there was one period when Communists from Tijuana 
came into our bookstore in San Diego and invited us — they were 
Communist officials of the labor unions down there — invited us to 
come to their labor council meetings. I went — and understood very 
little, it all being in Spanish. 

Mr. Walter. Actually, it is very difficult for any white person to 
get across the border without proper identification, isn't it ; a Mexican 
can do it ? 

Mr. Hancock. No, sir, when you live on the border there is no 
requirement; as I recollect, you can get into Tijuana at almost any 
time of the day or night. It seems to me they ask you questions like 
"How long are you going to be here ?" Like Canada, if you are going 
to stay for several days you have to get visas, and what-not, I think, 
but during prohibition days the whole population went down to 
Tijuana, drank their beer, and came back in the evening. 

Mr. Jackson. It is open. They used to have a 6 o'clock closing 
time, but they changed that. 

Mr. Hancock. Maybe I could say briefly something that the Fed- 
eral Bureau of Investigation was interested in, and it is awfully 
sketchy but perhaps plays a part in your overall thinking here. To 
the best of my knowledge I was in contact just once with a person 
whom I was advised was a C. I. representative, representative of the 
Communist International. This happened sometime around 1935 at 
my liome in San Diego, a snuill, rather slender fellow whose features 
I cannot recall. He came to my house and properly identified himself 
and did not say himself that he Avas C. I. representative but wanted 
me to become the State oro-anizer of the Young Communist League. 


It was not my wish to do so. I have no doubt at that time I was 
flattered at the request. I was asked to think it over. I made no move 
in that direction but later the Young Communist League leader in 
Los Angeles, Ben Dobbs, spoke to me about the incident and identified 
this person whose name is in my mind as Max somebody, as a C. I. 
representative. That was considered a very exciting event, to deal 
with such a person. I have looked at pictures and searched my mind 
for further details but that is the only thing that I can recall about 
this person supposedly from Russia. 

Mr. Tavenner. To what extent were the activities of the San Diego 
County organization integrated or coordinated with tlie Los Angeles 
County ? 

Mr. Hancock. In the very early days we were set up as a part of 
Los Angeles. As another name, I have just thought of Ida Rothstein, 
who was my original contact. In the very earliest days of my contact 
with the Communist Party, I attended the Los Angeles County com- 
mittee meetings. They were not called county committee meetings. 
I cannot remember what they were called. The term "county com- 
mittee" came into existence in the united front period. Somewhere 
in the first few months when San Diego was separated as a separate 
unit, it became answerable to San Francisco or what was then called 
the district 13 office, which originally included California, Arizona, 
Idaho, and Oregon; I think Oregon. Seattle was another district. 
Later California became a unit itself and outside of the first few 
months we were a part of the State organization answerable to San 

Mr. Tavenner. And the person you mentioned by the name of Max, 
was that Max Bedacht ? 

Mr. Hancock. Oh, no ; I know that name. He was a rather elderly 
fellow in the International Workers' Order. This was a young man 
with no connection at all with that organization. 

Mr. Tavenner. You w^ere about to describe for us the activity of 
the party in connection with the convention of the [California] State 
Federation of Labor. 

Mr. DoTLE. I wonder if the record should not show how you know 
that this man who gave you the invitation to the Young Communist 
League probably operated from Russia? You mentioned supposedly 
from Russia. 

Mr. Hancock. I thought I covered that. I was so advised by the 
head of the Young Communist League in Los Angeles. 

Mr, DoYLE. He did not tell you himself ? 

Mr. Hancock. I don't recall that. 

Mr. DoYLE. You say he identified himself to you. As what? 

Mr. Hancock. I cannot say exactly, but suitable identification 
would be to have some message from our State organization. I can 
say very definitely that subsequent inquiry on my part in the State 
organization confirmed he was a CI representative. 

Mr. Tavenner. What was the name of the head of the Young Com- 
munist League in Los Angeles ? 

Mr. Hancock. Ben Dobbs. The circumstances in relation to the 
State Federation of Labor convention in San Diego were as follows : 
Some few weeks prior to the convention date, a man by the name of 
Jack Johnstone, and I have since been told he is dead, and I thought 
at that time he was an Englishman, I understood at that time he was 


a charter member of the national party and he was a cantankerous 
old soul, if I do say so, he came to San Diego interested in the prepa- 
ration of the San Diego organization for the State convention. 
These preparations were to, union by union, do our best to have the 
right delegates elected to the State convention meeting and whatever 
delegates were elected, to start working on them to support our pro- 
gram. Our program consisted of several things, one a leftwing slate 
of officers headed by Harry Bridges ; No. 2, such resolutions as create 
and support a united labor party; several other leftist resolutions, 
such as opposing the criminal syndicalism law. 

In 1949 I reviewed the minutes of the convention and was able to 
recall a great deal more. But this was the general tenor of our activ- 
ity. Just a day or two before the convention began, Walter Lambert, 
who had the title of State trade union director for the Communist 
Party, came to town and advised me that several of the northern dele- 
gates who are also party members were arriving in town. Some of 
them had taken rooms at a place called the Sumner apartments at 12th 
and B Streets in San Diego, just took rooms there. That is all. We 
later had a meeting. I know A. C. Rogers was there and possibly 
Harry Steinmetz, Harry Bridges was there. Jack Johnstone, a fellow 
by the name of Raven, a member of the Los Angeles Cleaners and 
Dyers Union, some sailors from the Sailors' Union of the Pacific, and 
some longshoremen. These names are on record. It was not in my 
memory at that time. At this time we went over strategy as to how 
we would conduct our fight on the floor of the convention. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was Henry Schmidt there ? 

Mr. Hancock. Yes, I am quite sure he was. He was in that group 
at that time. 

Mr. Walter, In view of the fact that it was not and is not a crime 
to be a Communist, why were so many meetings held by Communist 
Party members surrounded with such secrecy ? 

Mr. Hancock. First of all, I must say it was a very realistic policy 
for the Communists in the light of subsequent events. At that time 
some of it was due to the presence of people who were either first- or 
second-generation foreign born who brought with them memories of 
the revolutionary activities overseas. 

Mr. Walter. You had be better be careful now. I was charged with 
being anti-Semitic because I mentioned the names of many of these 
people. We had a hearing of Philadelphia school teachers and after a 
while I became struck by the names and I asked one of the witnesses 
where she was born, and she told me in the United States. I asked 
her where her parents were born and she said Russia. Then Mr. 
Kunzig, counsel for our committee, said that 39 out of 40 of the school 
teachers were either sons or daughters of fathers or mothers, or both, 
who were born in Russia. 

You seemed to have confirmed the very thing that sort of entered my 
mind. They brought this Old World revolutionary ideology with 

Mr. Hancock. Secrecy and so forth. I have no idea what percent- 
age of Russians were there, but it was during my period, especially in 
the early days, first and second generation of foreign-born people were 
of a rather large percentage in the organization, of whom a large 
percentage were Jewish and perhaps an equal percentage Russian. 
Bear in mind we are not talking about large numbers. Communists 
operate in small groups. 


Mr. Walter. But wliy the secrecy ? It was not a crime. 

Mr. Hancock. Well, the atmosphere was that you were steeped in 
the education of the struggles of the Communist Party, Russian Com- 
munist Party. The history of that party goes back to 1905 where they 
had a bloody revolution and it was beaten down and I think, to a large 
degree, the people who were there were establishing the mood and 
atmosphere, they were reflecting Old World experiences. I think there 
is something more in identifying my, I am sorry to say, slow drifting 
away from the Communist Party — with a growing comprehension of 
the Russian influence in the Communist Party. 

Mr. Walter. Weren't some of these people, and I have given this 
an awful lot of thought since the other day, weren't these people 
ashamed because they realized, perhaps only subconsciously, that it 
was not in the best interests of the worker whom they spoke for to do 
what they were doing? 

Mr. Hancock. I think there was an element of that, a shame of 
another form. People were fearful they would lose their jobs if they 
were not secretive about it. 

Mr. Doyle. I asked you something about revolutionary teachings 
and philosophy, even though it was not an illegal party. Was the 
secrecy of the place of meeting promulgated from the top because the 
top hard-core Communists, even at that time, were consciously aware 
that they were advocating that at some time there would be a necessary 
forceful revolution in the United States ? Am I in error on that ? 

Mr. Hancock. I believe you are correct. If I may say so, while 
San Diego was only a small part of the State and national activity, it 
never had the deep significance of the struggles on the San Francisco 
waterfront, but the fact is that as local leaders, we were required to be 
theoreticians, or attempt to be, and we made considerable studies of 
communism beginning with Das Kapital, written by Marx, and vari- 
ous volumes by Engels and so forth, and Lenin's contributions. It was 
a great party activity at one time to publish and have widely dis- 
seminated 10 volumes by Lenin and the person who considered hnnself 
a Communist leader had this knowledge in mind, which was simply 
a quote, or at least the sense of a quote, from some of Lenin's writ- 
ings, that in order to bring about the Communist state there were 
several requirements : One is the failure on the part of the opposition 
to act, the paralysis of the opposition, the breakdown of existing 
society as No. 1. No. 2, a strong and evident indication of revolu- 
tionary zeal or fervor among large parts of the population. 

They say nothing about leadership at this point. The populace, 
by various tests, is ready to move into revolutionary action. No. 3, 
the existence of a hard Communist core which, at the signal, will 
say, "Now start shooting," which is one way of expressing it. These 
are the three major requirements that party theoreticians say are 
necessary for a movement into a Communist dictatorship. 

Mr. Jackson. On that point of secrecy, isn't it a true evaluation to 
state that the very nature of revolution is secret? 

Mr. Hancock. I would say so. 

Mr. Jackson. When you go to the barricades, you don't tell the 
police, and in the depths of the being of every philosophical Marxist- 
Leninist is the knowledge that he is doing something which is contrary 
to law in seeking this eventual revolution by force which necessitates, 


in turn, that he cloak all his activities consciously and subconsciously 
in such things as assumed names, secret meeting places, and things of 
that sort. It seems to me that violent revolution is inherent in the 
Communist philosophy, and as a consequence you don't tell the police- 
man when you are going to start shooting. 

Mr. Hancock. I think you could say yes. You could almost say 
when you are proposing to rob a bank you don't hold your discussions 
on the subject in tlie public square. 

Mr. Jackson. Exactly. 

Mr. Hancock. And that you know sooner or later that there will 
be a conflict with the existing authority. It is important to bear 
in mind the wild violations in the Communist Party in point of time. 
In the early united front time, there was a wild speculation of bring- 
ing this all about peaceably. I think they were permitted and 
Browder's ascendancy was a part of the domination of this theory, 
it was permitted as perhaps a necessary evil, the old hard-core revolu- 
tionaries, of course, felt that that was nonsense, but if you can bring 
in people, liberals and leftists, let them believe it can be voted in 
and then show them it cannot be voted in. 

If I may, let me say something I have in mind here, something 
that is an essential part of the Communist strategy and drives an 
awful lot of people out of the Communist Party, and I am speaking 
now of violence. I don't know about anyone else, but we learned, 
and it was a bitter pill to take, that there were times when the Com- 
munists wanted violence. We were never told that. We just saw it 
happen. We were told that we would prepare ourselves for the 
violent struggle because those in power will never give it up willingly 
and when the people overwhelmingly express their desire for some- 
thing and it is denied them, they have every right to fight for it. 
George Washington was a revolutionary^, and so forth. 

I have in mind several minor events that convince me that it is an 
integral part of the Communist Party philosophy to provoke violence. 
{Something happened in San Diego, and the name Leo Gallagher, an 
attorney of some prominence in Los Angeles, came up, associated with 
the Civil Liberties'. In that period of time, I was in San Francisco and 
there w^as some kind of people's demonstration organized. They 
brought a lot of people down from Los Angeles to attend this thing. 
Most of the people were Los Angeles people. My mother was there 
and of course several other people when I came back from San Fran- 
cisco told me about it. They wanted to parade from some open park 
up to some place. It seems to me it was to the Unitarian Church. I 
don't know. The permit for the parade had been denied. There was 
a little hysteria in the air and the police were present to prevent the 
march, and although the name escapes me now, there was quite a vio- 
lent repercussion in our ranks because the party provoked tlie riot that 
ensued. In the face of this overwhelming authority which said "No, 
you cannot march," they started marching, and my recollection is that 
they had their kids there and they put their kids out in front, and 
I am only telling you what was told to me. My mother had a very 
violent reaction to it. I think she was there. It was very sharp in 
her mind. There was quite a bit of screaming and I remember the 
expression, the people from Los Angeles used language we never 
heard of. They called the policemen cossacks. They must have come 


from Russia to use such expressions. We had in our mind that the 
party provoked that riot. Several people were arrested and were 
beaten and it was made a big civil-liberties deal and it seems to me the 
court case petered out. Leo Gallagher was the defending attorney. 
Maybe somebody went to jail. I think not. I think finally it was 

Mr. Tavenner. You say they brought down the people from Los 
Angeles. Who was "they"? 

Mr. Hancock. It was an organizational activity of the Communist 
Party, to the best of my knowledge, that is what it was. If I am 
testifying in a court of law, I have to say exactly what I know. I tell 
you that is what I know as well as I am in this room. I know the 
party organized it, but it would be difficult to say that this man who 
was a party man organized this action. There was no question but 
what I am saying was that it was a party activity. I was a par- 
ticipant in an activity in the Imperial Valley, where we had several 
thousand, 6,000, I think it was, workers on strike. The wage at that 
time was 18 cents an hour. We had demands for 25 and 30 cents an 
hour. In the early stages, the growers who, I am sorry to say, were 
badly hurt by those activities, were ready to negotiate. A fellow by 
the name of Elmer, real name Efim Hanoff, was present as the State 
representative in the Imperial Valley. 

Mr. Tavenner. State representative of what? 

Mr. Hancock. Of the State committee of the Communist Party. A 
young lady by the name of Dorothy Ray and myself were running the 
strike. It was one of those spontaneous things that all of a sudden we 
had 6,000 people, soup kitchens, and miles of cars picketing. We had 
an offer from the growers of 2 cents. It made sense to accept it, even 
from the Communist Party point of view, even from my knowledge of 
it. We had no organization. These people were desperate. Under 
directions, direct instructions from Efim Hanoff, I was not permitted 
to accept it. I was subsequently arrested and served 6 months in the 
Imperial County jail. Hanoff, being an undercover man all the time, 
escaped and rushed up to San Francisco to make a report to the State 
committee, wliich was printed in the Western Worker in some abbrevi- 
ated form. When I was released on bail, I went to San Francisco just 
in time to get to the State convention, and that was the conflict I men- 
tioned earlier, being somewhat in the news I was nominated for a mem- 
ber of the State committee and Sam Darcy, the State organizer, and 
working very closely with Hanoff, vetoed it. Here again the party 
did not want the solution. At least they did not want it at that time. 
Commonsense and every intelligence demanded that it should be done. 
I think without question to some degree this agricultural foment in 
California at that time was fostered by the party with the thought in 
mind of whipping up something tremendous. 

Perhaps you gentlemen recall there were strikes in the cotton fields, 
in the lettuce fields, in the packing sheds. The party played a pretty 
influential part in those activities. I know nothing about the admin- 
istration of it. But my own little experience in the Imperial Valley 
gave me the feeling that there was something screwy here. 

Mr. Waltp:r. Where did the orders come from? 

Mr. Hancock. There is a chain of command. I will tell you what 
I know and what I believe. Many of those came from the State. For 
instance, my orders came from the State leaders of the party. 


Mr. Walter. For example, in the Imperial Valley situation, did the 
leaders of the Communist Party in California discuss the advisability 
of settling this strike with the Communist Party leaders of the United 
States before orders were transmitted to you ? 

Mr. Hais^cock. Did they discuss it with the national organization? 

Mr. Walter. Yes. 

Mr. Hancock. I think not. I think it would not be done for that. 
Usually there is some labor representative in the State office, at least 
where there is something happening, and he will speak for the national 

Mr. Walter. Is that the situation here? 

Mr. Hancock. I cannot say because I was in the Imperial Valley 
and our lines of communication were very bad. 

Mr. Walter. But in most instances where a situation of this sort 
existed, there was somebody present at State headquarters to give the 
proper national guidance? 

Mr. Hancock. That is correct. I think I can go a bit further. It 
is my very strong belief, based on my experience in that period of time 
in the labor group, that there was a C. I. representative. In the State 
group, especially when things began to get exciting, there is a national 
representative and, as previously testified, right on down on the 
scene of the strike there was a State representative. 

Mr. Walter. In other w^orcls, to some degree, the entire activity of 
a local strike was controlled by a representative of the Russian 
Cominf orm ? 

Mr. Hancock. At least in policy, general strategy ; that would be 

Mr. Tavenner. You referred a number of times to the Western 
Worker. Do you know where we may obtain copies of the Western 

Mr. Hancock. Yes. Copies at one time were on file in the public 
library of San Francisco. I think many libraries in California will 
have them. The I. N. S. brought me a complete file, bound file. 

Mr. Jackson. That was the predecessor to the Daily People's 

Mr. Hancock. Yes. I recalled it. They were asking me so many 
things that I said, "Get me the papers and let me look through." It is 
almost, in some respects it is, a minute account of what the Communists 
are interested in and there are all kinds of names in there too, and so 
they brought me several bound volumes. I pored over them for 2 or 3 

Mr. Ta\^nner. Let us return again now to the convention of the 
State federation of labor which you were describing. I believe at the 
point when we began discussing these other matters you were telling 
us of a fraction meeting at some hotel. 

Mr. Hancock. The Sumner Apartments. This was the subject of 
my testimony at the Harry Bridges trial in San Francisco. The 
I. & S. took me to California and took me into the Sumner Apart- 
ments to see if I could find tlie room we met in. I could not, exce])t 
that I was clear in my mind that that was where we met. They 
wanted to develop something further. 

Mr. Tavenner. You were telling us the objectives of the Communist 
Party and then you started to describe this fraction meeting which I 
assume was for the purpose of outlining the strategy to be used. 


Mr. Hancock. On the floor of the convention. 

Mr. Tavenner. And I think you have ah-eady given us the names 
of those who took part in this fraction meeting, inckiding Harry 

Mr. Hancock. That is correct. I am trying to think if I have left 
out any names that I am familiar with. I have left out names of 
people there. There were roughly 8 to 12 people there. Some of the 
people I met for the first and last time at that meeting. The sig- 
nificant names I have given. When you mentioned Henry Schmidt, 
I am quite sure I testified, which means I recognized him as one of 
the persons present, but my previous testimony will show that. I 
think he was on trial with Bridges in this thing. 

Mr. Tavenner. That is correct. 

Mr. Hancock. If a saw a roster, I would recognize other names of 
the seamen and sailors. Oh, I know, big John Shoemaker was there. 

The gist of it was this was the procedure in which, in effect, it was 
a State fraction meeting, fraction meeting being different from what 
I was used to in that I would organize meetings of all members and 
possibly friends of our members in a given San Diego organization 
going to influence that meeting and there was a meeting where Bridges 
and the northern people were present with our southern people. If I 
recall correctly, it was the duty of the San Diego chairman, which 
would have meant Harry Steinmetz, to open the meeting as the host 
council. Harry Steinmetz made a welcoming speech and turned the 
meeting over to Ed Vanderleur, who was State president. 

Mr. Ta\t2Nner. I thought Vandeleur was the head of the opposition 
to the Communist Party. 

Mr. Hancock. Yes, he was; but the convention was held in our 

Mr. Tavenner. I think- you might tell us what occurred at this 
fraction meeting which was attended by Harry Bridges before coming 
to the convention itself. 

]\Ir. Hancock. I would like to start by saying there must have been 
more than one fraction meeting. This being so long ago, I am recall- 
ing this particular incident. I think there were meetings that I did 
attend. I was not a trade-union delegate, and AValter Lambert's pres- 
ence was the party representation. There must have been other meet- 
ings. I have knowledge of only this one. Jack Johnstone was tlie 
national representative present. Then the general tone of the meeting 
was to review who were the elected delegates from the important 
organizations. I cannot recall any single conversation, but it was 
important for us to make a last-minute count of who was coming 
down. I recall somebody was elected and his wife was sick and he 
could not get there and possibly would come later. We needed to de- 
termine our strength to begin with. We made some decisions that 
we would introduce this resolution and we would withhold these 
others. When we made that decision, then the representative of that 
union would take the resolution and lay it before the secretary of 
the convention. The slate of officers was a matter of concern to us. 
We debated who we would put up for president, who would we put up 
for secretary and who would we put up for the regional representa- 
tives of the State federation, and I forget the title. We had an oppo- 
sition slate. Every area is entitled to a representative on the State 


committee of the State federation. We had an opposition slate. Soy 
at that last minute we were going over such things as is there any 
change necessary here ? Is this fellow all right and shall we support 
this and so forth? These men that we supported included Commu- 
nists and non-Communists, but by all means they had to be at vari- 
ance with people like Vanderleur, a stanch conservative. That was 
the general nature of our fraction meeting. 

Part of the strategy, too, was who will talk on this resolution, who 
will nominate this resolution and who will second the resolution. It 
gets very involved, but it is very effective when it works out. 

Mr. Tavenner. That brings you up to the convention itself ? 

Mr. Hancock. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. You started to tell us that Dr. Harry Steinmetz 
opened the convention. What position did he hold which would 
entitle him to open the meeting ? 

Mr. Hancock. He was president of the San Diego Federated Coun- 
cil of Labor Unions, or a shorter name is the Central Labor Council. 
As such, he was the host officer and opened the meeting and made a 
speech and turned it over to Ed Vanderleur. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was there anything that occurred during the course 
of that convention which would demonstrate the methods of opera- 
tion of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Hancock. Yes, there was a very sharp floor fight. Inciden- 
tally, I must tell you that, and it comes back to me now that I sat in 
the gallery and sat and watched it and reported fully on it in the trade 
union news that we put out. I was disappointed, as a Communist, 
at what Harry Steinmetz said, from my point of view, which is another 
way of saying that we had no influence or did not choose to or did not 
try to get around to finding out what he was going to say. 

To get into the actual proceeding of the meeting, the fraction meet- 
ing that we held was the core of a larger group of dissidents 
or opponents, of existing officers. It is proper strategy, accepted 
strategy, that they held a caucus meeting and through our good offices 
and through our control of the San Diego situation, we held it in the 
offices of the Central Labor Council vv^here we invited all left-wing, 
I suppose we called it, or progressive or democratic delegates to attend 
so that the chain was that the decisions made at the party fraction 
which sometimes does include nonparty members and, to the best of 
my knowledge, everybody there was a party member, were then car- 
ried to the floor of the left wing caucus, and I don't recall any change 
being made in them, and on the basis of the approval of the left wing 
caucus, they were then presented on the floor of the convention. 
It builds up from a very tiny party membership involving a very few 
into a larger fraction and going into a left-wing caucus and then going 
on the floor of the convention. We had some sharp differences on the 
floor and some pretty violent words wore mentioned on the floor. 

In the show of strength Bridges was stronger than ever before, but 
I think roughly the Bridges ticket got 25 percent of the votes. It 
was considered a very marked step forward. And San Diego pro- 
duced about 50 percent of the local vote. You see, the delegate votes 
for his members. We produced about 50 percent of the San Diego 
movements, and that excited comment all over. 

Mr. Doyle. In other words, you had delegates representing numeri- 
cally about one-half of the union membership of San Diego? 


Mr. Hancock, No, we did not have the delegates, but sympathetic 
to us and working with us were the highest officers like Steinmetz 
and so when their highest officers voted for us, the sheep went along. 

Mr. Doyle. Evidently from what you said you had not undertaken 
to control w^hat the chairman said, Steinmetz. Did he say anything 
that you can now recall ? 

Mr. Hancock. Something that had no bearing on the clashes that 
were to come. It was one of those polite 5-or lO-mmute speeches. 

Mr. Doyle. He was chairman of the convention ? 

Mr. Hancock. Opening chairman. 

Mr. Jackson. Did he attend the meeting ? 

Mr. Hancock. No, he was not present. A. C. Rogers attended. 
By the way, I want to correct something in your notes there. You 
have on this list of names A. C. Rogers, Sr., and A. C. Rogers, Jr. 
Possiblv there is some confusion here. An old fellow by the name 
of A. (jr. Rogers was there, editor of the trade-union publication of 
the labor movements, no connection with that whatsoever. I think 
you may have the confusion of A. G. Rogers and A. C. Rogers. I 
don't recall A. C. Rogers having a son. Maybe he did. 

Mr. Tavenner. Is there anything in addition that you can tell us 
about the convention which you think would be of interest to the 
committee ? 

Mr. Hancock. I am sorry, I cannot. The preceding and the sub- 
sequent conventions all represented a continuation of this struggle, the 
one in San Diego I was more familiar with. It is my recollection 
that that represented something of a high mark in Harry Bridges' 
attempt to gain, to force his way into leadership in the State organiza- 
tion. At a later convention, he was actually elected as one of the 
regional directors of the State federation, but at this point there was 
a head-on clash to unseat the old people and take over the 

Mr. Tavenner. Going back to the Central Labor Council again, 
I would like to ask you whether a person by the name of Sterling 
Campbell Alexander was connected with it. 

Mr. Hancock. Sterling Campbell Alexander is the person I pre- 
viously referred to as Paul Alexander. 

Mr. Tavenner. The same person ? 

Mr. Hancock. Yes, the same person, 

Mr. Walter. Suppose we made it illegal to participate in the activi- 
ties of this group who are engaged in Communist Party activities? 
Would it make it more difficult for them to continue their conspiracy? 

Mr. Hancock. I am really not qualified to answer that. I can give 
you a personal opinion but it is not very valuable. The first thing 
that comes to my mind is what will you then have done to move 
people who are left of center further over to the radical side? That 
is what the Communists think would happen. They think if you 
drive them over into illegality, they will get the staunch liberals 
closer and closer to the Communists. It seems to me if you make it 
absolutely illegal it ought to be highly restrictive. They are used to 
working in an illegal way, but it ought to restrict their capacity to find 

There are situations in the world that sort of belie that. For exam- 
ple, the Mexican Communist Party was declared illegal. It just 
sprang up under another name. 


Mr. Walter. I know. So many people don't realize the fact that 
you cannot make a party illegal. You can make it a crime or you 
can made it prohibitive to do a certain thing, which of course makes, 
in effect, the constitution of a group doing that thing illegal and 
thereby makes the party illegal, I suppose. I am wondering what 
effect it would have now when the party is underground if the activi- 
ties of its members were spelled out precisely as constituting a crime 
against the United States. 

Mr. Hancock. Well, I suggest what would happen is that the Com- 
munist Party, so named, would disappear, and the "American Labor 
something or other" would come into existence. 

Mr. Walter. Yes, but what it was doing would be the same as the 
Communists were doing, and that would be a crime. 

Mr. Jackson. You outlaw a specific sect or activity. It is a matter 
of definition. 

Mr. Hancock. You have the greatest definition, the organization 
believing in overthrowing the Government. That is a very good defi- 
nition and far better than to say Communist. 

Mr. Doyle. Isn't that under the Smith Act? It is already outlawed 
under that act. 

Mr. Jackson. Only the fact of conspiring to advocate and teach 
violence, but not membership in the party itself. 

Mr. Hancock. I really don't know. I wish to God I did know the 
answer to that. I prefaced my remarks by saying I am not qualified. 
I tell you quite frankly that I am not one who believes that ex- 
Communists are oracles of wisdom. I think ex-Communists have very 
little to give to society. 

Mr, Walter. I do not agree with you therein. You have given 
us a great deal. 

Mr. Hancock. I want to say that first of all it is important to throw 
light on what happens. There is a very great danger, and here I find 
that I come to a blank wall, I say there is a danger in what I per- 
sonally cannot do anything about because of my past activities, but 
there is a danger that in creating restriction you will move people over 
from this side of the fence to that side of the fence. 

I am a student of the English type of government, which en- 
courages loyal opposition and has very real opposition. There is a 
terrific advantage in having the opposition out in the open so that 
you can bat them down. 

Mr. Jackson. There is a distinction between the loyal opposition 
and a disloyal opposition. I am certain that all of us are convinced 
that a 2 party system or a 3 party system is an excellent thing. We 
represent it here in the House. However, I think the general feeling 
of the American people is too often to consider the Communist Party 
as a political party, per se, as Americans know political parties, when 
actually it is not. 

Mr. Hancock. No : it is not. Possibly the solution may be .some- 
thing in this field. First of all, I think that it would be very difficult 
for the Communists to escape their own doctrine which gives us all 
their literature stee]:)ed in that theory. Whatever they call themselves, 
they are identified with the existing definitions of communism. Let 
us say that theoretically this group can be outlawed. 

Mr. Walter. You fall right into the thing that many of us have 
fallen into. I always believed that if anything was wrong it could 


not continue to exist, but this thing has been going on a long while 
and it is wrong, in my opinion. 

Mr. Hancock. It is such a vast field. It goes on for two reasons^ 
roughly. One is that it is fed by a foreign influence. Without Russia, 
it would not be a problem. 

Mr. Wali^er. How would anybody in his right mind today, having 
access to all of the means of communication that we have, permit 
Russia to dictate to him for 1 second ? They know that there are slave 
labor camps. They know that in China, in order to eliminate opposi- 
tion, 15 million people were murdered. Why would people tolerate it? 

Mr. Hancock. They don't know about it. They won't believe it. 

Mr. Jackson. We have had witnesses who say that is simply propa- 
ganda on the other side. 

Mr. Hancock. I believe it now, but I did not believe it for a long 

Mr. Jackson. What is your other reason ? 

Mr. PIancock. I sincerely believe that the American Communist 
movement is an instrument of Russian imperialism or, to be more 
gpecific, it is an instrument of the Russian National Government. 
The process of applying control over the American party is presented 
in a way that the average American has no concept of tlie actual 
Russian control. As a full-fledged, highly respected member of the 
Communist Party, I had very little concept of the roots running all 
the way back to Russia. Tlieir representatives, in secrecy, meet with 
carefully selected American representatives, of whom a good per- 
centage are foreign born, in the national committee of the American 
Communist Party. The others are brought into a frame of mind to 
accept that. In the highest leadership, they do have to accept the 
fact that there is foreign domination. 

From that point on down, the foreign domination is diluted to the 
State groups and so forth. We were told to be very friendly to these 
Russian people who had blazed the trail for the rest of the world. 
We did not say that when the Russian snaps the whip the American 
Communist Party starts dancing. Enlightenment is the answer there. 

The second question is why does this evil persist in your knowledge 
and mine ? In my estimation, the second reason lies in the economy 
we live in, in the economic conditions and the times, the failure of 
society to properly carry out its obligations. I ask you to remember 
what little we did in San Diego and which was detrimental to society's 
best interests, where possible, because the local relief people were 
paralyzed. People were hungry and nobody did anything about it 
and the Communists jumped in. When we allow injustice to exist, 
or when we move too slowly to correct it, we allow unthinking, unin- 
telligent people to move and say, "By God, it is time for somebody 
else to move in." 

Mr. Jackson. Were you acquainted with Charles Judson, a news- 
paper man ? 
Mr. Hancock. I don't recall the name. 

Mr. Jackson. Mr. Judson appeared and cooperated with the com- 
mittee relative to a newspaper branch of the party in Los Angeles. 

Mr. Tavenner. I would like to follow up your very interesting 
comments on the Communist Party generally. How did you and 
other Communist Party members rationalize" the purges that were 


conducted in Russia in 1935 and 1937 and 1938 ? What was the atti- 
tude of the Communist Party on those matters? 

Mr. Hancock. One of complete acceptance of whatever explana- 
tion was made by the Stalin leadership. I recall some of the old- 
timers becoming violently upset by these purges. People who had 
been thinking at least about that subject for many years. For in- 
stance, Sol Bernhart was very upset at these purges because he could 
not understand how a man could be in such high leadership and then, 
all of a sudden, turns out to be a traitor from the very beginning. 
But it is to our discredit that unimportant segments of the Com- 
munist Party became upset at these purges. We became upset at other 
things, but the purges were so unrealistic to us. The explanation 
was that some terrible international influence created this and it is a 
good thing the party was alert enough to discover this, and so forth. 
Of course, now I know it was a pure struggle for power. If I may 
say so, I would say that my pattern of reaction is more American 
than normal Communist Party reaction. My background is entirely 
American. My people are Texans. My dad came from Kentucky. 
God knows how I ended up in the situation, but the thing that drove 
me out of the party was when Russia went into Poland. 

I had a violent argument with the editor of the paper, who was 
Harrison George, and when it came over the radio and in the news- 
papers that Rvissia had invaded Poland, there was a joint announce- 
ment issued by the Russian generals in the field and the German 
generals in the field and there was a joint statement that these miser- 
able Nazis had issued a joint statement with the Russians that they 
liad come together for the good of the Polish people to drive out 
the reactionary Polish Government and between the great German 
Army and the Russian Army that peace would prevail. I liked to 
blew my lid. Harrison George said to me, "You are always looking 
for something and you had better clam up or you will get in trouble," 
or things of that kind, and that was just a few months before this 
Bridges testimony and before other agencies, but the way I left the 
party, it may dispel some mystery in your minds, is that first of all 
there is no such thing as a formal resignation from the party. If 
I personally were foolish enough to say, "I hereby resign from the 
party," that would have no significance. The party would then expel 
that person. You are a Communist until you are expelled or just 
dropped, but you don't resign. You don't say, "So-and-so resigned." 
They don't say, "God bless you and good luck." 

Mr. Walter. What about the Philadelphia schoolteachers? They 
were Communists until the time they took the loyalty oath. They 
took the oath and then apparently became Communists immediately 
afterward. How do they get out of the Communist Party, if they 
did, long enough to take that oath ? 

Mr. Hancock. They did not. Obviously they did not, and the same 
thing with Ben Gold. Ben Gold is a charter member of the Com- 
munist Party, and all of a sudden he signs the Labor Relations oath 
that he is not a Communist. Obviously, a man like that does not 
become a non-Communist overnight. They reached an impasse. 
Rather than retire from the organization,- they decided to bluff it out. 

Mr. Doyle. Would it be that the officials did not even know? 

Mr. Hancock. No, they might even put in the records a letter of 
resignation, but it would be meaningless. 


Mr. Jackson. In hearings such as the ones conducted by this com- 
mittee or this meeting, will a hard-core Communist repudiate, 
under any circumstances, any of the statements of the party leaders, 
or any of the basic doctrines of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Hancock, The answer is a qualified yes, depending on the ma- 
terial of his particular work and the nature of his assignment. He 
will, to protect that assignment, become a violent anti-Communist, 
if necessary, ostensibly. 

Mr. Jackson. I have never seen it happen when confronted actually 
with a question, an answer to which would reflect upon the leadership 
internationally or here in this country, Communists who have failed to 
take the fifth amendment at that point. Possibly because very few, 
if any, present Communists have ever talked before this committee. 

Mr. Hancock. Well, a present-day Communist who was protecting 
his position as a Communist would follow the line you have just sug- 
gested. Say he was in secret or spy activity and dredged up in some 
way, he might talk as a complete and violent anti-Communist. I 
speak, not from personal knowledge, but general observation over the 

Mr. Jackson. Which is very important observation. 

Mr. Doyle. May I ask this question, it always worries me, to what 
extent can we believe in the good faith and the sincerity of former 
Communists who say they have withdrawn, not only from the Com- 
munist Party, but from the precepts of the Communist Party ? When 
we have folks come before us generally, would you say that most of 
tliem come before us in good faith, having actually renounced con- 
sciously within themselves, as well as probably the doctrines of the 
Communist Party ? 

Mr. Hancock. Unless they are in some highly secret activity, once 
they have renounced communism, they have denounced communism. 
The only exception would be a spy. 

Mr. Doyle. But wouldn't the Communist Party officially have John 
Doe come before us and probably renounce it and then go back in, 
in fact, never get out ? 

Mr. Hancock. No, they would not. You will identify a person 
like that by his evasion of the questions, a question such as "Don't you 
know that So-and-so was a direct representative of Russia?" They 
will evade a question like that. 

And then a question like "Don't you know that the American Com- 
munist Party is an instrument of a foreign power?". Well, they 
may say no, but you will find them squirming around these questions. 
Anybody who is still identified with the Communist Party can hardly 
come before you and denounce the Communist Party and be considered 
of any value to the Conmiunist Party. It is a part of the Communist 
reaction to divert or block these questions or to give you a roundabout 
answer or to hide behind the fifth amendment. 

This is not a good example but it will give you some idea of what 
T am trying to say. The question that comes up about Communists 
being OTeat advocates of racial equality, the question of "Do you want 
your daughter to marry a Negro?" and the proper response of a good 
Communist is always "I don't know any Negro who wants to marry 
my daughter." The man has maintained his position. 

Mr. Doyle. What is your appraisal and your opinion of the func- 
tion of this particular un-American Activities Committee? Is it 


doing a constructive job ? Is it valuable ? Is it worth a damn or two 
or three damns? What is the appraisal that we could get from you 
of this committee? 

Mr. Hancock. Let me answer it in two main categories: No. 1, 
from the time that I got out of the Communist activity, I have been 
very nonpolitical in my reactions. I followed very little national 
and international events. 

No. 2, I am greatly impressed by the value that comes from men 
like yourself concerning yourselves with a question that can only 
lead to good. There is something that I take for granted, the require- 
ment being that men of good faith and good will probably evaluate 
the evidence that comes before you. 

Mr. Walter. Are we hurting them? 

Mr. Hancock. I think publicity is a tremendous weapon to use 
against communism, I suggest, very humbly, that you have the 
capacity to do great damage to individuals as you expressed concern 
for not doing damage to this individual we mentioned. I think it is 
of great significance and offers potentially great good to men of your 
capacities to take the time to even consider the minute words that I 
have to say here. Only good can come from it. 

I would like to lay certain facts before you. I came here, not wish- 
ing to say the words, but to give you the truth as it is within me of 
the events and without reservation, to persuade you by deeds that I 
desire to be completely cooperative. 

I at this point want to remind you that I have personally suffered 
great misfortune by my original decision to testify at the Harry 
Bridges trial. I lost my position, the only field I am qualified to 
work in, and it took me 2 years to get back into the work. I have a 
fine wife and a fine daughter. 

Mr, Walter, Where was this? 

Mr. Hancock. In Erie, Pa. The circumstances are such that in 
my line of work we also have an opposition newspaper. I have an 
opposition newspaper now and it is the nature of the sources that what 
I have told you if it becomes public information, it will make it im- 
possible for me to continue in my present line of work. I speak not 
theoretically, but it has already happened to me, the only difference 
now being that the people I work for are now fully aware of my 
background, but that changes not one whit the fact that the opposi- 
tion newspaper can crucify me. 

Mr, Walter. How can they? 

Mr. Hancock, I can only tell you how they did. 

Mr, Walter. How did they ? 

Mr. Hancock. The Erie Times, which is the paper in constant con- 
flict with the Erie Dispatch, went way out of their way by telephoning 
several times to San Francisco when I was at the trial to have photo- 
graphs taken of me, and extensive quotes, and they had their Washing- 
ton representative digging up my entire background. They talked 
about the Imperial Valley struggle and the fact that I was arrested 
and served time in jail and as public relations director of a newspaper, 
and my employers had no choice. 

Mr. Walter, When was this? 

Mr, Hancock. In Deceml:)er 1949. 

Mr. Walter. And they fired you ? 

Mr. Hancock, Yes. 


Mr. Walter, They were cowardly. 

Mr. Hancock. I respectfully disagree. 

ISIr. Walter. Was there a fellow on that paper, the editor, by the 
name of Keith ? 

Mr. Hancock. No, his name was White, that was our editor. 

Mr. Walter. Do you know Donald Keith ? 

Mr. Hancock. No. 

Mr. Walter. I would like to say at this point, jSIr. Chairman, that 
in the event anyone does in anywise attempt to penalize the witness 
for his contribution that he has made to the security of the country, it 
will indicate the need for legislation. 

Mr. Doyle. To me, not only the punitive action against this witness, 
Mr. Chairman, but the using of his voluntary contribution toward the 
security of our Nation against the Communist conspiracy in the field 
of competition, this man is employed by a newspaper, think how ter- 
rible it would be if a rival newspaper should capture this incident and 
capitalize on it in order to hurt the other competitor. 

Mr. Walter. I am prepared to state that we should subpena the 
persons responsible before this committee in open session if any such 
thing should happen and have a showdown on that subject. 

Mr. Doyle. I would like to see that. 

Mr. Jackson. Let me say before I leave, this is precisely the point 
I wanted to touch at the conclusion of this testimony. I personally 
think, and I am sure that it is the expression of the entire committee 
and of the Congress of the United States, that in making this appear- 
ance here you have rendered signal service to the committee, the Con- 
gress and the American people. It is not an easy thing to do, as you 
yourself have pointed out. But, without such testimony as you 
have given here today, the American people would not have the tre- 
mendous total knowledge of the operations of the Communist Party 
that they do have, and because they have it I think that this nation 
is probably more alert to and more aware of the true nature and signifi- 
cance of the Communist Party than any people on earth. That, 1 say, 
is due to testimony such as yours. It would certainly be the hope of 
the Chair that under no circumstances, irrespective of what may in 
the future be done with this testimony — and we cannot foresee at the 
moment Avliat may be necessary to do — but I would certainly express 
the thought that retaliatory action of any kind taken against you or 
against any other witness who sees it as his obligation to come before 
the Congress or this committee or any committee to give such testi- 
mony, is reprehensive and would destroy the work of this committee 
more rapidly and more effectively than could the Communist Party 

I want to express to you the thanks of the Committee on un-Ameri- 
can Activities for your lucid, comprehensive and splendid testimony 

With that, the committee will stand adjourned. 
(Whereupon, at 5 : 05 p. m., the hearing was adjourned to reconvene 
on Monday, March 1, 1954.) 




Alexander, Paul {see also Alexander, Sterling CampbeU) 4534, 

4535, 4541, 4544, 4557 

Alexander, Sterling Campbell {see also Alexander, Paul) 4557 

Ball, Lucille 4525 

Bedacht, Max 4549 

Bernhart, Sol 4522, 4535, 4560 

Billings, Warren K 4526 

Bridges, Harry 4519, 4536, 4547, 4550, 4554, 4555, 4557, 4560, 4562 

Browder, Earl 4540, 4552 

Carr, Peter 4544 

Darcy, Sam 4553 

Dimitroff, Georgi 4527 

Dobbs, Ben 4549 

Dowell 4535 

Duclos 4540 

Fisher, Mark 4534, 4537 

Gallagher, Leo 4552, 4553 

Garrigues, Charles H. ("Brick") 4535,4537 

George, Harrison 4560 

Gold, Ben 4560 

Green, Bill 4536 

Gregovich, Lee 4547 

Gue, Stanley 4535 

Hancock, Henry 4533, 4544 

Hancock, Stanley B (testimony) 4517-4563 

Hanoff, Elmer (Efim; Effim) 4553 

Hillkowitz, Saul 4522 

Jerome, V. J 4541, 4542 

Johnstone, Jack 4549, 4550, 4555 

Jones, Claude L 4533 

Judson, Charles 4559 

Keith, Donald 4563 

Lambert, Walter 4550, 4555 

Levin, Meyer 4521-4523 

Leyden, Johnnie 4534 

Lovestone, Jay 4522 

Lydick, John 4534, 4538 

McDermott, James 4545, 4546 

Meyers, Frank S 4521 

Mooney, Tom 4526 

Pollack, Harry 4519 

Raven 4550 

Ray, Dorothy 4553 

Richardson, Esco L 4524,4541 

Rogers, A. C 4533^538,4550,4557 

Rogers, A. G 4557 

Rothstein, Ida 4549 

Schmidt, Henry 4550, 4555 

Shoemaker, John 4555 

Steinmetz, Harry L 4534, 4535, 4542-4544, 4550, 4555-4557 

Stromberg, Yetta 4526 

Vandeleur, Ed 4536, 4555, 4556 

Worcester, Daisy Lee 4534, 4538, 4542 

Wosk, David . 4534,4538 





American Federation of Labor 4532, 4535, 4536, 4542, 4547 

Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization 4524, 454S 

California Committee to Repeal the California Syndicalism Act 4521 

California State Federation of Labor 4532, 4547, 4549 

Central Labor Council, San DiegO— 4532, 4533, 4535, 4542, 4543, 4547, 4556, 4557 

Cleaners and Dyers Union, Los Angeles 4550 

Cominform 4554 

Comintern 4527 

Committee for Amnesty to the Smith Act Victims 4530 

Committee to Free Tom Mooney and Warren K. Billings 4526 

Communist International 4548, 4549, 4554 

Communist Party, San Francisco Central Committee 4535 

Congress of Industrial Organizations 4541, 4546 

Consolidated Aircraft Corp 4545 

Contradictory Social Problems Forum 4544 

Cultural and Scientific Conference for World Peace 4530 

Federal Bureau of Investigation 4548 

Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) 4554 

International Association of Machinists 4545 

International Publishers 4541 

International Workers' Order 4549 

Sailors' Union of the Pacific 4550 

San Diego Federated Council of Labor Unions 4556 

San Diego Fishermen's Union 4546 

San Diego Labor Council 4528 

San Diego State College 4534 

Teachers Union 4542, 4543 

Unemployed Council 4526, 4529 

United Cannery, Agricultural, Packing and Allied Workers of America, 

CIO 4518, 4542 

Workers' Alliance 4529 

Works Progress Administration 4518 

Young Communist League, California 4548 

Young Communist League, Los Angeles 4549 


The Communist 4541 

Daily People's World 4518^520, 4542, 4554 

Erie Dispatch 4562 

Erie Times 4562 

Lockport Union Sun and Journal 4519 

Long Island Daily Press 4518-4520 

Pasadena Star-News 4518, 4520 

San Diego Labor Leader 4535 

San Diego Sun 4518, 4520, 4521, 4535 

Santa Cruz Sentinel News 4519 

Seripps-Howard newspapers 4521, 4526 

Soviet Russia Today 4541 

Trade Union News 4547 

U. S. S. R. Construction 4541 

Western Worker 4518, 4544, 4548, 4553, 4554 








FEBRUAKY 1, M>mCH 1, AND APRIL 12, 1954 

Printed for the use of the Committee ou I'n-American Activities 





Boston Public Library 
Superintendent of Documents 

SEP 8-1954 


United States House op Representatives 
HAROLD H. VELDE, Illinois, Chairman 


KIT CLARDY, Michigan CLYDE DOYLE, California 


ROBERT L. Kdnzig, Counsel 

Frank S. Tavenner, Jr., Counsel 

Thomas W. Beale, Sr., Chief Clerk 

Raphael I. NixOn, Director of Research 

CODRTNEX E. Owens, Acting Chief Investigator 




March 1, 1954, testimony of Stanley B. Hancock (resumed) 4565 

February 1, 1954, testimony of Benjamin Holmes Haddock 4595 

April 12, 1954, testimony of : 

Frances Burke 4619 

Index i 

Public Law 601, T9th 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 ty the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States 
of America in Congress assembled, * * * 


Rtjle X 

« * * « « • • 

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

powers and duties of committb^^s 

* 4: « * « 4> * 

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

(A) Un-American activities. 

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

House Resolution 5, January 3, 1953 

« 4: 4: « « * « 

Rule X 


(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 


17. Committee on Un-American Activities, 

(a) Un-American activities. 

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

The Committee on Un-American Activities shall report to the House (or to the 
Clerk of the House if the House is not in session) the results of any such 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 subcomittee 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 such chairman, and may be served by any person desig- 
nated by any such chairman or member. 



MONDAY, 10.BCH 1, 1954 

United States House of Kepresentatives, 
Subcommittee of the Committee on Un-American Activities, 

Washington^ D. C. 

executive session ^ 

The subcommittee of the Committee on Un-American Activities 
met, pursuant to adjournment, at 11 : 15 a. m., m room 22o, Old House 
Office Building, Hon. Clyde Doyle, presiding. 

Committee member present: Representative Clyde Doyle. 

Staff member present : Frank S. Tavenner, Jr., counsel. 

Mr. Tavenner. At the conclusion of the hearing conducted on i^ eb- 
ruarv 24 the subcommittee chairman announced that the hearing would 
be continued to Monday, March 1, at 10: 30 a. m. Pursuant to the 
direction of the chairman of the subcommittee the hearing is resumed 
at 11 : 15 a. m., March 1, 1954. . tt i c 

Present are Hon. Clyde Doyle, Member of Congress, and Frank b. 
Tavenner, Jr., counsel. . „ , . , 

Mr. Doyle. Mr. Tavenner, I just received notice of this hearing a 
few minutes ago, and while I am here in the committee room, as you 
know, I have always objected to a one-man subcommittee hearing, so 
I will not ask any questions nor participate in the hearing except ]ust 
to sit here, not undertaking to function as a member of the committee. 
But because the witness' testimony does involve situations m my 
native State of California, where I reside, which I represent, I want 
to have the benefit of hearing his testimony. 

I regret that the other members are not here. 


Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Hancock, during the course of your earlier 
testimony you described one major incident of infiltration of groups 
or organizations in San Diego by the Communist Party. This related 
in the main to the Central Labor Council at San Diego. 

Will you tell the committee, please, what other principal efforts 
were made by the Communist Party while you were one of its leaders 
in San Diego to infiltrate other organizations? 

Mr. Hancock. Mr. Tavenner, I do not have in my mind any other 
infiltration of consequence in the same sense as the one we are dis- 
cussing. I no doubt would be better equipped to answer the question 

1 Released by the committee. 



were I in a position to review events of that period, but I am confident 
that I have the general course of events in mind. 

What stands out in my mind is, in that period the major activity 
was infiltration of the A. F. of L. Central Labor Council. There was 
something going on around then that had to do with election activity, 
and I am just not clear on it, but I think Dr. Harry Steinmetz was a 
candidate for something not backed by the Communist Party, but the 
general procedures of that election campaign, if not originated in our 
councils, were followed very closely and influenced by that activity. 

I cannot think of the precise situation. It has to do with the opening 
up of the CP's united-front policy organizationally and politically. 

I cannot even say that the man was a candidate or who the candi- 
dates were, but I think so, and I think — of course, he obviously was 
not elected, but our interest was in influencing men of that caliber 
to endeavor to either bring about what might be called a far-left-of- 
center local government in which we would exert some or considerable 
influence, or, failing in that, to run up the highest possible protest 
vote which would be considered a milestone on the road to eventual 
election success. 

The two outstanding events of the period have to do with the activi- 
ties in Imperial Valley as well as the Central Labor Council activity. 
For a time we were quite influential in Imperial Valley among the 
agricultural workers, and in answer specifically to your question, I 
just do not have in mind any other organization that we penetrated 
except in the sense I have already testified through delegates to the 
Central Labor Council we reached back into various organizations, 
and I do not have any in mind beyond that. 

Mr. Tavenner. Would you tell the committee how the Communist 
Party functioned in its work in Imperial Valley ? 

Mr. Hancock. Yes. This has to do with the period starting in 
early 1934. I am not too clear. The events which led up to our 
activity in Imperial Valley may have started around the fall of 
1933, but there were a series of violent organizational activities in the 
San Joaquin Valley culminating in strikes in the cotton fields. I am 
not too sure of my dates here, but it seems to me that as these agri- 
cultural workers moved throughout the State — they followed a pat- 
tern, really, and it would be Salinas, down to the San Joaquin Valley 
and down over into the Imperial Valley and down to Yuma and make 
the circle again — I do not say that is the sequence, but they went 
roughly in a circle during the 12-month period — so that 2 people, 
Pat Chambers and Caroline Decker, party members, became some- 
where in that period leaders of a completely Communist-controlled 
and established union for the agricultural field workers. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you recall the name of the union ? 

Mr. Hancock. No, but I will tell you one thing: On the orignial 
membership books that came out, it said, "affiliated to the Red Inter- 
national of Labor Unions." It was not disguised in any way. I re- 
call the original application cards, such a name, affiliated to the RILU, 
Red International of Labor Unions. It was a predecessor of the 

Mr. Tavenner. I will endeavor to refresh your recollection later 
about that. 

Mr. Hancock. All right. 


Pat Chambers and Caroline Decker, known Comnnmist Party mem- 
bers, came into leadership of this organization, which grew like wild- 
'tere in Salinas and central San Joaquin Valley, and not being a part 
1 3f it, I have not too specific knowledge of the cumulative results, 
contractual or otherwise, but these workers by the thousands began 
pouring into Imperial Valley for their annual stint in the agricultural 
fields. That came into my territory, and I spent quite a bit of time 
in Imperial Valley, setting up locals of this Red union, and corralling 
the members who carried their cards from the San Joaquin Valley 
down into Imperial Valley. 

I participated in two rather large strikes, and I am not absolutely 
slear on the dates, but it seems to me that the first one was in November 
or December of 1933, and the second one was in January or February 
oi 1934. 

I cannot even recall the first crop. Anyway, in this period, agri- 
ultural work for practical purposes in the field ceased in Imperial 
Valley for perhaps 2, 2V2 to 3 weeks. The going salary or wage was 
18 or 20 cents an hour. Wliereas our long-range objectives were to 
onduct ourselves in a way that would build the influence, member- 
ship, prestige, and power of the Communist Party, our specific short- 
range objective was to consolidate this union organization to win some 
gain, some economic gains, and fortify ourselves for reasons to come. 
We actually did not get to the point of negotiation in the first strike. 

I think we horrified the local people. At this point of looking back 
I can say understandably. 

They one day came to a strike meeting at a garage and hall called 
Azteca Hall in Brawley, Calif., owned by a man by the name of 
Maldonado, M-a-1-d-o-n-a-d-o. These Spanish names are all phonetic. 

We had at about 10 o'clock in the morning some 1,500 men, women, 
and children in the hall, organizing the picket lines for the day and 
organizing the details of our soup kitchen which, to the best of our 
ability, fed these people, when a group of men, 50 to 75 in number, in 
civilian clothes, but marked with black armbands, surrounded the 
hall. There were some officers in uniform present — they pressed 
into the building. 

Sitting in the office we heard the commotion, and I guess they 
retreated. They later testified in court that they were trying to arrest 
myself and Dorothy Ray, who was a representative of the Young 
Communist League and participating in the strike organization. The 
first we knew of their presence was the sound of tear gas, and this 
cordon of men we then discovered armed with pickaxe handles — 
pretty much of a slaughter. As our people tried to escape the building, 
they were knocked back in, knocked down, and Miss Ray and I escaped 
through a side window. We went into hiding for 10 days. We were 
finally flushed out, arrested, tried, sentenced to 6 months for a series 
of charges, one of them being vagrants. I do not recall the other 
specific charge. 

That ended our immediate participation, and my recollection is that 
the strike sort of petered out. The men, leadership, drifted back, 
went somewhere. The trial did not occur, though, until some time in 
early 1934, maybe March or April, somewhere in there. I am not 
too sure on that, because it seems to me I got out, actually served 5 
months, got out in October 1934. 

47718 — 54 — pt. 2 2 


But in the meantime, while we were out on bail, another influx of 
union members from the San Joaquin Valley came down, this time 
to work the lettuce crop, and the organization of that strike was almost 
spontaneous. We were accepted into leadership by virtue of our 
previous activity but had to be very circumspect about it. At that 
time the actual negotiating committee was approached by representa- 
tives of the growers and offered some increase, 21/0 or 3 cents an hour, 
something like that, and the State committee of the party, personally 
represented by Elmer Hanoff, rejected it, which is to say, we were 
then instructed to instruct our supporters to reject it. This was 
something of repetition of the previous strike where long lines, 
perhaps picket lines a mile or two long, circled the fields, and all 
work ceased, and many of these people were living in what we called 
in those days, Hoovervilles, just shacks built of canvas, tins, anything, 
and I cannot say this for sure, but we were told that they were burned 
out, I did not see it. We were told they were. I accepted it as a 
fact. It might not be a fact, but we were told that one evening the 
places were set afire, and I was not even in a position to move around 
enough, facing a trial myself. 

We could not show too much activity, so I never even went up to see 
whether the place was burned out, and that strike just petered out. 

But it must be said that the influence of the Communist Party was 
very strong in both of these major economic movements in Imperial 
Valley in that period. 

It would be phrased by some that these were completely created 
Communist activities, but that would be ignoring the vast social forces 
on the move at that time, and it seems to me that the most significant 
truth that can be stated is that the Communist Party stepped to the 
front of this great foment and tried to direct it, 

I think we give the Communists too much credit to say that they 
created it. They studied these developing actions, and they moved 
to the leadership as best they could, and they kept them going when 
they would have normally died. So that is the second of the out- 
standing activities in my mind in that period. 

There may have been others that you would consider of some small 
consequence, but they are not in my mind, 

I might say that these people all have changed their names several 
times, Dorothy Ray was married a couple of times after that, but 
I guess the name is ■ 

Mr, Tavenner, Will you identify other members of the Communist 
Party who took an active part in the strikes in Imperial Valley? 

Mr. Hancock, Well, one would be Paul Alexander. I do not recall 
bringing anyone else from San Diego down there. Dorothy Ray was 
a member of and representing the Yoinig Communist League. Oh, yes, 
Emma Cutler was another one. She was from somewhere around 
Sacramento, pretty well known Communist member. 

There was an attorney who came in from Arizona to defend some 
of the Communists arrested at that period. I would know his name 
if I heard it. It escapes me now. He was arrested and served time 
with the rest of us, and it is my impression that he was a party member. 
Up in my territory he talked like we did and acted like we did. 

We recruited local Communists, almost all of Mexican extraction, 
and the names are just a blur to me, I gave you this name, 
Maldonado — I connect him with that event — I can give you a name 


like Juan Olivas, J-u-a-n 0-1-i-v-a-s. I can give you the name of 
Miguel Guiterrez, M-i-g-u-e-1 G-u-i-t-e-r-r-e-z, Sr. and Jr. Junior 

There are several others that I just do not have the names, and they 
played no particular important part. 

I think it should be said that somewhere along in this period we 
made contact with the president and the secretary of the American 
Federation of Labor, Central Labor Council, in El Centro, Calif. 
There was a later packinghouse strike that brought them into the 
picture, and I had many meetings with these two people whose names 
escape, but I later learned on pretty good authority that they were 
working with us under the direction of some authoritative group, 
perhaps FBI. 

I can only recall that one of them was the motion picture projection- 
ists' representative. I do not remember their names. But they took 
out membership cards in the party. 

There was another fellow, Ed somebody — his name escapes me — 
who misled us very nicely at that period. He was working for the 
party and Captain Hines of the Red Squad of Los Angeles — this 
fellow Burke, Ed Burke — this is going to be something that may 
interest you. 

Ed Burke came to San Diego in this early period as a member of the 
Communist Party of Los Angeles and with proper credentials, and 
because his work allegedly consisted of importing birds from Mexico, 
lie was able to offer us a messenger service back and forth. With 
what we tliought due precautions, such as sealing an envelope with 
a human hair sticking out, when the glue dries, withdrawing the hair, 
which will tell you whether or not an envelope has been steamed 
open — that line will disappear. We entrusted messages to him, and 
I later learned that he was on Captain Hines' payroll in Los Angeles, 
though he never testified against us. Our relationship was such that 
he knew quite a bit about the activities we were in. He knew my 
hiding place when I was trying to avoid arrest. 

Now, about 3 years later, somewhere around 19?»6, 1037 — it would 
be later than that, 1938 or 1939 — as the circulation manager for, at 
that time, tlie People's World, I made a trip to Los Angeles, and it 
was the custom at that time to put such people as myself up in the 
homes of other people. So, for no pai'ticular reason I was sent to 
Steve Nelson's home. Steve Nelson was the party arrested, and I see 
now, freed in Pittsburgh. 

Prior to this overnight stay and discussion with Steve Nelson there 
had been the Politlabor Committee in California interested in excesses, 
alleged excesses, of party officials, vigilante officials, and so forth. I 
was not involved in any of it because by that time I was circulation 
manager for People's World. 

Burke somehow or other called me when I was at the local People's 
World office and said, after exchanging "hellos" that he was still 
running back and forth to Mexico, and as representative of the 
People's World could I give him a letter that he was an authorized 
correspondent, that it would help him, and so forth. 

I was glad to do it for an old friend, told him if he would drop 
by the next day, I woiild have it for him. 

That night just casually I mentioned it to Steve Nelson. He said, 
"Whoops, he is a full-fledged representative of Captain Hines." 


I said, "Yes? How come? I have been through thick and thin 
with this fellow down in the valley." 

He said, "You sure have, and that is how the authorities got a 
great deal of their information." 

I do not know if Nelson told me outright that the La Follette Com- 
mittee got this information, but I think that is true, and the record 
will show there were some leftist lawyers in this group got into police 
records, and it is my impression, very strong, that a number of names 
came to light, so this was another Communist Party member who 
was represented in Imperial Valley. 

Mr. Tavenner, I would like for you at this point to give the com- 
mittee all the information that you have regarding Steve Nelson's 
activities. I believe at the time he was the Communist Party or- 
ganizer for Alameda County. 

Mr. Hancock. It is not too clear in my mind, but I will give 
you what I feel that I know. It is my impression that his name 
came into prominence in the San Francisco Bay area at the time 
that I was on the People's World, San Francisco office. 

Mr. Tavenner. Wlien you referred to staying in the home of Steve 
Nelson, was that in San Francisco or Los Angeles ? 

Mr. Hancock. It was in Los Angeles. 

Mr. Tavenner. What was Steve Nelson's affiliation in Los Angeles, 
or his function there? 

Mr. Hancock. I cannot say — I would have to guess at something. 
For example, people did not walk around with badges, "I am the 
commissar of defense." In our dealings with them, we realized that 
they fit into a certain slot in party activity. 

Now, in view of the foregoing information, it was quite obvious to 
me that Steve Nelson was concerned with security matters in Los 
Angeles. In some way that I cannot at the moment define, he was 
more concerned with the development of the People's World than 
any ordinary Communist Party member. That comes about by some- 
body on a State committee being appointed as the representative to 
see that this activity is undertaken and pushed, and that campaigns go 
over, and so forth. So, while no one ever said to me "Steve Nelson is 
the State committee representative, and so forth," this man in his 
actions to me quite clearly showed that he was representing the State 
committee in the interest he showed in the People's World. 

I do not think that he was the county president or whatever the 
title was, but he might have been. He was certainly power behind 
the scenes. 

Now, you know, I wish to heaven I could give you more precise in- 
formation. You showed me a list the other day that had the name 
"Decker" on it. There are two Deckers of prominence, one being 
Caroline Decker, a little girl who was arrested and so on, in the strike 
activity. The other is a Dr. Decker. 

For many months I carried her address and name in my personal 
papers as a secret contact point with the Communist Party. If I had 
something ultrasecret that I would not trust to normal channels, I 
would send it to Dr. Decker. 

Mr. Tavenner. And Dr. Decker would see that it reached its proper 
destination, is that it? 


Mr. Hancock. That is right. 

Mr. Tavenner. Then Dr. Decker was acting either as a courier or 
a letter drop ? 

Mr. Hancock. Eight. 

Mr. Tavenner. For the Communist Party. 

Mr. Hancock. You see, there is in the Communist Party a shadow 
organization for purposes of maintaining secrecy in various matters. 
Once again you are never told anything specific, but it is my impres- 
sion that Steve Nelson was involved in this, that Dr. Decker was 
involved in this, and I can give you another San Francisco name, but 
I cannot think of anybody — I am talking about Los Angeles now. 

Mr. Tavenner. Let us confine our testimony at this point to San 
Diego and Los Angeles. 

Can you fix the date of your stay in the home of Steve Nelson in 
Los Angeles ? 

Mr. Hancock. Only to say that it was probably somewhere in 
1938 because I made an overnight trip — which I did about once a 
month — from San Francisco to Los Angeles to check up on our Los 
Angeles office, my duties being confined entirely to working out the 
organizational procedures for People's World. 

The best I can do — I am sure it was in 1938 or the early part of 1939. 

Mr. Tavenner. You spoke of contacts with the Communist Party 
or Communist Party members in Mexico through the use of Ed Burke 
as a courier. Will you describe more fully, please, the purposes of 
the Mexico contacts that were made ? 

Mr. Hancock. I will have to make a correction. Ed Burke's value 
to us was that he went back and forth to Mexico through Imperial 
Valley. We were concerned with Lnperial Valley. 

It is true, though, that I stayed at the home of some family in 
Calexico on the Mexican side — correction, Mexicali, which is the town 
opposite Calexico on the Mexican border, and I am under the impres- 
sion that Ed Burke introduced me to this family. We never actually 
had any organizational contact with the Mexican party members except 
as they came across the line to work in California, but while Burke 
allegedly worked in Mexico, it had no significance to us except that it 
brought him throu";!! Imperial Valley. 

Mr. Tavenner. Where were these messages sent to which were 
carried by Ed Burke ? 

Mr. Hancock. Well, they would be sent to our Mexican party mem- 
bers or our party members in Imperial Valley, in Brawley, El Centro. 

Mr. Tavenner. Sent from 

Mr. Hancock. Our San Diego office. 

Mr. Tavenner. His work as courier then did not necessarily take 
him into Mexico? 

Mr. Hancock. We had no messages for people in Mexico. Although 
1 think I did mention that I attended a meeting of — a labor union 
meeting in Tia Juana at which Mexican Communist Party members of 
Mexico were present, but it had nothing to do with Ed Burke, and this 
party's home where I stayed in Mexicali might or might not be party 
members. I would be inclined to think they would be, otherwise I 
would not have stayed there, as a general security precaution. There 
is nothing in my mind that Ed Burke was instrumental or active in 
putting us in contact with natives of Mexico, citizens of Mexico. 

4572 coMMuisrisT activities in the state of California 

Mr. Tavenner. The unrest and the strikes in Imperial Valley and 
adjacent territory made a very fertile gromid for recruiting into the 
Communist Jt^arty, did it not? 

Mr. Hancock. Everything being equal, it was relatively very fertile. 
Actually, at no time were hundreds of members recruited into the 
Communist Party. It was not intended that way. The Conmiunist 
Party rather carefully would select 1, 2, up to a dozen, set up a unit, 
and then start working on another unit. 

The Communist Party at that time was not a mass organization, and 
people would be selected on the basis of their leadership capacity, real 
or inherent. 

Mr. Tavenner, How many cells or units in the Communist Party 
were set up in Imi)erial Valley during the period you have described? 

Mr. Hancock. I do not have it in my mind, but I am inclined to saj' 
a couple, and probably confined to Brawley. We probably had 20 or 
25 party members recruited from Imperial Valley. It had no whole 
significance in the acti\'ity of the Communist Party because these were 
in the main uneducated laborers of Mexican extraction, many of whom 
spoke no English. They read a Mexican weekly newspaper issued by 
the party, named Lucha Obrera, L-u-c-h-a 0-b-r-e-r-a. Some party 
literature came across the Mexican border into Imperial Valley. I 
remember magazines like Hoy, and El Machete, the daily organ of the 
Communist Party of Mexico. 

This literature was widely read by the people I am discussing in this 
particular period, but at the most we had 20 to 25 people who signed a 
card, and they never actually became our conception of the Communist 
Party member. They drifted away, and we lost track of them. 

Mr. Tavenner. Approximately how many Communist Party mem- 
bers were brought into this area from the outside during the period 
you have testified about? 

Mr. Hancock. Oh, at the most at any one given time, at the most, a 
half a dozen. 

Another name comes to mind, Nathaniel Griffin, a colored boy, be- 
cause a large number of agricultural workers were colored. We 
brought him — his name is well known in San Diego. He was kind of 
a mild, passive, not too bright individual, and we brought him down 
to work on the colored agricultural workers, but that would just about 
complete the roster. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you mean to say that such a small number as 
12 Communists from the outside, with a total of not more than 25 
local people recruited into the Communist Party could have and did 
gain positions of leadership among the agricultural workers in that 
large area ? 

Mr. Hancock. Yes, that is completely true. It should be said 
that such a group could not create something that did not exist. They 
could stand in the forefront of a moving body and divert its move- 
ment, which is what we did. 

The impetus came from the deplorable economic conditions of that 
period. It must be said, too, that what happened in Imperial Valley 
was a result of similar activities in the San Joaquin Valley just a few 
months prior, where once again, the same pattern prevailed, Pat 
Chambers and Caroline Decker being the open Communist members. 
They built around them a small corps of people, such as I have just 


described, and they led pretty large agricultural strikes in that area, 
and they had people by the thousands who had accepted open Com- 
munist leadership who then poured into Imperial Valley, ready and 
waiting to accept some more Communist leadership. 

We found at that time no antagonism nor even antipathy resulting 
from our known party membership. We were very freely and easily 
accepted as logical, legitimate, respectable, from their point of view, 
labor leaders. 

Now, I think it might also be said to anyone making a study of this 
period that another factor, negative, but highly influential at the time, 
was the complete absence of the American Federation of Labor in this 
activity, their complete lack of interest in what happened to these 
poorly paid and long-suffering agricultural workers. 

So that we stepped into a vacuum. 

Mr. Ta\'enner. As you look back upon the situation now, what 
could have been done successfully in that area to have resisted the 
functioning of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Hancock. A most important thing that should have happened, 
from the point of view of normal social activities, is that existing 
labor unions should have undertaken their responsibility and led these 
people. Their leadership would have been more conservative, more 
thoughtful, and no doubt more resultful, because while once again 
it was never stated, the facts are that the Communists conducted them- 
selves in a way that riots occurred, deaths occurred, and while these 
things finally died down, the furor, the excitement created by them 
died down, this was not because the Communist Party wanted them 
to die down. One of the functions of the Communist Party was to 
keep alive the violent antagonisms that deyeloped from riots and 
deaths and so forth. 

So that I would make the broad statement that first of all the local 
civic and social leaders were delinquent in their responsibilities. Chief 
dmong these were the existing appointed leaders of the American 
Federation of Labor. 

I offer as evidence that when the American Federation of Labor 
did step in for the packinghouse workers, which are considered the 
aristocracy of the agricultural workers, the packinghouse workers 
gladly accepted their leadership, which was a radical leadership, but 
not one-tenth as radical as the Communist leadership. 

The party was able to create dissension, sow strife, win adherence, 
because for practical purposes the local leaders of society failed in 
their duties, washed their hands of these dregs of humanity. 

Mr. Tavenner. Why was it that later the American Federation of 
Labor did not measure up to what you conceive to have been their 
responsibilty ? 

Mr. Hancock. The American Federation of Labor historically is a 
craft union. It is an organization of skilled employees. They consider 
themselves above the unskilled worker. That line of thinking brought 
into existence the Congress of Industrial Organizations sometime 
around 1935, when the economic condition in America cried for the 
organization of large industrial organizations cutting across craft 
lines, such as came about in the IT. A. W., steel workers' union, and so 
forth, so that at that time the American Federation of Labor con- 
sidered it contrary to their normal function. 


Later, under the pressure of the existence of the CIO, they broad- 
ened their outlook. 

For example, while I am not at all clear on this, this was a con- 
tradiction that hampered the American Federation of Labor in the 
aircraft industry, and I just cannot say. It seems to me — yes, I know 
there is a CIO aircraft union, and under that pressure the American 
Federation of Labor broadened either officially or unofficially the 
charter of the lAM, International Association of Machinists. 

(Representative Clyde Doyle left the hearing room at this point.) 

Mr. Hancock. Under the broad interpretation of their charter, 
they began an association of aircraft workers, but all this finding, if 
original impetus in the early struggles that I spoke about, where no 
one of the constituted organizations would have anything to do with 
these unskilled workers 

Mr. Tavenner. Off the record a moment. 

(Discussion off the record.) 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you summarize your testimony and add such 
further thoughts as you have as to the objectives of the Communist 
Party in seeking the leadership among employees in Imperial Valley ? 

Mr. Hancock. The long-range objective was to gain control of the 
agricultural industry of California, of which Imperial Valley was an 
important part. It was our hope to eventually establish the most rigid 
control of every agricultural worker in the agricultural areas of Cali- 
fornia for the still further eventual policy of having large masses of 
people at the disposal of the Communist Party. 

It was our presentation to the agricultural workers, specifically in 
regard to Imperial Valley, that the landowners were largely absentee 
owners, that vast profits were made at the expense of the underpaid 
field laborer, and it would be entirely possible under the leadership 
of the openly known Communist-led Red unions for the agricultural 
workers to sharply increase their economic position, their being at all 
times in party activity two streams of activity ; one, to affect as best 
can be done some economic improvement ; secondly, to simultaneously 
carry on considerable educational activities calculated to move people 
closer to and into the Communist Party for the eventual purpose of 
taking over the government. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were there occasions within your recollection when 
the interests of the worker were in conflict with the interests of the 
party ; that is, the Communist Party, which required the Communist 
Party to decide whether to endeavor to promote the interests of the 
worker as distinguished from their own peculiar interests and 

Mr. Hancock. Well, I have in mind the one incident that so thor- 
oughly enraged me that it surely marks one of the important, to me, 
events that eventually permitted me to get out of this activity. 

That was the second early 1934 Imperial Valley strike where an offer 
of settlement was made, and my reaction was to accept it quickly, and 
I was instructed by Elmer Hanoff that the party was opposed to this 
settlement, and that we would be required to talk against it. 

Carrying out our normal discipline, I did that. A week later the 
entire structure of the strike was broken down, and no settlement was 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you advised as to why the Communist Party 
was opposed to the settlement? 


Mr. Hancock. I cannot put my answers on that basis, because this 
implies a remembrance of conversation. This is an event of 20 years 
ago. I have to deal with impressions. It is my impression that I 
understood why the party opposed to the settlement. It is my im- 
pression that as of the given moment the settlement was offered, it 
Avas the party theory that sufficient momentum had been built up to 
carry all our objectives to a higher level than would be possible if a 
settlement was quickly accepted. 

For example, had we accepted the settlement, we would have had 
to fight hot-heads who woulcl have accused us of selling out. 

On the other hand, we would have had a gain which meant a con- 
dition somewhat an improvement of previous existing conditions. In 
my estimation this would have given us time for consolidation. I 
thought mine was the more realistic approach because I had had a taste 
of the power of the local authorities by then, and it seemed to me we 
needed a little peace and quiet for careful consolidation. 

But I must say that the party action conformed to its general ap- 
proach to such situations which, namely, is that when, in their terms, 
a revolutionary situation exists, it must not be beheaded, but should 
be allowed to continue its course, and its volume of movement or 
activity should be encouraged, and from the point of view of the 
State party member, it just made more sense to keep this commotion 
in existence than shut it off. 

Mr. Tavenner. It continued the favorable opportunities for recruit- 
ment and i^ropagandizing ? 

Mr. Hancock. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. Which would have been broken off by a peaceful 
settlement of the dispute. 

Mr. Hancock. Yes, that is true. You might say that in the at- 
mosphere of rigid police restriction of uncertain supply of food for 
families, of violent passions and excitement, that the party was able 
to move along toward its aims better than in a calmer atmospliere. 

Mr. Tavenner. Off the record. 

(Discussion off the record.) 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you involved in an incident at Superstitious 
Mountain in Imperial Valley in which vigilantes played a part? 

Mr. Hancock. Yes, I was. As a prisoner serving a G-month sen- 
tence in the Imperial County jail, I and several other former strikers 
were taken to a labor camp commonly called chain labor camp, al- 
though no chains were used, out in the desert of California, at the base 
of Superstitious Mountain for the purpose of breaking up rocks. The 
activity was rather uneventful until one evening we heard a bugle, we 
heard voices. We assumed that an attack was to be made on the camp 
from the shouted threats that we heard. 

We posted guards. We collected rocks ; we were ready to do or die, 
and nothing happened, except we lost a little sleep. We had almost 
unrestrictecl freedom at this camp, I suspect so that we might escape 
and not bother the local people any more. In fact, one man did escape, 
and it worked out to the advantage of the authorities. 

He had to go to Mexico and therefore was not in Imperial Valley 
any more. 

The next morning, exercising our freedom, we went up the moun- 
tain and found a — I will have to say that a large, fiery cross was 

47718— 54— pt. 2 3 


burned the night before, and Ave went up and examined it, and it seems 
to me there was a smaller cross with my name on it. I do not remem- 
ber any open grave. I think somebody stuck a stick in the ground and 
put a cross on it and put "Hancock" on it. 

There was a package all tied up, and in the package was a brass- 
studded leather knout or cat-o'-nine-tails, a hangman's noose, and a 
written message which, I guess, was quoted verbatim in the book you 
just read. 

I recall one phrase, "The man who went home yesterday" — Salor- 
cino, his name was' Anthony Salorcino — "got his ; you will get yours." 
And it is true. One man was released at his proper time, by the name 
of Salorcino, and the first night or two he was home his home was 
invaded, and he was badly beaten. 

So nothing further ever came of it, except as a result of this atmos- 
phere, the local authorities were under pressure from — I do not 
know- — anybody who considered themselves of influence, writing and 
wiring, demanding protection for the prisoners and so forth, and there 
were considerable indications that as the date of my release grew 
nearer, that there would be some interference. 

The local authorities spirited me out 24 hours ahead of the release 
date, drove me to San Diego, took me home, and deposited one badly 
frightened little boy. That is all that happened. 

Mr. Tavenner. What was the effect of these vigilante activities 
upon you and other members of the Communist Party who had been 
arrested and sentenced in connection with your activities in Imperial 

Mr. Hancock. Well, the effect was contrary to the effect they de- 
sired. The structure of vigilantism is so contrary to American con- 
cepts that many people not at all sympathetic with communism were 
brought very close to us in their active resentment against such 

For example, the night I came home it was quite an event in San 
Diego. The reporters were there. I remember the reporters being 
violently upset at this series of events and expressing sympathy, which 
is a gratuitous gain for the Communists when such a condition exists, 
one which should not be handed so easily to them. 

Mr. Tavenner. So in every instance where people take the law into 
their own hands in their opposition to communism, it is actually play- 
ing into the hands of the Communist Party and gives them a propa- 
ganda weapon of great value to the Communist Party ; is that not true ? 

Mr. Hancock. Very decidedly because it is the major tenet of the 
Communist Party that authority exists for the protection of the well- 
to-do and entrenched management, and it is their further tenet that 
when normal authority fails to meet specific needs of entrenched 
management, they cast it aside; therefore, the workers are justified in 
doing the same when normal authority does not meet their specific 

It is a beautiful atmosphere for the creation of violence. The bul- 
wark of commonsense or thoughtful action is the existence of authority 
which allows time for tempers to die down and thought to prevail, 
and when anyone takes the law in their own hands, especially those 
claiming to represent the existing order, it requires very little effort 
to produce an equal action on the part of the opposing side. 


Mr. Tavenner. Did it also have the effect of tying the individuals 
involved more closely to the Communist Party than they otherwise 
would have been? 

Mr. Hancock. Well, yes and no. Yes and no, but from the long- 
range point of view of the Communist Party, more decidedly yes. It 
had the effect of winnowing out those who lacked the stomach for this 
atmosphere. The weak-kneed people were dropped by the wayside, 
but those who showed the greatest amount of fight were the ones that 
we showed the greatest amount of interest in drawing into the Com- 
munist Party. 

It permitted us to say, "We know how these men will respond in a 
critical situation because we have seen them in action." 

It gave us a power of estimation that might have taken months or 
years to acliieve with equal validity in normal times, and the overall 
effect was one of bringing closer to us that large segment of the pop- 
ulation that calls itself liberal with radical offshoots. 

They, in this atmosphere, came more and more to identify them- 
selves with the Communists. 

Mr. Tavenner. Off the record. 

(Discussion off the record.) 

Mr. Ta\t:nner. Was there a professional cell or group of the Com- 
munist Party in San Diego? 

Mr. Hancock. To the best of my recollection we had a group that 
could be called a professional cell. 

Mr. Tavenner. What professions were represented in that group? 

Mr. Hancock. Well, here again we are on this, in my mind, very 
cloudy field of memory. I would have to put it this way : We met 
with a group which, although it might be called professional, also 
included labor leaders. Some of these people, without any doubt in 
my mind, were party members. It is even possible they all were. You 
see, I can't think of them in just terms of existing forever. It was a 
group that in 1 month some people were not yet involved ; at a later 
time some people had dropped out and others came in. 

The original purpose of this group was to win adherence or sup- 
porters to the Communist Party policies, and the best way we did 
that was by actually recruiting them into membership. I remember 
recruiting some of them into membership myself, such as A. C. Rogers. 

I can just see the picture of sitting in his house and talking to him 
and his signing a card. The same for Johnny Lydick. It is a little 
vaguer in my mind that "Brick" Garrigues was recruited, but I am 
advised that he was by his own testimony — by myself. 

I just do not have the picture in my mind. There were 4 or 5 others 
that may have been. It was our desire that they be. We would have 
worked to bring that about. I think quite possibly they were. 

I cannot recall from personal memory this situation, that they 
actually were card-carrying party members. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you recall whether or not it was organized as 
a separate group or cell of the Communist Party ? That is, the pro- 
fessional group ? 

Mr. Hancock. No, I would say that it did not function as a normal 
cell or unit of the Communist Party. There is an organizational 
procedure of the Communist Party which was not followed in this 


Specifically, I mean a Communist unit opens its meetings with a 
reading- of minutes — or at least it did at that time. There is a 
collection of dues. There follows an educational period and the sale 
of literature. There are communications read from the local office, 
from the staff office. All these are things calculated to produce an 
integrated action in the party. 

This was not the atmosphere of the professional group I talked 
about. Its responsibilities, from our point of view, were specific and 
limited. I cannot recall talking about anything except two major 
subjects : One, the activities in the Central Labor Council, which was 
another way of saying activities in the labor unions culminating 
in the effect our activity had on the Central Labor Council; and the 
other having to do with some local election activity in which we 
Avere interested in getting prominent — what we considered — liberals 
to run for office. We discussed these things in the gi'oup. 

I honestly cannot recall any of the other phases of a unit meeting 
occurring in this group. 

Mr, Tavenner. Off the record. 

(Discussion off the record.) 

Mr. Tam3Nxer. You have previously testified about the setting up 
of the Communist Party Central Committee under the laws of the 
State of California. 

I show you a statement indicating that certain individuals were 
apj)ointed to this group by you in the year 1934. Will you examine it, 
please, and state the circumstances ? 

Mr. Hancock. There is a committee appointed to fulfill legal re- 
quirements in California that a political party must name its central 
committee and must hold a convention in the State capital. The 
names I submitted were people who could afford to be known openly 
as Communists, and in no sense was it other than a dummy committee, 
and it did not conduct the affairs of the Communist Party. 

Mr. Ta\t3nner. I believe this is a good time to break for lunch. 

We will reconvene at 2 o'clock. 

(Whereupon, at 1 :10 p. m., the hearing was recessed, to reconvene 
at 2 p. m., the same day.) 


(At 2 p. m., the hearing was reconvened, the following staff member 
being present : Frank S. Tavenner, Jr., counsel.) 
Mr. Tavenner. On the record. 


Mr. Taatenner. I hand you from the files of the Committee on 
Un-American Activities certain data relating to the organization of 
the State [California] central committee of the Comnmnist Party. 
Will you examine it, please, and state whether or not you can identify 
the names of any of the persons appearing there as persons known to 
you to have been members of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Hancock. The list before me consists of names appointed to 
the dummy State central committee of the Communist Party, so-called 
because it was created to meet legal requirements of the California 
election laws. 

I can identify Karl Hama. 


Mr. Tavexner. In identifying these individuals, I would like for 
you to state as nearly as you can the basis for your identification; 
that is, how you knew him to be a member of the party. 

Mr. Hancock. I can identify Karl Hama and his wife, Elaine Black, 
whom I met in Los Angeles sometime around 1932. They were in 
charge — or more specifically, Elaine Black was in charge of the Inter- 
national Labor Defense activities in southern California. 

Elaine Black's assignment in this activity came from the Comnuuiist 
Party. Karl Hama at that time had a general assignment from the 
party of working on the Japanese- Ajnerican population. I first met 
him at the home of Elaine and Eddie Black, both party members, and 
later Karl Hama became the husband of Elaine Black. 

Bessie A. Keckler was a Communist Party member in our San Diego 

Willian H. Bradley, Everett O. Still, and Claude L. Jones were also 
members of our San Diego party. 

Those are all the names I can identify. 

Mr. Ta\t;nner. I hand you another list of individuals from the files 
of this committee, indicating the persons appointed to the State central 
committee for the year 193G. Will you examine that list and state 
whether or not you can identify any of the persons named there as 
persons known to you to be members of the Communist Party and the 
basis of your knowledge ? 

j\Ir. Hancock. The first party listed, Matt Pellman, was a Young 
Communist League functionary from Los Angeles, and at one time 
he was YCL organizer, which was the designation of the person in 
highest authority in that organization in that community. 

I knew and worked with Carroll Barnes, C-a-r-r-o-1-1 B-a-r-n-e-s, 
at a time when he was Communist Party organizer for Alameda 
County, and I recall attending State meetings in 1934 at which he 
was present. 

Those are all the names I can identify here. 

Betty Gannett is known to me or was known to me as State organi- 
zational secretary of the Communist Party. 

Peter J. Garrison and his wife, Ruth Garrison, I knew as Com- 
munist Party members with whom I met in unit meetings while I 
worked in Alameda County as Peo])le's World manager for that area. 

The name you have listed as Lucy Kyle no doubt should be Lacey 
Kyle, a Communist Party member in San Diego. 

Mr. Tavenner. How do you spell ''Kyle"? 

Mr. Hancock. K-y-l-e. Oleta O'Connor was known to me as a 
top functionary of tlie San Francisco section of the Communist Party 
and a member in some capacity, in my mind at the moment, of the 
State committee of the party. She was later known as Oleta O'Con- 
nor Yates, Y-a-t-e-s. 

Pettis Perry from Los Angeles was known to me as a member 
of the State committee of the Communist Party, and I have in my 
mind that he was later elected a member of the national committee. 

E. L. Saunders, S-a-u-n-d-e-r-s, was known to me as Dave Saunders, 
a party member from the San Francisco waterfront, and I think a 
member of the sailors' union. 

William Schneiderman was, of course, the State organizer of the 
Communist Party following Samuel Darcy, D-a-r-c-y, and it seems 
to rae the change took place immediately after the 1935 World Con- 


gress of Communist Parties in Moscow, which was attended by 
Samuel Darcy, and due to some legal difficulties in California he 
failed to return, causing Schneiderman to be named State Secretary. 

Mr. Tavenner. Off the record. 

(Discussion off the record.) 

Mr. Hancock. James Tormey, T-o-r-m-e-y, is in my memory from 
San Francisco as a Communist Party member, and I recall that he 
was active in departent store union activities. 

Everett Still was a Communist member fom San Diego. 

John Weatherwax, W-e-a-t-h-e-r-w-a-x, was a CP member from 
Los Angeles. 

I think that is all. 

Mr. Tavenner. How many State conventions of the Communist 
Party did you attend ? 

Mr. Hancock. I would guess 3 to 5, although it should it stated 
that I attended many more meetings of the Communist Party of 
which the State committee had organized, but conventions as such 
might have been held once a year and sometimes every 2 years. 

More conmionly we held State committee meetings to which non- 
members such as myself were invited. 

Mr. Tavenner. That is, nonmembers of the State committee ? 

Mr. Hancock. State committee, yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. But nevertheless members of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Hancock. Right. For example, at most times I would have 
been invited to any meeting of the State committee of the Communist 
Party, not because I was a member, which to the best of my recollec- 
tion I was not, but because I was the highest authority of the party in 
San Diego and Imperial County. 

Mr. Tavenner. Is there any incident in connection with any of the 
meetings you attended which would throw light on the objectives of 
the Communist Party in California which would be of interest to 
this committee ? 

Mr. Hancock. Well, none of them stand out in my mind. They 
represented the various phases of activities we were engaged in, and 
nothing special occurred there that was not dealt with in our every- 
day work. I could say that of course at the State committee meet- 
ings we received firsthand reports of various activities that held our 
interest, and the dominating theme of the meetings in the period we 
are covering was the success of the Communist Party on the water- 
front of San Francisco, and to a lesser but considerable degree, San 
Pedro. This was a major drive of the Communist Party in the years 
from 1934 to 1936, at which time their strength was consolidated 
into almost complete control of the leadership of the waterfront 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you describe at this point the functioning 
of the Communist Party in acquiring leadership in the waterfront 

Mr. Hancock. Any information I have in this respect is second- 
hand, coming from people reporting to the party from these various 
organizations, but the procedure was one often described as infiltra- 
tion by a few select individuals who build around themselves close 
sympathizers, supporters, who are in turn by circumstances brought 
into party membership, and the classic Communist procedure pre- 
vailed of holding fraction meetings, attended mainly by Communist 


members, and if non-Communists were present, they were identified 
as very close supporters of the Communists, 

In these fraction meetings decisions would be made to raise various 
issues on the floor of the union meetings in a way calculated to 
embarrass or expose the opposition for their do-nothing policies and 
further calculated to bring Communist Party members or supporters 
into proininence as the active leaders of the particular group involved. 

This procedure could be said to apply to almost any organization 
at that time, and it was the classic procedure followed in the water- 
front unions. 

Mr. Tavenxer. What measure of success was attained by the Com- 
munist Party in the waterfront area ? 

Mr. Hancock, I think the appropriate word would be "complete," 
in that Harry Bridges stepped from one position to another until 
he advanced from chairman of the rank and file committee of the 
ILA, which led the violent 1934 strike, to actual president of the 
ILA in San Francisco, and finally to a position of the highest leader- 
ship among the west-coast longshoremen, extending his authority from 
Seattle to San Diego, and then again to the position of CIO regional 
director for the west coast, all of this at least partially maneuvered 
by the Communist Party, and all of it being the expression of the 
Communist Party's activity in this field. 

There were other lesser successes in the period. The waterfront 
activity is the outstanding example of Communist successful infiltra- 
tion in labor unions. 

Mr. Tavenner. Off the record. 

(Discussion off the record.) 

Mr. Tavenner, I hand you a list of individuals who at one time 
lived in the San Diego area. Will you please examine the list and 
identify any appearing on it who are known to you to be members 
of the Communist Party with such identifying information regard- 
ing them as you can give ? 

Mr. Hancock, I Icnew a party named Clair, C-1-a-i-r Aderer, 
A-d-e-r-e-r, a young lady, I think, from Los Angeles, who became 
affiliated with our San Diego CP, and it seems to me she was engaged 
in youth activities. 

Ray and Julia Berquist, B-e-r-q-u-i-s-t, were young kids in YCL 
work. I believe their real name was "Wliitehead, W-h-i-t-e-h-e-a-d. 

Wilmer Breedon, B-r-e-e-d-o-n, was a lawyer who represented the 
party in many activities, but I don't recall his being a party member. 

Mike Delgado, D-e-1-g-a-d-o, and it seems to me he was an agricul- 
tural worker from Chula Vista and a member of the party. 

Bob Fuller was a YCL member and party member in San Diego. 
They are all San Diego, 

Carroll Hunnewell, H-u-n-n-e-w-e-1-1-, was a party member, a mem- 
ber of the cleaners and dyers union and a member of the party com- 
mittee which issued the mimeographed weekly paper called Trade 
Union News. 

Clarence Jasmagy, J-a-s-m-a-g-y, was a local party member and a 
piano tuner by profession. 

Ben Carron was an old-time party member rerecruited during the 
time I was active and a chicken farmer somewhere in the La Mesa 


LeRoy Keckler was the perennial unemployed husband of Bessie 

Mar<yaret Kerrigan — that LeRoy Keckler, both of whom were San 
Diegjo party members. 

Margaret Kerrigan was known to me as Margie Kerrigan, wife of 
Tony Kerrigan, both of whom were local YCL members. 

Bert Leech was Los Angeles county chairman of the Communist 
Party although at another time he no doubt was known as Los Angeles 
organizer, a different name for the same duties. He came to San 
Diego on occasion, including occasions when he was seeking relief from 
his duties in the company of members of the opposite sex. 

La Verne and Frances Lym, L-y-m, M'ere active as party members in 
San Diego in charge of the People's Bookstore after my assignments 
took me to San Francisco. 

Beatrice McDermott, M-c-D-e-r-m-o-t-t, was the wife of James 
McDermott, and both were party members in the San Diego group. 
James was for a time active in the aircraft union. 

Mrs. Grover Roe, R-o-e, was a rank-and-file member of the San 
Diego party. 

Adrian Ryan, R-y-a-n, who was a YCL member and at one phase 
a Communist Party member in San Diego. 

Paul Alexander, otherwise known as Sterling Campbell Alexander, 
was a party functionary in San Diego with varying titles, but his 
influence was approximately equal to mine. 

Otto Bensinger, B-e-n-s-i-n-g-e-r, is a name known to me, but I 
can't recall that person. 

The name Bowman, Bowman, on the list brings to mind a person 
by the name of Bollman, B-o-l-l-m-a-n, who in 1934—35 was an active 
party member in unemployment organizations. 

Carmen Edwards was a rank-and-file party member. 

Lee Gregovich, G-r-e-g-o-v-i-c-h, was a party member in the cooks 
and waitresses union. 

Ed Hollingshead, H-o-l-l-i-n-g-s-h-e-a-d, came into the party in 
the later days of my connection in San Diego, and he later went to 
Los Angeles into trade-union activity as a party member. 

Margaret Hunnewell is the wife of Carroll Hunnewell, previously 
identified, and both were party members. 

Claude Jones was a party member in East San Diego and a member 
of the carpenters union which at times made him local delegate to 
the Central Labor Council. 

John Lydick was a party member for a short period and was also 
a member of the lathers and plasterers union. He later broke with 
the party and became the appointed secretary of the Central Labor 
Council, replacing A. C. Rogers. 

Cosby, C-o-s-b-y, and Mrs. Newsome, N-e-w-s-o-m-e, were party 
members with duties largely in the unemployment field. 

The name listed, Clarence Wahlenmaier, W-a-h-l-e-n-m-a-i-e-r, 
brings to mind a Vernon Wahlenmaier, perhaps one and the same, a 
Communist Party member from the National City area and largely 
assigned to unemployment work. 

Pauline Winston was the wife of a young fellow whose first name 
escapes me. Even the name Winston is assumed. He came from 
somewhere in the East and was identified with a family connected with 


one of the chocolate empires. These two young people were for a 
time in charge of the party bookstore. 

Mr. Tavenner. Where? 

Mr. Hancock. In San Diego. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do voii know where the bookstore was located? 

Mr. Hancock. 635 E Street, San Diego. David Wosk, W-o-s-k, 
was some kind of an engineei- and a frequent participant in the meet- 
ings of the special groujD previously identified as being composed of 
sympathizers and party members. I do not recall that Wosk was an 
actual party member. 

Frank Thibault, T-h-i-b-a-u-1-t, was one of the old guard party 
members, and for a considerable ])eriod he was organizational secre- 
tary of tlie party. 

Mike Tosney is a young boy who was in the party around 1932 for 
a short period. 

Rose Volmer, V-o-l-m-e-r, was a party member, but I cannot place 
her in any special capacity. 

Daisy Lee Worcester, W-o-r-c-e-s-t-e-r, was another member of the 
special group of intellectuals and professionals who appear sym- 
pathetic to the currently expressed aims of the party, who attended 
many meetings at which I was present. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you mean meetings of the Communist Party? 

Mr. Hancock. Xo, meetings of this special group. But I cannot 
identify her as a party member. That completes the list. 

Mr. Tavenner. I hand you another list of names of persons living 
in southern California, and I will ask you to examine the list and give 
us the names, if any, that you can identify as Communist Party mem- 
bers to your knowledge, with such identifying information regarding 
them as you are able to give as well as any instances of Communist 
Party activity Avhich you may now recall. 

Mr. Hancock. I think Robert Anguis, A-n-g-u-i-s, was the party 
known to me as Robert White, a ])erson in the Communist Party and 
in the butchers union. 

Arthur Badger was a i)arty member, largely identified with un- 
employment activities. 

Forest Beyrer, B-e-y-r-e-r, was a party member active in organiza- 
tions that grew out of WPA activity. 

William H. Bradley and his wife were YCL and later party mem- 
bers of some prominence in San Diego; that is, prominent in open 
party activities. 

Frances Decker brings to mind a Dr. Decker of Los Angeles not 
personally known to me as a party member, but known to me as a 
person who permitted her home to be used as a mail drop for secret 
party communications. 

Joe Langer, L-a-n-g-e-r, was a party member and a member of the 
International Typographical Union, and he was a member of the 
small group which published the mimeographed Trade Union News. 

Esco L. Richardson was the party member who succeeded me as 
county chairman of the party. 

Dan Taylor, T-a-y-1-o-r, was a party member and was a member of 
the group wdiich published the Trade Union News. 

James E. Toback, T-o-b-a-c-k, was a party member, largely identified 
with unemployment activities. 

47718—54 — pt. 2 4 


John Williams brings to mind a pseudonym used by Pat Chambers, 
a well-known party member and a strike leader in the San Joaquin 
Valley during the agricultural foment of 1934 and 1935. That is all. 

Mr. Tavenner. You stated that at the time of your entry into the 
party that there was a nucleus of persons in San Diego who had been 
members of the Communist Party in San Diego at an earlier date. Do 
you recall the names of any of those persons ? 

Mr. Hancock. Yes; I recall Sol Bernhart as the one who would 
at times tell me about these activities around 1927-28, a time at which 
I had no contact with the party. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did any of the persons in the older group of the 
party admit former Communist Party membership to you in addition 
to Sol Bernhardt? 

Mr. Hancock. I can't recall any others. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you have any information as to why the Com- 
munist Party went temporarily out of existence in San Diego prior 
to the time of your joining it? 

Mr. Hancock. I was told by Sol Bernhardt that as a result of the 
Jay Lovestone, L-o-v-e-s-t-o-n-e-Benjamin Gitlow feud with the Wil- 
liam Z. Foster supporters, that representatives of the Communist 
International came to this country, and as a result of their instructions. 
Communist members who had sympathized with Lovestone and 
Gitlow had their books picked up, and they were never returned. 

I was advised this meant that all the books in San Diego were 
picked up, and therefore the activities ceased. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you a member at any time of the American 
Newspaper Guild ? 

Mr. Hancock. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. While living in California ? 

Mr. Hancock. Yes. Although it was only nominal membership, 
all circulation and editorial employees of the People's World were 
required by contract to be guild members. 

Mr. Tavenner. This was after you took up your work in San 

Mr. Hancock. Yes. It dated from somewhere around 1938 or 1939 
for a year or two, and I think I attended one meeting in which I took 
no part. Somebody pressured to get an attendance out, but whatever 
influence the party had in the guild was not represented by open 
People's World members. 

Mr. Tavenner. In your association with the Newspaper Guild in 
San Francisco did you learn to know any of its members as members 
of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Hancock. Only my fellow employees from the People's World. 

Mr. Ta\t:nner. Wlio were they ? 

Mr. Hancock. A1 Richmond, Bertha Wilson, Morrie Smolen, 
M-o-r-r-i-e S-m-o-l-e-n — there were several others I can't remember. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was the Daily People's World in San Francisco 
an official organ of the Communist Party? 

Mr. Hancock. No, sir; not so designated in contrast to its predeces- 
sor, the Western Worker, which carried on its masthead the title 
"Official organ of the Communist Party." The Daily People's World 
ostensibly was the product of leftwingers. In actuality it was com- 
pletely controlled and dominated by the Communist Party, but it 
never stated these facts in its columns. 


Mr. Taat:xner. On what do you base the statement that this paper 
was dominated and controlled by the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Hancock. The many meetings I attended with the State com- 
mittee of the party at which details of the circulation problems and 
financial problems of the People's World were reported on, and the 
solution was discussed. Certainly all the key people on the paper 
were party members, including the editor, city editor. 

Mr. Tavenner. What was his name? 

Mr. Hancock. A1 Richmond was the city editor. The editor was 
Harrison George, and the business manager, circulation manager of 
the regional office. The progress of the People's World was an in- 
tegral — the discussion of this progress was an integral part of almost 
every Communist Party meeting on a unit basis, county, and State 

Mr. Tavenner. Were the members of the staff of the Daily People's 
World assigned to any particular unit or group of the Communist 

Mr. Hancock. Not to any particular unit, although every staff 
member who was a Communist had to be assigned to a unit. They 
apparently were various scattered units, and in my particular case the 
assignment was simply to fulfill party requirements of attending a 
unit meeting. 

Mr. Tavenner. Does that mean that you were not identified with 
any particular unit? 

Mr. Hancock. Yes, or to put it another way, I was identified with 
several units over a period of time. One that is in my memory now 
met in Alameda County because I lived there, but while I was a member 
of that unit my function on the People's World made it unnecessary 
for me to participate in unit activities such as they were. 

Unit activities means you go out and distribute leaflets door to door 
and belong to other organizations and so on and so forth. Theoreti- 
cally everybody has to do this, but if you have a major assignment like 
I have, it is forgiven. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know what assignment Harrison George 
had in the Communist Partv prior his becoming editor of the Daily 
People's World ? 

Mr. Hancock. No, except his name is identified in my mind with 
the early party history. I recall, oh, in 1932 or 1933 reading some 
pamplilets written by him issued by the national office, and I just 
know him as an oldtime member of the national organization. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you have any knowledge of his activity in a 
movement to prepare propaganda material for dissemination in J apan ? 

Mr. Hancock. No ; I do not. 

Mr. Tavenner. What was the name of the group or unit in San 
Francisco with which you were identified ? 

Mr. Hancock. I really can't recall. We sometimes used number 
designations, or it might be a regional neighborhood designation, or 
sometimes it would be a trade-union unit. I can't recall. This one 
was a neighborhood unit and probably had some name of a neighbor- 
hood, but I don't remember. 

Mr. Tavenner. Can you identify any of the members of that imit? 

Mr. Hancock. I think at one time this husband and wife combina- 
tion identified on this list were members, Garretson, Jimmy — I for- 
get his wife's name. I don't have any other names in mind. It was 


a neighborhood thing, just to say it was not a special unit engaged in 
ordinary activities. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee, please, whether or not 
the Daily People's World was directed by Communist Party leaders 
other than those who were members of its editorial staff? 

Mr. Hancock. Most decidedly it was. The editorial and business 
staff took their directions from certain members of the State com- 
mittee of the party, specifically William Schneiderman, Betty Gan- 
nett, Walter and Rudy Lambert, and Oleta O'Connor are some of 
the names I recall. 

Mr. Tavenner. Can you recall any specific directions which you or 
other members of the staff received from the high Communist Party 
functionaries of the State of California Communist Party ? 

Mr. Hancock. Well, I can trace my own history, beginning at the 
point where I was a paid CIO organizer for the UCAPAWA. 
Mr. Tavenner. Will you give the name ? 

Mr. Hancock. United Cannery, Agricultural, Packing and Allied 
Workers of America. I was called to the State office at 121 Haight 
Street and, as I recall, was interviewed by William Schneiderman 
and/or Betty Gannett as to my willingness to take over the Alameda 
office of the People's World, being informed at that time by the party 
officials that the CIO activity in which I was engaged was about to 

Six months later I was called to the State office and told that I had 
been selected as State circulation manager of the People's World. 
In addition, every single financial drive of the People's World, which 
occurred at least annually, was organized in minute detail in the State 
committee meetings of the Communist Party, and every single circu- 
lation drive in every detail was similarly instituted by that body. 

Any important change of personnel had to be checked with whoever 
happened to be designated as the State representative for the People's 
World, and there was, it seems to me, complete integration of the party 
and the organizational structure of the People's World plus its edi- 
torial policies. 

Mr. Tavenner. Prior to your connection with the Daily People's 
World you were identified, as I recall from your previous testimony, 
with the Western AVorker. Will you explain how you became con- 
nected with that organ of the Communist Party and give the com- 
mittee all the information you can regarding its activities ? 

Mr. Hancock. When I left the employment of the San Diego Sun 
in early 1933, I was advised by State party members, including Mrs. 
Rudy Lambert — I can't thinlc of the name she goes by — that they 
would like me to come to San Francisco and work on the Western 
Worker. I was there for 3 or 4 months, receiving no salary, and 
receiving no salary I was unable to remain and returned to San Diego. 
My activity there was nominally that of circulation manager, but 
the Western Worker was a weekly paper with almost none of the 
intricacies of the operation of a daily paper. 
That is all I can say about that. 
Mr. Tavenner. Off the record. 
(Discussion off the record.) 

Mr. Tavenner. In the early part of your testimony you mentioned 
Leo Gallagher as an attorney who defended a number of Communist 


Party members involved in the Imperial Valley. A question lias 
arisen as to whether or not Mr. Gallagher was at any time a member 
of the Communist Party, Do you have any knowledge of his alleged 
membership ? 

Mr. Hancock. No; I do not. It was the impression among the 
San Diego party functionaries that he was not a member, and this 
was deduced in some part from the fact that as a devout Catholic he 
religiously attended services wherever he was, including the times 
that he was in San Diego. 

In those early days it was not conceivable to us that the party would 
have accepted his membership with that, from their point of view, 
important deviation in his personal habits and beliefs. 
Mr. Tavenner. Off the record. 
( Discussion off the record. ) 

Mr. Tavenner. You have described in a general way the reports 
received at Communist Party meetings in San Francisco regarding 
the work of the Communist Party in the waterfront section. Did you 
have any personal contact of your own in Communist Party affairs 
in that area ? 

Mr. Hancock. Only for a matter of a couple of weeks in 1933, at 
which time I was working on the Western Worker, and my party 
unit assignment brought me to the waterfront where I spoke on 
occasion to longshoremen at Communist-called outdoor rallies. 

In 1938 and 1939 I was quite friendly with Dave Saunders, 
S-a-u-n-d-e-r-s, who was quite prominent personally in party water- 
front activities. We had many personal discussions. 

Otherwise my information came from reports at State and local 
committee meetings. 

Mr. Tavenner. Can you identify Communist Party members active 
in the unions on the waterfront whose names you have not already 
indentified ? 

Mr. Hancock. I think not. While I haven't mentioned it, the 
names are sprinkled through various hearings, like some guy by the 
name of Yates married to Oleta O'Connor, prominent in party activi- 
ties and prominent in waterfront union activities. John Schumacher 
was a party member; Dave Saunders — the other names escape me — 
Henry Schmidt, but these names have been rehashed a thousand times. 
There is nothing I can add to what has been said before. 

Mr. Tavenner. We have heard a great deal of evidence about the 
insistence of the Communist Party that its members join various mass 
organizations or front organizations to carry out the purposes of the 
party. Did you at the instance of the Communist Party become a 
member of any such organizations ? 

Mr. Hancock. Yes ; I did, although it should be remembered that 
as a publicly known Communist my activities were pretty limited 
in this respect. 

However, in the organizational wave which we largely instituted 
in San Diego, I took out membership through the assistance of Carroll 
Hunnewell in the Cleaners and Dyers Union and as such conducted 
an organizational campaign in San Diego that moved along pretty 
well until some national representative of the union came to one of 
our meetings, and I was deposed as an open Communist. 

Mr. Tavenner. Have you identified him as a member of the Com- 
munist Party or not? 


Mr. Hancock. I have identified him. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you ran for political office at any time as a 
member of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Hancock. Yes, I did several times. I don't know that I can 
even recall the offices. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you at one time a candidate for the Board of 
Education in San Diego ? 

Mr. Hancock. Yes, in 1935. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you state the circumstances ? 

Mr. Hancock. This was a period where people in large numbers 
were in need of relief, and there seemed to be no machinery of any 
consequence to help them. Following rigid laws, the local city govern- 
ment was disconnecting the water supply to various homes for failure 
to pay bills. We created quite a campaign to put a stop to this situa- 
tion, and finally, to dramatize the facts we announced publicly that 
we would start turning the water back on, and I did that in 2 or 3 
cases and was arrested and sentenced to 10 days in jail, as I recall, 
and it was right around that period that an election came up for 
some local offices, and the party decided to submit my name for board 
of education which had no significance except to select a position for 
which we could put our name before the public. Ostensibly while 
we were electioneering, we were talking about the current aims of the 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you elected? 

Mr. Hancock. No, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you an open member of the Communist Party 
at that time ? 

Mr. Hancock. Yes, I was. But it should be remembered that while 
I was an open member, not too many people knew about it because we 
lacked means of publicity, and this specific activity was carried out 
by the Unemployed Council, a front organization of the party, so that 
it would not be quite true to say that everybody that voted for my name 
voted for a Communist. 

Mr. Tavenner. What percentage of the vote did you receive ? 

Mr. Hancock. I just don't remember, but the vote electrified the 
State office of the Communist Party because at that point they had 
never seen a vote of this size. I can't even remember the total. I 
think the total I have given you is wrong. It might have been 
eighteen or twenty thousand, but it was something that was a surprise 
to everybody, and perhaps 25 percent of what it took to be elected. It 
was a sizable protest vote, considering that the Communists running 
as the national candidates of 1932 had perhaps received a hundred 
votes in San Diego. My vote running into the thousands excited quite 
a good deal of comment. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you later become a candidate for State senator 
in San Diego ? 

Mr. Hancock. Yes, I did. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you running for that office openly as a member 
of the Communist Pary and on the Communist Party ticket ? 

Mr. Hancock. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was that race that you made at the instance of the 
Communist Party? 

Mr. Hancock. Yes, I was an official candidate of the Communist 
Party. It was an open party ticket. 


Mr. Tavenner, Wliat was tlie date? 

Mr. Hancock. 1934. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did the strength of the party increase at the time 
of that election over what it had been before, or did it diminish? 

Mr. Hancock. I don't think it had any visible effect on the party, 
although I may be unable to remember, but I have a general impression 
that electioneering activity didn't serve any important benefit to the 
party. This might have been because the issues of the day, the elec- 
tioneering issues of the day, were not exciting. Our most important 
progress was made in the trade union field on trade union issues. We 
liked the idea of being able to call ourselves official candidates because 
after opening a meeting as a candidate, we could talk about anything, 
but I have no recollection of making any important gains because of 
that situation. 

Mr. Tavenner. What motivated the Communist Party in putting a 
slate for election in the field? 

Mr. Hancock. Well, the question is interesting because the record 
shows that at no time was a Communist candidate ever the recipient 
of more than a tiny fraction of votes cast. I think there were many 
reasons, the chief one being that it tended to establish in the minds 
of the public the fact that the Communist Party was a legitimate, 
fully legal, political organization with aims and ideals, if not the 
same as other political parties, within the confines of the normal 
definition of a political party. 

In one sense the political electioneering permitted Communists to 
come before audiences, not conceivably at their disposal under any 
other circumstance. 

For example, I was given at least once free radio time, and on other 
occasions had no difficulty in buying radio time during election cam- 
paigns. On occasions I was invited to civic meetings on a par with 
other candidates running for the same office, and all of this tended to 
create an atmosphere of legitimacy that furthered the interests of 
the party insofar as they were interested in establishing their legality, 
which was another way of saying it gave them a cloak for their illegal 

Mr. Tavenner. This committee has heard a great deal of evidence 
showing that the Communist Party of the United States was being 
directed and controlled by a foreign power, and from evidence of that 
type it has been concluded by the committee that the Communist Party 
of the United States was not a political party in the sense that a 
political party is known in our system of political science, but on the 
contrary, is a conspiratorial apparatus which was being used by a 
foreign power to promote its own foreign policy. 

To what extent, if at all, were you aware of such influences within 
the Communist Party? 

Mr. Hancock. Well, I was aware of the influence. It made itself 
felt by Communist Party membere being constantly propagandized 
on the virtues of Russia. Party functionaries soon learned that every- 
thing that existed in Russia had to be considered good. 

In every phase of our activity at least an attempt was made to insert 
propaganda on the virtues of Russia. In many instances this created 
ludricious situations. When, for example, we would be trying to win 
additional relief for the unemployed, our printed pamphlets would 
say, "Support the unemployed and defend the Soviet Union." Even 


further afield the slogans frequently said, "Defend Soviet China," 
which at that time meant that portion of China which was under the 
military domination of the Chinese Red army. 

Records will show that in many trade-union meetings and State 
conventions resolutions were issued by trade-union delegates defending 
some aspect of Russian activity. 

In addition to this, the policy of sending American citizens to Russia 
and bringing them back as lecturers was extensively carried on. 

I recall several young people who purportedly were sent to and from 
Russia by the, quote, "'Friends of the Soviet Union," end quote, and 
upon their return spoke glowingly at mass meetings around the State 
of the great things happening in Russia. 

I'his same organization sent adults, who also lectured upon their 
return, and in the party structure itself it was commonly known that 
once a year some members in the United States were selected for study 
in the Lenin Institute, Moscow. So that all in all there was a stream 
of activity and thought supporting every aspect of whatever line the 
Soviet Union needed support on. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee what your knowledge is 
of underground activities of the party in California ? 

Mr. Hancock. What Ave termed '"underground activities" referred 
to security measures to protect the party apparatus, and I have some 
brief knowledge of underground activities which resulted in printed 
propaganda being placed aboard ships for dissemination aboard. At 
one point in our San Diego trade-union campaign we received several 
thousand leaflets written in German, signed by the Communist Party, 
and our task, which was successfully concluded, was to place them 
aboard, through the longshoremen's union membership, a ship which 
happened to be in San Diego in a way that when the cargo hatches 
were opened, the longshoremen at the point of destination would read 
the leaflets. This was considered from our point of view illegal and 
carefully hidden activity. 

Mr. Tavenner. What was the name of the ship ? 

Mr. Hancock. I have no knowledge of that. 

Mr. Tavenner. Can you identify any other persons who would have 
knowledge of that activity ? 

Mr. Hancock. It is possible that Lee Gregovich nuxy know. I think 
Paul Alexander would know. 

As I recollect, we produced the desired result through party mem- 
bers getting nonparty longshoremen to do this because we didn't have, 
at that time, party membership among the longshoremen — just on a 
friendly basis. 

What perhaps should be considered in the field of illegal activity 
from our point of view was our training and knowledge of coding, 
clandestine mail drops, preparation of letters and envelopes in a way to 
guard against their being opened surreptitiously. 

Something that stands out in my mind of the many methods passed 
on to us is the most successful coding method which is simplicity itself. 
Verbally or by personal courier an agent or party member or party 
functionary — a party functionary is told to get a certain well-known 
popular book — for example, (rone With the Wind. This title is never 
written down, and normally the only 2 people that know of its selec- 
tion is the 1 to send and the 1 to receive the message. The sender has 
a book of the same title. His message is dictated by the use of nu- 


merals. The numerals represent in 1, 2, 3 sequence: 1, page; 2, line 
down ; 3, letter from the left side. 

It seems to me this is a foolproof code. I haven't the slightest idea 
how it could ever be broken, and it was used rarely, and in my experi- 
ence mostly in practice, but with three numbers representing a single 
selected letter from any one of thousands of books found in a public 
library, it seems to me that it is a very good code. 

We used other systems when sometimes we suspected people of open- 
ing our mail, such as placing heavy black paper around a message and 
sealing it in an envelope to prevent photography, although I don't 
know how effective that would be against X-ray. 

As previously indicated, we were taught how to seal a letter with a 
tiny human hair left in the mucilage, and then by extracting it, a tiny 
line of unglued mucilage remained. In the simple process of steam- 
ing open an envelope, this line would disappear. 

The party was in those days seemingly fully prepared for the 
emergency of going completely underground, and it was a part of 
our regular duties on the higher levels of the party to prepare our- 
selves for this emergency. 

Mr. Tavenner. Off the record. 

(Discussion off the record.) 

Mr. Tavenner. Was any form of Aesopian language used by which 
one Communist could recognize another without specifically identi- 
fying himself ? 

Mr. Hancock. At least on the west coast the terminology was used 
which permitted Communists to describe party members in the pres- 
ence of strangers without detection. For example. State headquarters 
at 121 Haight Street was in public referred to as "the cathedral." 
Individual party members were identified in conversation as "church 
members." And that terminology prevailed in such expressions as, 
"He belongs to the church," and so forth. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you now able to identify the union of agricul- 
tural workers which in the early part of your testimony you were 
somewhat uncertain of ? 

Mr. Hancock. Yes, it is in my mind as the Cannery and Agricul- 
ture Workers Industrial Union, and I know it by the initials of C. and 
A. W. I. U. 

Mr. Tavenner. In the early part of your testimony you stated that 
you left the Communist Party at the time that you left the Daily Peo- 
ple's World. You stated that you did not hand in a formal resigna- 
tion. Will you explain to the committee more fully the circumstances 
and the method by which you left the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Hancock. I wish I could say that I became disillusioned early 
in my membership, but the facts are otherwise. 

The actual process of disillusionment with me was a tedious, lengthy 

Beginning sometime around 1936, when I was the object of a violent 
attack as the San Diego leader by the previously named V. J. Jerome, 
I realized that I could no longer conscientiously consider myself a 
full-fledged supporter of the Communist policies. 

Something that isn't easy to describe but perhaps should be said is 
that in the same way that membership in any organization causes 

4TT1.S — 54— pt. 2 — —5 


fcocial pressures to be exerted on members to cany out the policies of 
t]iat organization, the atmosphere of the Communist organization was 
such that it appeared to be extremely distasteful to leave the organiza- 
tion, distasteful and unpleasant. 

For example, the issues of the Western Worker frequently carried 
articles on the expulsion of this or that Communist, and terms most 
uncomplimentary were used, so that Communists knew you were either 
a Conununist member or the lowest possible order of human being. 

The circumstances of normal relationship with party members made 
it difficult for me to one day give instructions on Communist policy 
and the next day deny them myself, so that I took the circuitous 
course of drifting away from party activity by in 1937 requesting 
relief from direct organizational assignment with the request that 
I be permitted to go into trade union work. 

That was finally achieved in the latter part of 1937, and when that 
program expired, instead of going back to me the then distasteful 
work of party organizational activity, I accepted a further assign- 
ment of circulation manager for the People's World. 

This was a compromise with myself, and it became increasingly 
difficult for me to accept even that relationship with the Communist 

The greatest impact on my mind came from final reluctant realiza- 
tion that communism was in every practical aspect a complete personal 
dictatorship. Tlie so-called democratic centralism of the party per- 
mitted the members to decide such things as where the next meeting 
would be held, but all policy decisions originated in small groups of 
people ostensibly elected, but actually selected by a still smaller and 
higher group. 

For example, the State committee nominees were always passed on 
by national representatives of the party. Decisions almost never 
flowed from membership discussion. The membership discussion had 
to do with implementing the decision, and under no circumstances was 
the membership permitted to challenge the basic correctness of the 

In my slow way the intelligence finally came to me that every hero 
in the Communist movement was no more than a human being, and 
mostly in my conception of the role of Stalin as he was presented as 
almost a party deity, I came to the conclusion that this organization, 
while it accomplished some good to some people, in the main represen- 
ted a very terrible tlireat to society because one man in this whole 
world had the power to do anything he wished, and right on down the 
line, one man in the United States could have touched a button to 
cause Communists to do his personal wishes, and in the State organi- 
zation one man could liave instructed his membership to do liis per- 
sonal wishes, and the thought would come to me, what if this man 
should suddenly go insane? There is no possible restriction on what- 
ever he may say, for whatever he says becomes absolute law and can 
only be even mildly questioned at a later time after the action has been 

To me the final bh)w came in the attack on Poland of the Soviet 
Union and in the issuance of various communiques which reversed 
overnight the international line of the Conununist Party and caused 
llie Conununist movement in this country to become blood brothers 
with the Nazi organization of Germanv. 


A few months after that event I found a way to quietly leave the 
party by simply advising State functionaries of the party that since 
my father had died in recent months, it was necessary for me to 
provide sufficient income to meet whatever necessities my mother 
might have, and that I would have to leave that work. 

I was called to the State office 2 or 3 times, and attempt was made 
to prevent me from doing that, but in a very friendly persuasive way. 
I persisited in the story and in my decision and gave my resignation. 
Actually the People's World held a going-away party for me, gave 
]]ie a typewriter, and with that I walked out and began looking for a 
job in my original profession. Three weeks later I became circulation 
manager of the Santa Cruz Sentinel News and received in the next 
year or two one or two letters from Leo Barroway whose name is now 
introduced for the first time, who was at that time the State organiza- 
tional secretary, and he insistently urged that I do something about 
i-ejuvenating or reestablishing party activities in Santa Cruz. I 
ignored the letter or letters, and that was my last contact with the 

I am not proud of this overall activity of mine in the realm of com- 
munism. I think some small good was accomplislied, but damage of 
a.n unknown quantity might well have been done through my influenc- 
ing others to come into the Communist Party and, for all I know, 
remain to this day. 

I consider communism as something very dangerous, although not 
imminently so, dangerous in its philosophy to the good and welfare 
of this country. I think it has without question deteriorated into a 
simple expression of the aims and policies of the Soviet Union, and 
as such can bring nothing but evil to this country if it prospers. 

Mr. Tavenner. I have no further questions. 

I would like the record to show at this point the closing statement 
made by the chairman of the subcommittee. 

(The statement of Kepresentative Donald L. Jackson (presiding) 
from the hearing of Wednesday, February 24, 1954, is as follows : 

Mr. .Jackson. I personaUy think, and I am sure that it is the expression of 
the entire committee and of the Congress of the United States, that in making 
tliis appearance here you have reudei-ed signal service to the committee, the 
(.'ongress and the American people. It is not an easy thing to do, as you yourself 
have pointed out. But, without any such testimony as you have given here 
today, the American people would not have the tremendous total knowledge of 
the operations of the Communist Party that they do have, and because they have 
it I think that this Nation is probably more alert and more aware to the true 
nature and significance of the Communist Party than any people on earth. That, 
1 say, is due to testimony such as yours. It would certainly be the hope of the 
Chair that under no circumstances, irrespective of what may in the future be 
done with tins testimony — and we cannot foresee at the moment what may be 
necessary to do — but I would certainly express the thought that retaliatory ac- 
tion of any kind taken against you or against any other witness who sees it his 
obligation to come before the Congress or this committee or any committee to 
give such testimony ; is reprehensive and would destroy the work of this com- 
mittee more rapidly and more effectively than could the Communist Party itself. 

I want to express to you the thanks of the Committee on Un-American Activi- 
ties for your lucid, comprehensive, and splendid testimony today. 

(Whereupon, at 5 : 00 p. m., the hearing was adjourned.) 



United States House of Representatives, 

Subcommittee of the Committee 

ON Un-American Activities, 

Washington^ D. C. 
executive session ^ 

The subcommittee of the Committee on Un-American Activities 
met, pursuant to notice, at 2 : 14 p. m., in room 227, Old House Oflfice 
Building, Hon. Bernard W. Kearney (presiding). 

Committee member present : Representative Bernard W. Kearney 

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

Mr. Kearney. The committee will be in order. 

Let the record show that the Honorable Harold H. Velde, chairman 
of the House Committee on Un-American Activities, has appointed 
the Honorable Bearnard W. Kearney as a subcommittee of one for 
the purpose of conducting this hearing. 

Mr. Haddock, would you stand and be sworn ? 

Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give 
before this House Committee on Un-American Activities shall be 
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Haddock. I do. 

Mr. Kearney. Would you state your full name for the record, 


Mr. Haddock. Benjamin Holmes Haddock. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you accompanied by counsel ? 

Mr. Haddock. No ; I am not. 

Mr. Tavenner. It is the practice of the committee to explain to 
each witness that he has the right to have counsel during the course 
of his interrogation and a right to consult counsel at any stage of his 
testimony Avhether he has one initially or not. 

With that understanding, do you want to proceed now or do you 
desire to have counsel ? 

Mr. H.VDDOCK. It is all right. Proceed. 

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

^ Released by the committee. 



Mr. Haddock. I was born in Coronado, Calif., November 3, 1917. 

Mr. Tavenner. What is your occupation or profession ? 

Mr. Haddock. I am in the social-work profession; I am chief 
psychiatric social worker. 

Mr. Tavenner. Where do you reside ? 

Mr. Haddock. Montclair, N. J., 836 Mount Bloomfield Avenue. 

Mr. Tavenner. Where is your work centered ? 

Mr. Haddock. Plainfield, N. J. 

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

Mr. Haddock. I went through the public schools in San Diego and 
then, following my Army experience, which was just short of 4 
years, I went to the New York School of Social Work, Columbia 
University, in New York City; graduated with a master of science 

Mr. Tavenner. Wliat was the date of your entrance at Columbia 
University ? 

Mr. Haddock. It was September 1947. 

Mr. Tavenner. How many years were you in attendance at 
Columbia ? 

Mr. Haddock. I was through March 31, 1949. It was a 2-year 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell me, please, whether you served in 
the Armed Forces during the period of the war ? 

Mr. Haddock. Yes, I did. I was entered under selective service 
October 21, 1941, and I was discharged October 5, 1945. 

Mr. Tavenner. Where did you serve during that period of time? 

Mr. Haddock. The primary area was the Pacific, headquarters at 
Hawaii, T. H. 

Mr. Tavenner. "Wlien were you discharged? 

Mr. Haddock. October 5, 1945. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee, please, how you have 
been employed or how you have been engaged since your release from 
the Army ? 

Mr. Haddock. Well, I was sick for a couple of months after I got 
out of the Army, and I started as a substitute teacher January 16, 
1946, and I taught as a substitute for a few months, and then I guess 
it was for the latter part of April, May, and June, I was a permanent 
teacher in the San Diego systems. 

Mr. Tavenner. In what school were you teaching? 

Mr. Haddock. Florence School was the school where I was a per- 
manent teacher. I was a substitute prior to that, so I went to many 

Mr. Tavenner. Is that a junior college or a high school? 

Mr. Haddock. It is an elementary school. I taught the sixth grade. 

Mr. Tavenner. Then after the completion of the year and a half 
or more of work as a teacher, what did you do ? 

Mr. Haddock. Well, I worked during the summer of 1947, ran a 
day camp for one of the local groups. United Jewish Appeal group, 
and then I came East with my wife to attend the New York School 
of Social Work. She was a graduate social worker and had 2 semes- 
ters or 2 quarters to complete, so we both attended school and she 
then worked after the 2 quarters and I completed my degree. 


Mr. Tavenner. After the completion of your degree, in what work 
did you engage? 

Mr. Haddock. I then secured a job as a psychiatric social worker 
in the Mental Hygiene Clinic of Union County, Plainfield, N. J. This 
is a private Community Chest-supported all-purpose clinic. 

Mr. Tavenner. And you are still employed there ? 

Mr. Haddock. I still am there. 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Haddock, we desire to inquire as to what knowl- 
edge you have of Communist Party activities in the San Diego area, 
and also in New York. 

Have you had an opportunity to know at first hand of activities of 
the Communist Party in those areas ? 

Mr. Haddock. Yes; I have. 

Mr. Tavenner. What is the basis of your knowledge ? 

Mr. Haddock. Well, I joined the party in the fall of 1945 and, oh, 
after a month or two I was accepted, I guess, because then I was notified 
of where the meetings were to be held, and then I left the party in the 
fall of 1948. 

Mr. Tavenner. You joined the party after you were discharged 
from the United States Army ? 

Mr. Haddock. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee, please, the circum- 
stances under which you became a member ? 

Mr. Haddock. May we be off the record a minute? 

Mr. Tavenner. Off the record. 

(Discussion off the record.) 

Mr. Tavenner. On the record. 

Mr. Haddock. In answer to your question, I walked into the party 
office in San Diego and asked for an application form, and signed it. 
The person who accepted it was Mrs. Lolita Bunyard. Her name now 
is Gibson. She married after the time of my joining. 

Well, I became interested in the Communist Party through men 
who were in the information and education section of the Army. I 
had more education than most of the men in my outfit, even though 
it was only a B. A. and then we went to the Gilbert Islands ; I was on 
that invasion and was stationed there for 8 months following the 
invasion, so while there they needed someone to do the information 
and education, which I volunteered to do. There wasn't much else 
to do, and I also found it quite interesting. There weren't any libraries 

Well, I might interject here the comment that the person who really 
gave me the introduction to this was a little fellow named Solomon 
Kantor, from New York City, who was a subscriber to this little labor 
paper called In Fact, and he gave me copies of that, and he gave me 
a book by Seldes, I think, Facts on Fascism, so this was interesting. 
I don't know how leftist this boy was, but tliis was certainly the kind 
of thing that appealed to him, and although most of my activity on 
Makin was fairly intellectual in terms of presenting factual material 
and had no leftist tinge, as far as I was able to discern, I had no intro- 
duction to anyone who might be described as a real leftist ; however, 
when I got back to Hawaii it was purely by accident that I met a 
man, whose name I have been trying to think of for the last week, 
who was in the information and education section of the Antiaircraft 
Command, and he came in and talked to me one day. I was just about 


to take a 5-day pass to Hawaii, that is, the ishiiid of Hawaii, and he 
told me he was organizing a school for officers and enlisted men as a 
part of the information and education program so that the two groups 
could be brought closer together so they could function moreetfectively. 
I don't know whether I met him again or not^ — I may have — but if I 
did it was in passing, because he was returned to the mainland; but 
he said, "You come up to the information and education shack; there 
are several other fellows who meet here whom you will get to know." 
And sure enougli, I was interested ; and I met three fellows, one whose 
name was Martin Mitchnick; another one was Robert Gould — and 
both of these, incidentally, are from Detroit — and then a third one 
who I think was like me, sort of excited by this new area, a fellow 
named Murray Crummins. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know where he was from ? 
Mr. Haddock. No; I don't. The last time I heard, he was living 
with his mother in a hotel in New York City, which was used by one 
of the social organizations that handle refugees when they come in, 
and I wrote him there to see if I could get in touch with him because 
1 was interested in seeing him again; but he never answered, and I 
rather got the impression that he didn't want to answer, that he sort 
of cut the ties; but I made 2 or 3 efforts to get in touch with him. 
Mr. Tavenner. Will you spell his last name? 
Mr. Haddock. C-r-u-m-m-i-n-s. 

Well, this became a very interesting experience for these fellows. 
Eveiy Sunday morning we used to go down to the Army-Navy YMCA 
to a forum that was held by the chaplain — I wish I could remember 
his name but I can't — a very pleasant man — and this was sort of a 
current-event forum and it was the self-imposed obligation of this 
group to, you know, present the right point of view from their point 
of view or from our point of view. 

Another little project that the four of us developed was that we 
thought it might be good to get some body of information on veterans' 
organizations, with the hope of influencing the organization that the 
men went into. 

Now, it was the thinking of this group that the organization that 
should be used by veterans were the American Legion, Veterans of 
foreign Wars — I don't know if there was any other — on the assump- 
tion that people who were Communists or leftists would be much more 
effective in large mass organizations. 

Mr. Tavenner. This was before you had become a member of the 
Communist Party? 

Mr. Haddock. Yes. These other fellows were not Communists, but 
two of them had been, and I think planned to be again, but this is the 
way party people work. They are supposed to have projects, and this 
was the project of Robert Gould and Martin Mitchnick, primarily 
]\Iartin Mitchnick. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know which of the two had been former 
members of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Haddock. The two I mentioned, Gould and Mitchnick. This 
was what they said to me ; they were not members at the time. This 
was something that Martin was doing on his own, I might say. He 
didn't have any party sanction for it. He was a little bit worried 
that the party line might be something else, which it did turn out to 
be, but at least I assumed it was. 



You asked me about Jack Hall. One day we went over to Jack 
Hall's place, and one of his questions was to try to find out from Jack 
Hall what the leftist thinking was on the question of veterans' organ- 
izations, and Jack Hall indicated he didn't know and let it go at that. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you confer with Dr. Reinecke on that subject? 

Mr. Haddock. No; we didn't. I was at his home. I was at his 
home with Crummins and Mitchnick. I think it was one of these 
things, "Well, stop in some time," and we did. He used to entertain 
primarily Merchant Marine men; that is the impression I had. I 
knew lie was a leftist — I knew he was a Marxist, let's put it that way, 
and I can be more specific. This was why he either quit or was fired 
from the University of Hawaii. I don't know whether you gentle- 
men know him or not. 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes ; he has testified before this committee. 

Mr. Kearney. Yes, sure. 

Mr. Tavenner. I do not want to disturb too much the order of 
your statement with regard to the circumstances under which you 
oecame a party member. You were telling us about the projects that 
the four of you had in regard to veterans' organizations, so if you will 
proceed now as you expected to develop your statement. 

Mr. Haddock. All right. Well, we wrote voluminously, and got all 
kinds of replies. That was sort of the end of that, as it were. It 
occupied our time. I don't know that it was ever used for anj^ purpose. 

Mr. Ta-\-enner. Well, does your testimony in that respect mean that 
through the influence of these two persons who had been members of 
the Communist Party you were becoming interested in some objectives 
of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Haddock. Yes ; that is a good way to put it ; yes. 

Then about this time there was a move afoot, initially, I think, 
about some labor leaders in Hawaii — of this I am not sure, however — 
to organize a labor canteen, and so I became one of those who was 
active in that group. 

Essentially, it was in this group that I met a number of people whom 
I find are quite prominent in the Communist movement ; I didn't know 
it at the time, although I had, you know, hints of it, certain labor 

Mr. TA^^:NNER. From Hawaii ? 

Mr. Haddock. They were not Hawaii labor leaders, no; they were 

Well, for example, one of them was David Livingston, who is one of 
the leaders of Local 65 in New York City. Another was a politi- 

Mr. Kearney. Local 65 of what, may I ask ? 

Mr. Haddock. I don't know. Let me see if I do know 

Mr. Kearney. I mean, is it United Electrical Workers Union, or 
branch ? 

Mr. Haddock. No ; I see what you mean. They are store employees, 
clerks in department stores. 

Then another person who was there, a very mild-mannered West 
Indian — he Avas a politician — Ewart Guinier, G-u-i-n-i-e-r, I think. 

Mr. Kearney. A member of the Labor Party of New York State? 

Mr. Hademdck. Yes. You probably have heard the name. This 
group had quite a push by one of the employees of the Longshoremen's 


Union. This was Elinor Kahn. who is their research assistant, and I 
think she did a great deal to stimulate the activity of some of these 
soldiers to get this labor canteen into existence. 

Mr. Tavenner. Excuse me; what was the name of the person — 
did yon say Elinor Kahn ? 

Mr. Haddock. Kahn, K-a-h-n. 

Mr. Tavenner. Off the record. 

(Discussion off the record.) 

Mr. Tavenner. On the record. 

Wlio, in your judgment, were the controlling positions in the or- 
ganization of the labor canteen in Hawaii ? 

Let me put the question this way: Do you know from where in- 
struction emanated to organize the canteen ? 

Mr, Haddock, That I clon't know, because the 4 of us, this 4 I spoke 
of earlier, we came in a little late on that. I think this thing had 
gotten rolling. We sort of came in while it was in its formative 
stages. I did go out and sell advertising for the booklet which was 
for their opening day. 

As I said, this project just about died, and if it hadn't been for 
Elinor Kahn I think it probably would have, and, essentially, she 
mobilized some people, and I really don't know who they were be- 
cause this was one of the times I didn't get to meet with them. This 
was a private session. I remember a group did meet with her, 

Mr, Tavenner. In connection with the labor canteen, did you have 
occasion to meet Alice Hyun ? 

Mr. Haddock. I met her, I know, at least once, and I think she 
was earning a living making block print blouses at the time, and I was 
told that she was a Korean revolutionary. Now, that is the extent of 
it, and I know shortly after — well, I don't know how shortly, but, any- 
way, she went back to Korea or Japan. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you have occasion to meet Kimoto ? 

Mr. Haddock. I don't know if I did meet him. 

Mr, Tavenner, McElrath ; did you meet McElrath ? 

Mr. Haddock. Yes; the name is familiar. I don't recall him in 
my mind's eye. 

These names register. I don't know about Kimoto, 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you have any specific knowledge about the con- 
nection of the labor canteen with the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Haddock. I could not say that I do specifically because I just 
don't have the concrete evidence to say it was at this party meeting that 
such and such was done, because I was never included in any like that. 

What would happen, there would be a party in which there was 
this intermingling of people who, well, you could just tell by the way 
they talked that they were radicals, and others who were babes in the 
woods. This was one of the things that struck me; if this was sup- 
posed to be so confidential, why did they rope in comparative strangers 
to some of the things that they did ? 

For example, this just seems unbelievable, but you remember when 
the big controversy around Earl Browder developed? Well, I got 
invited, and I don't know by whom, to attend a dinner where this 
was presented to the people who were present. T don't know whether 
it was an officer whose first name was Lee, or whether it was Mitchuick, 
or I don't even know if Mitchnick was present, but the thing about 
this that was so dramatic was that out of the 15 or 16 people who were 


present, there were at least 3 or 4 that I had never seen before — they 
were soldiers — and never saw them again, and these were just some 
fellows somebody brought in. 

Mr. Ta\tnner. That was in Hawaii ? 

Mr. Haddock, In Hawaii, and whenever there was any kind of 
party discussion such as this, it was always loaded with about a third 
nonparty people, so it became sort of a group gathering, so you didn't 
know wlio were the people who considered themselves Communists 
even though they were not technically Communists at the time, and 
you didn't know who were not party members and never had been. 

For example, this first meeting I speak of was held at a Chinese res- 
taurant down along, well, I wish I could think of the name of this — 
I think it is by the Alai Canal. It is that canal which separates the 
main part of Honolulu from Waikiki. And then the other meeting 
was held in the home of a fellow named Bristow. I think the name 
is B-r-i-s-t-o-w. And I remember that the same thing happened in 
which there was quite a conglomeration of people. 

Mr. Tavenner. Now, these were things that led up to your joining 
the party ? 

Mr. Kearney. What is Bristow's business, do you know ? 

Mr. Haddock. Gee, I don't know. I know he married a woman 
named Mitchell, who was a photographer, professional photographer, 
and that he divorced his first wife, who had been a secretary to Jack 

Mr. Tavenner. All right ; go ahead. 

Mr. Haddock, Well, there were many other people and many other 
factors, but I found that some of the positives and some of the pro- 
grams that were supported tended to coincide with some of the things 
1 believed in. 

For a while during this period I was considering going back to 
school and taking my graduate studies in religion in order to be a 
preacher. In fact, one of my very good friends in the Army, Chaplain 
Fairclough, sent my name in to a number of schools as a possibility. 
That is Frederick Fairclough, a United Lutheran minister. I think 
he has a church in Trenton. 

Well, I was excited by many of the factors in this group ; the com- 
raderie was really the first I had had. I was an enlisted man, fairly 
well isolated from the population in Hawaii, although I did have a 
school chum named Peter Ching, and I spent considerable time at his 
home, which was something I enjoyed very much. 

Mr. Ta\t:nner. You are not indicating by that that there was any 
influence used upon you by Ching of a Communist character ? 

Mr. Haddock. No, absolutely no. He was not in any way commu- 
nistic or progressive or radical. 

And so this labor group which was also a new group, culturally, to 
me — I had never met people like this before. I had never even met 
the variety of backgrounds, European backgrounds, for example, that 
I found present in this group, and so I believed everything that was 
said. I had no reason to doubt it. 

So, when I got back to San Diego the day after I got out of the 
service I went down and joined the party, walked right in the door 
and signed the card. 

However, I think I had a reaction after that. I had been offered 
a job by the unions in Hawaii, so it gives you some idea of how they 


felt about me. A fellow named Ralph Vossbrink said that if 1 wanted 
to, he would let me join his union and he would put me on a ship 
and I would come back to San Diego and and spend some time with 
the folks and then ship back to Hawaii and go to work, I don't know 
whether for him or Jack Hall's union. I don't know just what the 
job was, but anyway, the job w^as offered, sort of, you know, nebu- 
lously, and I never did get too serious about it. 

Off the record. 

Mr. Tavenner. Off the record. 

(Discussion off the record.) 

Mr. Tam^nner. On the record. 

Mr. Haddock. There was another couple who was active in the labor 
canteen whom I am sure you know. She was a Negro girl who married 
a white civilian employee in the islands. She was the daughter of 
the one who owned Trader Vic's. Her name was Smith, I believe; 
that was her maiden name. But I think she broke with the left side 
of the fence, because I had heard her criticized by people because she 
had sort of turned against them. 

Does this give you a picture of what led up to it { 

Mr. Kearney. Yes, very interesting. 

Mr. Tavenner. Now, will you tell the committee, please, just what 
your experience was in the Comnmnist Party ? 

I believe it would be better for you to attempt to give the com- 
mittee as complete a statement as you can, and the committee or I 
will interpose questions to develop more fully things we think could 
be developed more fully. 

Mr. Haddock. Well, I joined the party in San Diego and was as- 
signed to the East San Diego branch, and I remained in that branch 
during my stay in San Diego. I was then transferred to New York 
City and was affiliated with the student group. 

Mr. Kearney. Let me break in there. 

You were transferred, or you were assigned to the East San Diego 
branch, and while you were a member of that branch did you attend 
Communist Party meetings there ? 

Mr. Haddock. Yes ; I did. 

Mr. Kearney. Can you furnish the committee with the names of 
any party members of that branch ? 

Mr. Haddock. Yes; I could. 

Would you like me to do this, sir ? 

Mr. Kearney. If you would, please ? 

Mr. Tavenner. I suggest that you describe the type of meetings 
that were held and what projects there were, if any, in which this 
particular branch of the Communist Party was engaged. 

Mr. Haddock. The East San Diego branch was, well, it was com- 
posed of family people, I would say, with not too much drive, and 
actually our projects over the year and a half that I was a member 
of it consisted of 2 or 3 fund-raising parties, an attempt to get people 
interested in, I don't know what, but I knoAV leaflets were passed out. 
I didn't pass them out, but several people in the branch did. 

Mr. Kearney. Would they be consTuners projects or party projects? 

Mr. Haddock. I think the one that I remember was a consumer 
project, in terms of bringing prices down 

Mr. Kearney. Hich cost of living;? 


Mr. Haddock. I think that was one of them. In fact, it was right 
in that period there where the OP A stopped functioning, but there 
was more than one of them. It was just an attempt to make a show- 
ing; it was a very small operation and, as I go over the list of these 
people's names, not too many of them were really active. Most of them 
were — they belonged and they paid their dues and came to meetings 
semiregularly. In fact, some of them here very rarely came to a meet- 
i]ig, on this list. 

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

Mr. Haddock. Well, I see I am listed as the educational adviser. I 
think I was responsible for the educational part of the club meeting, 
but I took this job from Lloyd Hamlin when he left. 

Mr. Tavenner. What position did Lloyd Hamlin hold ? 

Mr. Haddock. I think he was the educational chairman, and then 
he moved, of course, from our club to become the chairman of the pro- 
fessional group which he organized and was the organizer of. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee, please, what was the 
nature of the study groups conducted within your own cell ? 

Mr. Haddock. This will be hard for me to do, but I think that they 
would consist of such projects as current events, and then we would 
bring leaflets ; our leaflets would be sold to the members, or they would 
be encouraged to read something. I think when I was educational 
chairman I was supposed to meet once in a while with the educational 
chairman for the whole area. 

Mr. Tavenner. Who was the educational chairman ? 

Mr. Haddock. William Reich ; and, essentially, the programs came 
from him and filtered on down to the membership. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you visited from time to time by functionaries 
on a higher level who lectured to the group ? 

Mr. Haddock. Well, I know Bill Reich came once; I don't know if 
he came more than once ; and I think the area chairman would come, 
George Lohr. I don't know how extensive that was, but I know an 
attempt was made to do this. You never saw anything like it — well, 
I guess you have — to try to get the people to do something, to mobilize 
them — "This is very important." I know once they needed money for 
something — "Well, we need a day's pay," you know ; well, there was 
always something that had to be done. It never did amount to too 
much, but it had to be done. 

Mr. Kearney. What were your dues a month? 

Mr. Haddock. I don't think they were over $2.50. 

Mr. Kearney. Well, was that on a dues-paying basis, or was that 
an assessment, if you made so much you were assessed so much ? 

Mr. Haddock. Your income determined your dues. In other words, 
the dues were stated. A person with such-and-such an income paid 
so much a month or so much a week, and you bought stamps to pay for 
j^our dues. 

Mr. Tavenner. How were you employed during this period of time, 
this year and a half while you were in San Diego ? 

Mr. Haddock. I was a schoolteacher in the elementary grades. 

Mr. Ta\t:nner. How did you obtain that position ? 

Mr. Haddock. I had a teacher's license and, therefore, I qualified 
for a position. 


Mr. Tavenner. Were you a member of the party before you became 
employed ? 

Mr. Haddock. Yes ; and, to the best of my knowledge, I was the only 
teacher who was a party member, except Bill Reich, and I think he 
taught one night-school course a week. 

May I say something off the record ? 

Mr. Kearney. Yes. Off the record. 

(Discussion off the record.) 

Mr, KJEARNEY. On the record. 

Did you say while you were teaching school that you were the only 
party member among the teachers ? 

Mr. Haddock. To the best of my knowledge, in San Diego. 

Mr. Kearney. Now, if there were other members of the party who 
were teaching school in San Diego, wouldn't you have knowledge of it ? 

Mr. Haddock. I would think so. I say that because one of the jobs 
I got saddled with was raising subscriptions for the People's World, 
and I remember I visited a number of clubs ; I don't know how many, 
but I remember La Jolla, National City; I may have gone to the 
Downtown Club. But if there were any teachers in that group, I 
would have recognized them, and the only basis on which they would 
be functioning would be on a very, very secret basis, and I never saw 
a group that kept fewer secrets. 

Mr. Tavenner. Isn't it true that many of the teachers belonged 
to professional groups of the party instead of neighborhood groups ? 

Mr. Haddock. Well, if that were the case 

Mr. Tavenner. Generally speaking? 

Mr. Haddock. I would think so, and, as I said, this professional 
group was organized in San Diego; and if there were any in that, I 
did not know of it — I mean I would be surprised, let's put it that way. 
I just couldn't say absolutely there were no other teachers in the 
system but me, but on the basis of what I know there were not. 

I understood, and this again is one of these rumors that you pick 
up, there was a secret club, but this was businessmen who were not 
really party members, but the party would use them to get money. 
In fact, rumor had it that one of the liberals was asked to join this 
club and he refused. 

So this is how I learned about it. I didn't learn about it through 
party sources, believe it or not. I learned about it through an out- 
side source, and he had been approached by this James Toback, whom 
I mentioned to you before. 

Now, more of the activities, my activities in San Diego. Most of 
them were in relation to on-club activities. In other words, this was 
done in the American Veterans' Committee — I know I am going to 
leave some of these activities out, but my memory doesn't serve me 
too well — and the housing committee. The main activity was the 
American Veterans' Committee. 

I remember Lloyd Hamlin and I would meet before meetings and 
talk things over. We sort of caucussed on it, which really is a lousy 
procedure. I have a lot of personal feeling about this for any group. 

Mr. Tavenner. Well, let's take these separate projects or mass or- 
ganizations separately and develop, as well as you can, all of the details 
about the Communist infiltration into them. 

Take first the veterans' organization and tell us just how the party 
went about infiltrating it, to what extent it influenced its actions. 


Mr. Haddock. Well, I wouldn't even call it an infiltration. I would 
just call it the leaders in the veterans' group were party people. 

Mr. Kearnet. That is, in the American Veterans' Committee ? 

Mr. Haddock. Yes. 

Mr. Kearney. Do I understand you to mean at this time when you 
say "the veterans' group" the American Legion, Veterans of Foreign 

Mr. Haddock. No. That is a good point, because I do not mean 
that. There were no Communists, to my knowledge, in any other 
group except the American Veterans' Committee, and how many were 
in that I just couldn't say, but I know that the fellows our age who 
were veterans were affiliated with the AVC. 

Mr. Kj:arney. Were you a member of the AVC ? 

Mr. Haddock. Yes. 

Mr. Kearney. Are you now a member of it ? 

Mr. Haddock. No. 

Mr. Kearney. When did you leave the organization ? 

Mr. Haddock. In 1947. 

Mr. Kearney. I understand they have cleaned house in that organi- 
zation, haven't they? 

Mr. Haddock. That is what I understand from just reading the 
newspapers, and the way things were going at that time. 

I think Lloyd Hamlin was a delegate to some meeting up in San 
Jose, in which you began to see the signs that Communist people were 
not as strong as they had been. This is just an impression of mine. 

If I can just add by just insert here, these projects of the party go 
by spurts. For example, if the American Veterans' Committee is 
something that you should belong to or work with, then you work 
with it, or if it is the Progressive Party, you work with it. 

I remember at one point the National Negro Congress was an or- 
ganization in which the party had quite a stake, or thought they had, 
and party people were instructed to join it. This was very unsuc- 
cessful. Not many party people did, and not many Negroes joined it, 
and the thing flopped, and I remember within a comparatively short 
time after that it was sort of wiped off the books as far as the party 
was concerned. 

Now, getting back to these projects. This Lloyd Hamlin and I 
probably worked closer together than anyone else in the party. He 
was the first party person I met besides Mrs. Gibson, and for a few 
weeks I didn't realize he was a party person. It wasn't until I met 
him at my club meeting that I realized he was a member of the party, 
but he and I worked hand in glove in the American Veterans' Com- 
mittee, and, essentially, any of the counsels from the top office of the 
party were usually communicated through him. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know the exact source of the counsels that 
came from the head of the party to him ? 

Mr. Haddock. No, but I think Lloyd, after he became the chair- 
man of this professional group, was then promoted, you see, into the 
executive committee of the county, so he would then be in a position 
to know what was going on at the top level. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee how you first met 
Hamlin ? 


Mr. Haddock. Well, Lloyd Hamlin was acting as a secretai'y or 
some functionary for the Spanish Refugee Appeal — I think that is 
correct — and Dr. Steinmetz was the one who suggested I meet Lloyd, 
gince Lloyd and he were both interested in the project, and so I met 
Lloyd. I don't know why I went to see him, but it may have been 
around the veterans, because I know he was active in the veterans 
at that time, too. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you personally acquainted with Dr. Stein- 
metz ? 

Mr. Haddock. Yes; I knew Dr. Steinmetz. I met him after the 
war. I talked with him several times. I have been in his home a 
few times. 

Mr. Kearney. Was he a member of the party ? 

Mr. Haddock. To the best of my knowledge, he was not. He made 
quite a point of keeping his skirts clean. He was a very nervous per- 
son in terms of getting caught. He certainly didn't seem to be 
bothered by talking and working with people who were party mem- 
bers. I think that is the best way to put it. 

Mr. Ta\^nner. Did he suggest that you meet this man Hamlin ? 

Mr. Haddock. Yes ; and I think the reason he did was because it 
was going to be through him and Hamlin that I was going to meet 
Colonel Carlson. 

I had a reason for meeting Colonel Carlson, by the way. When 
I was in the Gilbert Islands I went to one of the outlying atolls, 
called Little Makin, and met a Protestant minister there trained by 
the London Missionary Society. His name was Korenorio. He 
wanted me to hear a story. 

The story was that he had preached one Sunday for peace and word 
of this had gotten back to the Japanese on the main island of Butari- 
tari, and so they had come and arrested him and his assistant minister 
and placed them in pail on Butaritari. 

Well, it was while they were in jail that Colonel Carlson and his 
raiders raided Makin, and it was epitomized in this movie, Gung Ho, 
and so they saw these two natives and caught them, and so these two 
Protestant ministers acted as a guide to Colonel Carlson's raid on 
Makin, and this was the story he had to tell, and it was a very in- 
teresting circumstance that I should land in San Diego and within 
a few days of my arrival be able to see Colonel Carlson and tell him 
this story which he read. 

So this was a personal interest I had in meeting him, beyond the 
fact that he was going to run for Senator, and there was a possibility 
of my getting a job working for him. 

Mr. Kearney. Off the record. 

(Discussion off the record.) 

Mr. Kearney. On the record. 

Mr. Haddock. Colonel Carlson's name was Evans Carlson. 

Mr. Tavenner. Can you describe in a general way to the com- 
mittee, please, the type of activity that this veterans' organization 
engaged in ? 

Mr. Haddock. Well, as best I can remember, it was on current ( 
issues. I know housing seemed to play an important part, since that 
was one of the major problems in San Diego, and I think I was the 
vice president of the American Veterans' Committee at the time, 
and I was appointed to chair the citizens' housing committee, which 


I did, and we organized what turned out to be a very sound commit- 
tee, and I was the only Communist on that committee. 

At some of the organizational meetings there were a number of 
people, Communists, present; there were, also, quite a wide variety of 
interested people because the purpose of the committee was to get 
more housing, get more public housing, and this was opposed by cer- 
tain real-estate interests in town, so they were very interested in the 
influence the committee might have. We really organized what I 
think, as I remember, was a fairly broad board, and they acted as an 
advisory committee to San Diego, and the last time I heard they were 
still in existence, and after I left it there were no other Communists 
on it. 

Mr. Ta\^nner. In performing your functions as chairman of that 
group, did you receive directives of any character from the Commu- 
nist Party as to the program that you should follow or the methods 
that should be used in carrying out the objectives of the group? 

Mr. Haddock. I would hate to answer that either yes or no, because 
you know some directives can be tacit, and this had been rehashed, 
this whole thing had been hashed and rehashed by Lloyd and me, 

and I had a pretty clear focus in my mind as to what the program 
should be; I don't remember what it was, but I don't think that it 
varied at all from what the general party line might have been. 

Mr. Kearney. I think I will have to leave now. Thank you very 
much for coming down and giving your complete story here. It is of 
immense value to the committee. I know that I express the thanks 
of counsel and the committee, too. 

(At this point Representative Bernard W. Kearney left the hear- 
ing room.) 

Mr. Tavenner. "Wliat was the general nature of the secret meetings 
held by you and Hamlin regarding the proposals to be followed in any 
of these organizations which you have spoken of? 

Mr. Haddock. Well, sometimes we would meet before an AVC 
meeting, or we might even talk on the telephone. How much of this 
we did I don't know. I think my line was tapped for the entire period 
I was a party member. But I do know that we worked pretty close, 
hand in glove, on this business. 

Perhaps the other project that was even more significent as a com- 
munity project was the formation of the PAC in San Diego, and then 
a group met with some nonparty people present and told them what 
we wanted to do, and we talked over the steps of getting this com- 
mittee into action, and I was selected to chair the first meeting, I 
think, and T know I chaired the second meeting, and it was at the 
second meeting that the PAC, which was the forerunner of the Pro- 
gressive Party, came into being. This was a very carefully planned 
operation, and the point was that this was going to be a Progressive 
Party ; it was not going to be an extension of the Communist Party 
even though the Communists were going to have the right to play an 
important role in it, but at the organizational meeting I was nomi- 
nated for chairman, which I had to decline because I was leaving San 
Diego, and another person was nominated. 

This man, who represented a middle-of-the-road, liberal outlook, 
was nominated, and then some adolescent in the audience nominated 
a man from Linda Vista named Rogers. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you remember his first name? 


Mr. Haddock. I think it was C. A., and that is probably correct. 

Now, this man was known locally as — put Red in quotes, because 
he always identified himself with leftist activity and minority prob- 
lems, and he had been one of the group that had sat in on the initial 
planning for this meeting, but he did not decline, and he was elected, 
which I knew and Lloyd Hamlin knew sealed the doom of this ever 
being any kind of a broad, progressive group. I might add that Lloyd 
and I only expressed this opinion once or twice, and we got an official 
reprimand from the party for not following the will of the majority 
which elected Rogers to the presidency of this group. It so happens 
we were right, though. 

Mr. Tavenner. In other words, it was the basic plan of the party 
to use liberals in positions of prominence in these organizations rather 
than men closely identified with the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Haddock. Yes, that is correct. 

Well, I left San Diego at this time and I probably have left out 
nmnerous things, but this is a general outline, very general, of my 

Mr. Tavenner. Can you give me more definite information as to 
when the professional group or unit of the Communist Party was 
formed in San Diego ? 

Mr. Haddock. I think it was formed in the spring of 1947, and if it 
were earlier it would only have been by 2 or 3 months. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you learn the identity of any of its members ? 

Mr. Haddock. I could guess on some of them. I know you would 
rather not. 

I don't think I was ever at one of their meetings. If I was, it wasn't 
for a full meeting ; it was only for a partial one, and I would rather not 
state — but I can say that most of them were not professionals, which is 
an interesting contradiction. There were a couple of labor people in 
it ; there was a woman who later became active in the PAC, a writer, 
a businessman. 

Mr. Tavenner. May I put the matter this way : 

It would be of importance to the committee as lead information 
only, and not at any time to be made the subject of public release, the 
names of these persons that you think were members, which is entirely 
a different thing from identifying them as members of that group, but 
purely as a basis for further investigation on our part. 

In other words, I am asking you for this purpose of lead information 
only to give us the benefit of any hearsay testimony that you have. 

Off the record. 

(Discussion off the record.) 

Mr. Haddock. It is A. C. Rogers, I see here. It is not the other way 
around. I believe he is one. Ray Morkowski, Lynn Ackerstein, Jen 

Mr. Tavenner. Now, can you identify them a little more definitely 
as to which is a writer and which is a member of the union, and so on ? 

Mr. Haddock. Rogers is a businessman; Morkowski is a labor 
leader; Boehm is a writer. I think Jack O'Brien was one. 

Mr. Tavenner. Can you identify them more fully as to occupation? 

Mr. Haddock. I think Jack worked for the union. He had some 
kind of cerebral palsy, I believe. 

Dave Buchanan, he was a labor leader. 


Mr. Tavenner. Off the record. 
(Discussion off the record.) 
Mr. Ta\^nner. On the record. 

Was there any other organizational work that you undertook in 
behalf of the Communist Party while in San Diego 5 

Mr. Haddock. I may have, but I do not remember it. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was any effort made to recruit members to the 

Communist Party from the teaching profession, to your knowledge? 

Mr. Haddock. Well, I was urged to recruit, but I made no effort 

to recruit from the teaching profession because I knew no one that 

1 would feel was susceptible to party membership. 

Mr. Tavenner. How did you get your directions in that respect ? 

Mr. Haddock. Well, this would be at a club meeting. 

"We have got to do something to increase membersiiip. There has 
got to be more recruiting done. Look here, you come to meetings 
every week" — or every month, or whenever it was — "and it is the 
same gang ; no effort to recruit." 

Mr. Ta\^nner. Would you identify at this place in your testimony 
the names of all persons known to you to be members of the East 
San Diego Branch of the Communist Party of which you were a mem- 
ber, and in so identifying these individuals would you give us all 
of the identifying information you can with respect to their profes- 
sions or occupations and any particular activity that you can recall 
on their part in the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Haddock. Yes. 

Joe Danger, I think, was a bachelor and was a workingman. He was 
very regular in his attendance at party meetings, but I didn't see 
him other than at the party meetings and, also, occasionally the party 
would run seminars on Sunday down at Bill Reich's farm down 
in one of the rural areas of San Diego, and he would go to that. 

Margaret Gartz was a nice and simple woman, who was secretary, 
but not too much color. She was a person that, again, was never 
in anything that I was in, outside of East San Diego and there Sun- 
day seminars and picnics. 

Now, Nathan and Millie Herman were a young couple who came 
from a working class background and were party members and very 
faithful. He was a elevator operator at the U. S. Grant Hotel. 

Mrs. Lillian Hunt was the chairman of the East San Diego group 
while I was a member. 

Mr, and Mrs. Crosby Newsome were members but never active in any 
other organization that I was affiliated with. 

Leo Gregovich was the Yugoslavian who owned the Track Restau- 
rant, and I think another one in San Diego, and he was active in the 
Yugoslav group and in the Cooks' and Waitresses' Union. 

Mr. Tavenner. By that, do you mean to identify them also as a 
member of this Communist Party group ? 

Mr. Haddock. Yes. Yes, Lee Gregovich was a member of the East 
San Diego Branch of the party. 

Mr. Tavenner. What is the basis for your statement that he was a 
member ? 

Mr. Haddock. Well, he came to the meetings and was active in or- 
ganizational work. In fact, he was more active than anybody else in 
the club, frankly. He would pay kids to pass leaflets out, ?tnd he 
would even do it himself. 


Mr. Tavenner. All right. 

Mr. Haddock. Now, Mary Arabian was very, very rarely active. 
She would come to meetings once in a great while, and she put on a big 
party for the party, which I didn't go to, but I think in planning for 
the party was the first time I ever knew she was a member of the 
club, and this was toward the middle of 1947, but evidently she had 
been for a long time and I just didn't know it — one of those cir- 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you subseqviently meet her in Commimist Party 
meetings ? 

Mr. Haddock. I think she came to 1 or 2, yes. If she came to more 
than that my memory has failed me. 

Bob Watrous was a watchmaker in P^ast San Diego and had been 
active in his watchmen's union for a number of years. He was a 
person that was really on the verge of severing his Communist Party 
ties. It was too much of a strain for him that he was under. 

Mr. Tavenner. Let me say at this point, if any of the persons whom 
you have already identified or will identify later did break with the 
party, to your knowledge, I would like for you to so state. 

Mr. Haddock. Yes. 

Jack Bennett, I think, was an employee of an aircraft company in 
San Diego, but he came to meetings for not too long a time. I think 
I am right on that. My impression is that he left the party, but again 
this is an impression, but I can be definite as to having seen him at 
the East San Diego Branch, of which he was a member. 

Mr. Tavenner. You stated in the early part of your testimony that 
you were active in subscription work for the Daily People's World. 

Mr. Haddock. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee, please, the circum- 
stances under which you undertook that work ? 

Mr. Haddock. Well, I was asked by county leadership to take this 
as an assignment, which required that I go to the various clubs and 
tell them the story about the People's World and encourage them to 
get subscriptions. 

Mr. Tavenner. Can you give us the names of county functionaries 
wiio gave you directions in that regard ? 

Mr. Haddock. No, I can't. I don't know how I got the information. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long did you engage in that type of work, and 
over what period ? 

Mr. Haddock. I think it was in 1947, and I don't know that it lasted 
moi'e than the month. It may have. 

Mr. Tavenner. How many different groups or cells of the Com- 
munist Party did you come in contact with in the performance of 
that work ? 

Mr. Haddock. Well, I think I came in contact with the La Jolla 
Club and the National City Club, East San Diego Branch Club. I 
don't think of any others. 

Did I mention one to you a little while ago ? 

Mr. TA%rENNER. Off the record. 

(Discussion off the record.) 

Mr. Tavenner. On the record. 

What occasion did you have besides doing work of that type to be- 
come acquainted witli other members of the Connnunist Party in the 
greater San Dieo-o area ? 


Mr. Haddock. Well, there was one occasion when I was asked by 
George Lohr to go down to National City about an incident where a 
Negro boy had been hurt, and it was the feeling that there might have 
been an issue involved here which the party could take action on, and 
I went to National City with George Lohr and David Buchanan, and 
I think we met in the home of Mr. and Mrs. Dugdale to talk it over. 
The consensus was that there was no basis for any kind of action, so 
the thing was dropped. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you meet with clubs other than your home club 
on any other occasions besides those you have described ? 

Mr. Haddock. I may have met briefly with the professional club, but 
of this I am not sure. 

Mr. Ta\'enner. Will you give us the names, please, and all the 
identifying information you can regarding the Communist Party 
membership of any other persons other than those you have already 
named where you have direct knowledge of your own, indicating 
Communist Party membership? 

Mr. Haddock. Richard Adams, who was the first party functionary 
to come to me and get me to sign the application card for my 1946 
membership. I was sick at the time, and so he came to my home. I 
had never seen him before, and he later ran for office in National City 
and was elected. 

Mr. Ta-^^nner. Wliat office? 

Mr. Haddock. I don't know. I think it was councilman. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did he run on the Communist Party ticket ? 

Mr. Haddock. No ; he ran on some community ticket, and he later 
was caught accepting a bribe and was expelled from the party. 

Mr. Tavenner. Off the record. 

(Discussion off the record.) 

Mr. Haddock. Well, Jeff Boehm is the writer who had been fired by 
the San Diego 

Do you remember Clifford McKinnon, who was a Representative a 
few years ago ? 

Mr. TA^^i:NNER. I remember the name. 

Mr. Haddock. Do you remember the paper he owned ? 

]Mr. Tavenner. No. 

Mr. Haddock. Well, Jeff Boehm worked for his paper, and he was 
fired by McKinnon. 

Mr. Tavenner. All right. 

Mr. Haddock. And David and Lucia Buchanan 

Mr. Tavenner. Off the record a minute. 

(Discussion off the record.) 

Mr. Tavenner. Go ahead. 

Mr. Haddock. Mr. and Mrs. David Buchanan. 

Mr. Tavenner. What position did Buchanan hold in the party ? 

Mr. Haddock. I don't know that he held any position. 

Now, Lucia has visited our East San Diego Branch meeting, but why 
she came I don't know, but she came for some reason. I remember she 
brought a fairly newborn baby along that slept very well in the other 
room — a very lovely girl, and she appeared quite devoted to the goals 
of the Communist Party. 

Lolita Bunyard Gibson was practically an open Communist. She 
was the daughter of a Unitarian minister. 

William Conway and Mrs. Conway 


Mr. Tavenner. Can you give her first name ? 

Mr. Haddock. No, I can't. 

He had been a party member for many years and had been on the 
books of the east San Die<>o branch, but never came to meetings, and 
during the end of m}^ stay there he started coming again. He was a 
very retiring, pleasant fellow to whom personal relationships meant a 
great deal. I remember he was one of the few people in the party 
that came to me when I was leaving to go to school and made, you 
know, real personal mention of what it had meant to know me, and 
that he hoped some time he would meet me again. Whether these 
people ever' continued in the party or not — my suspicion is that Bill 
Conway probably dropped out. I don't know what he did for a living. 
I know he was an inventor on the side, one of these inventors who 
never make any money off of their inventions. 

Enos Baker, Jr., I obviously know. He was the organizer that suc- 
ceeded George Lohr, and was organizer when I left San Diego. 

Mr. Tavenner. Off the record. 

(Discussion off the record.) 

Mr. Tavenner. On the record. 

Mr. Haddock. Enos Baker was a Negro, and how long he stayed a 
party leader I don't know ; it seems as though it wasn't very long. 

Mr. Tavenner. Let me suggest this to you : When you are naming 
these persons, if they attended Communist meetings at which you 
were present, I believe eacli time you ought to say so. 

Mr. Haddock. All right. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was this true in this last instance ? 

Mr. Haddock. I believe that is true. I don't remember any specifi- 
cally, but he was the party organizer, and it was well known, so there 
is no question. 

Lloyd Hamlin was a party member in the east San Diego branch. 
As I have indicated earlier, he was my main liaison to party leader- 
ship. He was a member of Naval Intelligence. 

Harry Hunt was the husband of Lillian Hunt, and he has sat in on 
some of the meetings of the east San Diego branch, but during most of 
the period that I was a party member he was not, since he had been 
expelled for being too highhanded, I think is the best term. He be- 
came a little dictatorial in his handling of membership. 

Now, William Reich, I have already mentioned in this testimony, 
and he was a party member and left San Diego prior to me to take a 
job as editor of some newspaper up in the Oakland area. 

Mr. Tavenner. May I ask you at this point, who were connected 
with the Daily People's World with whom you dealt that were known 
to you to be members of the Communist Party, if any ? 

Mr. Haddock. You know, there must have been someone on the 
county level that I passed this material through, but I can't think who 
it was. Your question reminds me of this. I know there was some- 
one, now. I don't know who it is. 

Now, Nancy Rosenfield was a party member. She was a party func- 

Harry and Cecelia Shermis — he was a contractor, and I think she 
was the county treasurer of the county organization, but I think we 
have held a meeting in their home, which is in La Mesa, or a party, but 
1 do remember them. 


James Toback was known as a Communist, and would say so to 
people, though I have never seen him at an exclusively party meeting 
and he was not in my club, 

I can't think of any others in the San Diego group. 

Mr. Ta^^nxer. We will take a short recess. 

(Whereupon, at 3:58 p. m. a recess was taken, after which the 
hearing was resumed at 4 : 05 p. m. ) 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you state to the committee, please, whether the 
Communist Party was successful during the period you were in San 
Diego in carrying out its objectives within the field of mass organiza- 

Mr. Haddock. I do not feel it was effective in any of its activities, 
and the main reason seemed to be that it was unable to provide the kind 
of leadership to whicli people responded. There was a lot of convic- 
tion, in intensity, on the part of Communists in relation to the pro- 
grams they espoused, but they didn't have ties of sufficient strength to 
have many followers. 

Mr. Tavenner. Had the party been successful in recruiting mem- 
bership in a broad enough field it would have been more effective in its 
operations, would it not ? 

Mr. Haddock. That is a good way of stating it, and I think it im- 
plies that the doctrine of the party was so narrow that they didn't 
open the doors wide enough to let people in. 

It is like a strict religious group whose tenets you have to follow in 
detail or they don't want you to belong. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was disciplinary action of any kind resorted to 
within your knowledge or any methods of compulsion used in prevent- 
ing deviation from the Communist Party line? 

Mr. Haddock. Well, the only disciplinary action that I can recall 
was administered by George Lohr to Lloyd Hamlin and me for our 
opinion at the election of A. C. Rogers to be chairman of the political 
action committee, that it was an error. 

There may have been other instances, but they are not vivid enough 
for me to remember, mostly verbal haranguing, and I might add that 
Mrs. Lillian Hunt, who was the chairman of the east San Diego branch, 
was quite an orally aggressive woman. 

Mr. Tavenner. Off the record. 

(Discussion off the record.) 

Mr. Tavenner. What was the reason for your leaving San Diego 
and going to New York ? 

Mr. Haddock. I wanted to do graduate work in social work, and the 
reason for this was that while teaching in San Diego city schools my 
classroom was right next to the mental hygiene clinic, and another 
reason was that I met several social workers during the war, and I 
met several in San Diego, and then I married one. 

Mr. Tavenner. Wlien you entered Columbia University did you 
continue in any Communist Party activities ? 

Mr. Haddock. My membership was transferred to New York City — 
and then I was — it filtered down to the 

Mr. Ta\t;nner. Did you take the initiative in having your member- 
ship transferred ? 

Mr. Haddock. I would say it was half and half. I made no effort 
not to have it transferred because I wasn't ready at that point to leave 
the party. 


Mr. Tavenner. Is it the practice and custom of the party when a 
member moves from one locality to another to take the initiative in the 
original place of membership and cause the transfer to be made ? 

Mr. Haddock. To the best of my knowledge, it is ; yes. In fact, they 
came to my house, Nancy Rosenfield, and I forget who else was with 
her, and made out the transfer slip right there at the time they did it. 

Mr. Tavenner. With what group did you affiliate in New York? 

Mr. Haddock. A student group within the New York School of 
Social Work. 

Mr. Tavenner. And that is a branch of Columbia University ? 

Mr. Haddock. It is an independent school which has become af- 
filiated, and we get our degrees from Columbia. But the school doesn't 
get any money or administration from Columbia. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you tell the committee, please, about the ac- 
tivities of that group ? 

Mr. Haddock. Well, this group was composed only of student social 
workers or social workers in training, and this was a much more active 
club than the east San Diego branch, had more experienced leadership 
and more experienced members. 

The main responsibility of this club was in the Student Social 
Service Employees' Union. 

Mr. Tavenner. Wliat did the Communist Party seek to achieve 
through the organization of a cell within the student body at that 
school ? 

Mr. Haddock. Well, from as near as I could gather, to encourage so- 
cial work students to join the Social Service Employees' Union, which, 
in itself, would give union indoctrination and party-line thinking, 
since it was my understanding that this was a party-led union. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did members of that group join that union? 

Mr. Haddock. Yes, to the best of my knowledge, we all did, and this 
was one of their party responsibilities, that they go to their party 
meeting and then go to the union meetings and take leadership roles 
in it. 

Now, at the first meeting of the club that I attended I was asked 
what I would like to do. I found at this meeting that the members of 
the club were people who had been Communists for some time, and 
just the way that that question was phrased was a new concept to me, 
since the party discipline and leadership had not been this astute on 
the West Coast. 

Well, the leader, who was Jesse Nemiso, suggested that I might 
want to work in the student council, since there was an opening for a 
representative from the labor unions group on the student council. 
I was just appointed by him, and then my appointment was presented 
to the executive council of the union. 

I worked on the student council for 5 out of my 6 quarters at school. 
From this time on I think I only went to 1 or 2 union meetings, and 
my whole time was devoted to student council work. 

I also commuted from Orangeburg, N. Y., where I lived in Shanks 
Village, which was a veterans' housing project, so I didn't have time 
for too much activity. I found the party work in New York an 
emotional strain. I couldn't put my finder on it, but I felt under 
pressure. Actually, I think I did a minimum, even getting out of 
party meetings when I could, but I did a good job in the student 


council and I was elected president of the student council in May or 
June of 1948 and served two quarters, my term expiring in December. 

l3uring that period I was also on tlie student faculty committee, 
which was responsible to the students for working out a problem which 
had resulted because of some hasty action by the student council of 
the previous semester. 

The president of the student council at that time, Mr. Ray Lerner, 
also a party member, decided to transfer a strike protesting a raise in 
tuition from the front of the school itself and, on the lunch hour, to 
a fiftieth anniversary luncheon in front of one of the leading hotels 
in New York City. The Social Service Employees' Union partici- 
pated in this demonstration, provided the placards, and even sent 
people to walk on the picket line, and this action, justifiably, resulted 
in terrific hostility toward the student government. 

Well, it was following this that I was elected to be the chairman of 
the council, and it was 2 or 3 days after I was elected that a meeting 
was called to discuss this proposal of the school, and I was given 
about 6 hours' notification on it. I heard of it, but I didn't say any- 
thing to anybody until suppertime, and then I met with party leaders 
in our club, and was severely reprimanded for not letting them know 
earlier. Their hope was that had they known, they could then have 
presented the students' side of this controversy. 

Dean Margaret Leo announced at this meeting, to which all school 
students were invited, that the school government would have to 
prepare a new constitution and that this constitution would be subject 
to faculty approval. At that meeting I felt it was my obligation to 
stand up and speak to the dean's remarks, which I did, and the main 
content was that I felt that this was a hasty action on the part of the 
faculty and that I hoped that the students would be permitted to 
organize their own government, so for the two quarters of my term 
I was the leader of a divided student council and in constant negotia- 
tion with the faculty, and I might say that the students' side, which 
I attempted to broaden so that we had a good conmaittee, broad com- 
mittee to represent the students, did not help the matter, and I think 
that this is understandable in view of the fact that the faculty had had 
its sensibility so outraged by the student action that they just could 
not relate to us. 

Mr. Tavenner. To what extent was the Communist Party responsi- 
ble for the action in transferring the picket line to the hotel where the 
50th anniversary luncheon of the school was being celebrated? 

Mr. Haddock. I don't know that they had any part in that. If 
they did, I didn't know about it, and I am sure I would have. But it 
was done very hastily. 

I may have been counsulted as one of the members of the student 
council, but this is one of the kind of things I like to forget, that I 
might have been consulted, but I may have been, so I would share 
the responsibility for this. It was a verbal O. K., and the whole 
student council was not consulted. 

At the end of my term, in fact before the end of my term, I sat 
down with the leader of the club, Jesse Nemiso, and I told him that 
I was finding party membership too great a strain, I just couldn't 
take it, and that I was going to have to get out. I didn't tell him 
that I was getting out on any theoretical break with the party. I 
told him it was too much of an emotional strain, which it was. 


The only thing that did bother me about the club activity was 
some of the blind following that was done by the party. For example, 
when Yugoslavia's leader objected to some of the thinking of the 
Soviet Union, Tito immediately became the subject of party hostility ; 
he was no good any more. From my point of view, why shouldn't he ? 
He could say what he wanted. He was the leader of his own country, 
and if he wanted to express an opinion that was contrary to some 
Joe Blow up in Poland or some place else, I didn't see that this was 
reason for, you know, kicking him out, but this was literally, slavishly 
followed by most of the leadership, and I voiced my opinion on it 
and they gave me all the chance to discuss it, and so on, but one of 
the things that happened in the party is that they have a big, long 
period for discussion, but after the discussion and a decision is made, 
you know, you keep quiet. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you have the feeling that the decision had been 
reached before the discussion ? 

Mr. Haddock. Well, there wasn't anybody objecting to this point 
of view, let's put it that way. The decision came through some Com- 
munist national newspaper in Poland. 

There was also a couple in the club, not a married couple, whose 
names I don't remember; one was a Syrian girl, I do know. They 
became quite provocative in the meetings, and these two people were 
eventually expelled. 

I know there was another girl in the party who, on the basis of 
this, resigned from the party. She didn't go along with this action. 
Her name I don't remember, either, and then I think she left the 
party after I did, but I heard that this had happened, and I know 
she was very dissatisfied with this expulsion. 

Mr. Tavenner. How many members were in the group of the Com- 
munist Party organized at this branch of Columbia University ? 

Mr. Haddock. Oh, I would say about 15. There may have been 
more than that. 

Mr. Tavenner. You have given the name of the leader of the group. 
Will you give us the names of any others that you can now recall ? 

Mr. Haddock. Well, his wife was a member. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know her name ? 

Mr. Haddock. Only as Mrs. Nemi. And Mollie Eisenstadt, 
E-i-s-e-n-s-t-a-d-t, I think. 

Mr. Tavenner. Can you give me any information as to where either 
or any of these persons are now ? 

Mr. Haddock. I think they are all in New York. 

Mr. Tavenner. In what fields ? 

Mr. Haddock. All in social work. And I can't remember any 
others — and the other one I already mentioned, Ray Lemer. 

It is kind of funny, too, because this is the group I should have 
known better than I did, but I forgot them very quickly, and I haven't 
had contact with any of them since. 

You might be interested, following my resignation, Ray Lerner then 
became chairman of the club, and he asked me to go out to lunch with 
him, and he told me — — 

Mr. Tavenner. What do you mean by "chairman of the club"? 

Mr. Haddock. Well, I think maybe the technical word is organizer. 
He is the president of the club. 

Mr. Tavenner. Of the Communist club? 


Mr. Haddock. Of the Communist club, yes. 

We went out to lunch together — he didn't take me out to lunch, but 
Ave went out to lunch together and he told me he was sorry I had left 
the i^arty. He said he was in the party because he felt this was the 
best way to fight fascism, which he felt was a real threat to America, 
and I said to him that he might be right, but I really didn't think so, 
and, essentially, that is the way we parted, and that was the end of it. 

Mr. Tavenner. Have you been approached since that time to rejoin 
the party? 

Mr. Haddock. I never have, no. I might have been if I stayed in 
New York and worked, because then I would be in contact with people 
who knew that I had been a party member, but out in New Jersey 
I don't think there would be anybody who would have those kind of 

Mr. Tavenner. Have you joined any other mass organizations or 
front organizations besides those you have already mentioned? 

Mr. Haddock. You mean during the period I was a Communist? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes. 

Mr. Haddock. The answer is "Yes," but I can't give you the names. 
I am sure I have, you know, one of these things in which you subscribe 
to something and you become a member. 

Mr. Tavenner. Or a sponsor ? 

Mr. Haddock. I don't know tliat I was ever a sponsor. I didn't join 
any of these groups since I left San Diego. 

Mr. Tavenner. Have you engaged in any type of Communist Party 
activity since you resigned from the party in 1948 ? 

Mr. Haddock. No. 

Mr. Tavenner. Has your severance of your connections been full 
and complete ? 

Mr. Haddock. Yes ; they have been. As I indicated, the only per- 
son that I had any contact with — and I didn't realize he was a Com- 
munist — was Ralph Vossbrink, and I sent him a Christmas card. 

When I went to San Diego 3 years ago I didn't even look up any 
of the party people that I knew. If I met any others they were party 
members at that time and I didn't know about them. I didn't even 
look up Lloyd Hamlin, even though I like him very much. 

I figured well, I am no longer in the party and I just wouldn't feel 
particularly comfortable, because I would have told him that I had 
left the party. I figured he might give me an argument or something,, 
and I didn't see any reason to defend mvself . It was my choice. I 
went in of my free will and, as far as I could see, I didn't have to 
justify my leaving to him or anybody else. 

I think my convictions about the party have become more crystal- 
lized as time has elapsed. I have had a better perspective on it. It 
was a very intense emotional experience for me. I gave a lot of time ; 
I was out 4 or 5 evenings a week. That is why I was in a lot of activ- 
ity that I can't remember, and I can't say that I accomplished one 
thing, not a thing. It is very sad but it is the truth. 

There is another thing about the party that perhaps bothers me 
as much as anything else, that there doesn't seem to be any continuing 
relationship with people who are party people, as people, if you don't 
believe what they believe, and that is not right. When this exists 
there is something very haywire with the people who hold this point 
of view. 


After I left the party, for example, the people that I knew, I sent 
them Christmas cards. I got one back from Lloyd. So I figured, 
well, if this is the way they really feel maybe this is — and the people 
in Hawaii are the same way, you know, out of sight, out of mind, 
that kind of thing. There is something wrong with that. It means 
that whatever their own pet beliefs are, are more important than 
human relationships, and I don't feel that way, and this was the big 
conflict around testifying, that I didn't want to hurt people regardless 
of how they felt about me now or how they looked upon me. I still 
related to them when I knew them as human beings, and I liked them, 
and those I didn't like I didn't like. This is why your preliminary 
remarks in most of my talks with your investigator made it possible 
for me to feel that there wasn't any reason not to testify because this 
was going to be used not in a retaliatory or destructive means but as 
a constructive means for essentially national protection and, in the 
long run, protection of the very people I may be talking about. 

I hope I have answered a few of your questions. 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes. 

If there is anything else that you want to say in regard to your leav- 
ing the Communist Party, you are perfectly free to say it, but it seems 
to me that you have covered the subject very fully, I think. 

Mr. Haddock. I think I have covered it pretty well, my Communist 
experience, which is in the past. 

Mr. Tavenner. I think now that will be all. 

(Whereupon, at 4: 52 p. m. the hearing was adjourned.) 


MONDAY, APRIL 12, 1954 

United States House of Representatives, 
Subcommittee of the Committee on Un-American Activities, 

Washington^ D. G. 
executive session^ 

The subcommittee of the Committee on Un-American Activities met, 
pursuant to call, at 11 : 20 a. m., in room 225, Old House Office Build- 
ing, the Honorable Donald L. Jackson (acting chairman), presiding. 

Committee members present: Representatives Donald L, Jackson, 
Gordon H. Scherer, Francis E. Walter (appearance noted in tran- 
script) , and Clyde Doyle. 

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

Mr. Jackson. Will you raise your right hand to be sworn, please ? 

In the testimony you are about to give before this subcommittee, 
do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 
but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mrs. Burke. I do. 


Mr. Jackson. Let the record show that the chairman has appointed 
a subcommittee, consisting of Messrs. Scherer, Doyle, and Jackson, 
with Jackson as acting chairman, for the purpose of taking this 

Proceed please, Mr. Counsel. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you state your name please ? 

Mrs. Burke. Frances Burke, B-u-r-k-e. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you accompanied by counsel ? 

Mrs. Burke. No, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. It is the practice of the committee to advise all 
witnesses that they are entitled to have counsel present with them, 
if they desire, and that they have the right to consult counsel at 
all times. Do you desire counsel ? 

Mrs. Burke. Well, I didn't know what I was called for or what it 
was all about, or anything, when I came. 

Mr. Tavenner. That is a matter that is up to you, as to whether 
you desire to have counsel with you or not. 

Mr. Scherer. Perhaps after she listens to some of your questions, 
if she then decides she wants counsel, of course she can do so. 

^ Released by the committee. 



Mr. Jackson. Yes. Tell the Chair so, if at any time during the 
course of the interrogation it is your desire to suspend for the pur- 
pose of getting counsel. Please don't hesitate to so state. 

Mr. Tavenner. Have you been known by any name, other than 
your present name ? 

Mrs. Burke. I am afraid I will have to decline to answer ques- 
tions on the ground it might tend to incriminate me. I don't know 
what it is going to lead to and possibly what it could lead to, and 
I am afraid of that. If that comes under the ground of wanting 
to have counsel, I presume I would like to know^ — if such questions 
would — if I answer such questions if it would lead to having to 
answer questions which would tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Jackson. Mr. Counsel, I believe under the circumstances, the 
indecision of the witness relative to the questions, that it is probably 
the best thing to do to extend the subpena to a date when it will be 
possible for the w^itness to be back with counsel. 

What is your feeling regarding this, Mr. Doyle ? 

Mr. Doyle. You were subpenaed to be here this morning ? 

Mrs. Burke. To be here April 2. 

Mr. DoTT.E. And then given notice to come today ? 

Mrs. Burke. That is correct. 

Mr. Doyle. And your subpena showed you were to appear before 
this House Committee on Un-American Activities ? 

Mrs. Burke. That is right. 

Mr. Doyle. Now you have had time to get legal counsel, haven't 
you ? An opportunity ? 

Mrs. Burke. This is entirely new to me — I don't know the processes 
of the committee. 

Mr. Doyle. You had no idea what you were going to be asked ? 

Mrs. Burke. That is correct. 

Mr. Scherer. Have you consulted with a lawyer since being 
subpenaed ? 

Mrs. Burke. No, sir 

Mr. Doyle. I think you are right, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Jackson. Very well. The subpena will be continued. I would 
very much like to have this witness this week before the subcommittee 

(At this point Representative Francis E. Walter entered the hearing 

Mr. Jackson. Because of your indecision or your lack of knowledge, 
I will state that the committee is in possession of testimony and in- 
formation which relates to alleged activities on your part in tjie Com- 
munist Party. The committee has two altei-natives — two courses of 
action. In this instance, first, we can proceed to question you on those 
alleged activities to elicit what information you will be able to give 
the committee, which will help it in its investigations. Secondly, the 
committee will give you time to consult with counsel if you desire. 

The choice is entirely up to you, as to what you want to do. Now, 
knowing the purpose of your being here, what do you desire to do? 

Mrs. Burke. ]\Iay I ask a question ? 

Mr. Jackson. Certainly. 

Mrs. Burke. Is it permissible to have counsel present at the time of 
the questioning ? 


Mr. Jackson. Oh, yes. You may have counsel at your side during 
the entire interrogation. He can advise you on matters of constitu- 
tional rights and other matters where a counsel is helpful. 

Mrs. Burke. Well, then, I think I would prefer to have counspil 

Mr. Jackson. Mr. Scherer ? 

Mr. Scherer. Where do you live ? 

Mrs. Burke. New York City. 

Mr. Scherer. Wliat is your occupation now ? 

Mrs. Burke. I am an office worker. 

Mr. Tavenner. That is why I made the suggestion to her that 
possibly she could consult counsel today and in that way she would 
not lose another day from work in coming back here. But that is a 
matter entirely of her own decision as to whether she desires to consult 
counsel here or someone she already knows in New York City or some 
other place. 

Mrs. Burke, Well, I certainly know no one here. 

Mr. Walter. It isn't absolutely essential that you have counsel. 
You are not charged with anything — our questions are the usual 
questions. TNHiy don't you see how far you can get 

Mr. Jackson. Yes; we could start. There is an uncertainty in the 
witness' mind as to whether she should answer questions, however, 
in line with my previous statement, we cannot proceed in the absence 
of counsel. I would like to get this matter out of the way definitely. 
I think it is very important for us to do it before the subcommiftppi 
leaves for the coast, as the witness is called in relation to the San 
Diego hearings. 

Mr. Walter. This witness ? 

Mr. Jackson. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. What about Wednesday ? 

Mr. Jackson. Wednesday is fine, as far as I am concerned, and 
the subpena will be continued until 10 : 30 a. m., Wednesday morning, 
which will give you an opportunity, Mrs. Burke, to consult with a 
counsel of your own choice and be represented. 

For the time being you are excused, Mrs. Burke, and directed to 
return to this committee room at 10 : 30 a. m., on Wednesday, April 
14, 1954. 

Mrs. Burke. Yes, sir ; thank you. 

(Whereupon, at 11 : 30 a. m., the executive hearing was adjourned.) 




Ackersteiu, Lynu 4608 

Adams, Richard 4611 

Aderer, Clair 4581 

Alexander, Paul (see also Alexander, Sterling Campbell) 4568, 4582, 4590 

Alexander, Sterling Campbell {see also Alexander, Paul) 4582 

Anguis, Robert 4583 

Arabian, Mary 4610 

Badiier, Arthur 4583 

Baker, Enos, Jr 4612 

Barnes, Carroll 457!» 

Barroway, Leo 4593 

Bennett, Jack 4610 

Bensinger, Otto 4582 

Bernhart. Sol 4584 

Berquist, Julia (Whitehead) 4."i,si 

Berquiwt, Ray (Whitehead) 4581 

Beyrer, Forest 4583 

Black, Eddie 4579 

Black, Elaine (Mrs. Eddie Black; Mrs. Karl Hama) 4579 

Boehm, Jeff 4608, 4611 

Bollman 4582 

Bowman , 4582 

Bradley, William H 4579. 4583 

Breedon, Wiliner 4581 

Bridges, Harry 4581 

Bristow 4601 

Browder, Earl 4000 

Buchanan, David 4611 

Buchanan, Lucia (Mrs. David Buchanan) 4611 

Bunyard, Lolita {see also Gibson, Lolita) 4597 

Burke, Ed 4569, 4571 

Burke, Frances (see also Decker, Frances) (testimony) __ 4619-4021 

Carlson, Evans 4600 

Carron, Ben 4581 

Chambers, Pat 4566, 4567, 4572, 4584 

Ching, Peter 4601 

Conway, William 4611, 4612 

Conway, Mrs. William . 4611 

Crummins, Murray 4598, 4599 

Cutler, Emma 4568 

Darcy, Sam 4579, 458O 

Decker, Dr 457O, 4571, 4583 

Decker, Caroline 4566, 4567. 4570, 4572 

Decker, Frances 4583 

Delgado, Mike 4581 

Dugdale, Mr 4611 

Dugdale, Mrs 4611 

Edwards, Carmen 4582 

Eisenstadt, Mollie 4616 

Fairclough, Frederick 4601 

Foster, William Z 4584 

Fuller, Bob ■ I II__III_IIII_I 4581 

Gallagher, Leo """""""-isse, 4587 



Gannett, Betty 4579,4586 

Garretsou, Jimmy 4585- 

Garrigues, Charles H. (Brick) 4577 

Garrison, Peter J 4r)79 

Garrison, Ruth (Mrs. Peter J. Garrison) 4579 

George, Harrison 4585 

Gibson, Lolita (see also Bunyard, Lolita) 4597, 4605, 4611 

Gitlow, Benjamin 4584 

Gould, Robert 45;)S 

Gregovich, Lee 4582, 4590, 46U9 

Griffin, Nathaniel 4.>72 

Guinier, Ewart 4590 

Guiterrez, Miguel, Jr 4569 

Guiterrez, Miguel, Sr 4569 

Haddock, Benjamin Holmes (testimony )__ 4595-4619 

Hall, Jack 4599, 4601, 4602 

Hama, Karl 4578, 4579 

Hamlin, Lloyd 4603, 4605-4608, 4612-, 4613, 4617, 4618 

Hancock, Stanley B (testimony)— 4564-4592 

Hanoff, Elmer (Efim) (Effim) 4568,4574 

Herman, Nathan 4609 

Herman, Millie (Mrs. Nathan Herman) 4609 

Hines, Captain 4569 

Hollingshead, Ed 4582 

Hunnewell, Carroll 4581, 4.582, 4.587 

Hunnewell, Margaret (Mrs. Carroll Hunnewell) 4582 

Hunt, Harry 4612 

Hunt, Lillian (Mrs. Harry Hunt) 4009, 4612, 4613 

Hyun, Alice 4600^ 

Jasmagy, Clarence 4581 

Jerome, V. J 4591 

Jones, Claude L 4579, 4582 

Kahn, Elinor 4600 

Kantor, Solomon 4597 

Keckler, Bessie A. (Mrs. LeRoy Keckler) 4579,4582 

Keckler, LeRoy 4582 

Kerrigan, Margaret (Margie) (Mrs. Tony Kerrigan) 4.582 

Kerrigan, Tony 4582 

Kimote 4600 

Korenorlo 4606 

Kyle, Lacey : 4579 

Lambert, Rudy 4586 

Lambert, Walter 4586 

Langer, Joe 4583 

Leech, Bert 4582 

Lee, Margaret 4615- 

Lerner, Ray 461-5, 4616 

Livingston, David 4599 

Lohr, George 4603, 4611-4613 

Lovestone, Jay 4584 

Lydick, John 4577, 4582 

Lym, Frances 4.582 

Lym, La Verne 4582 

Maldonado 4.567, 4568 

McDermott, Beatrice (Mrs. James McDermott) 4582 

McDermott, James 4582 

McElrath 4600 

McKinnon, Clifford 4611 

Mitchell 4601 

Mitchnick, Martin ,„_ 4598, 4599, 4600- 

Morkowski, Ray , 4608 

Nelson, Steve 4569, 4570, 4571 

Nemi, Mrs 4616 

Nemiso, Jesse - 4614, 4615 

Newsome, Cosby 4582, 4609- 

Nevi^some, Mrs. Cosby 4582, 460^ 

INDEX iii 


O'Connor, Oleta {see also Yates, Oleta O'Connor) 4579. 4586, 4587 

Olivas, Juan 4569 

Pellman, Matt 4579 

Perry, Pettis 4579 

Ray, Dorothy -- . 4567, 4568 

Reich, William (Bill) 4603, 4604, 4609, 4612 

Reinecke, Dr 4599 

Richardson, Esco L 4583 

Richmond, Al . ,-- 4584, 4585 

Roe, Mrs. Grover 4582 

Rogers, A. C 4.577, 4582, 4607, 4608, 4613 

Rosenfield. Nancy , 4612, 4614 

Ryan, Adrian 4.582 

Salorcino, Anthony . 4576 

Saunders, Dave 4579, 4587 

Saunders, E. L . 4579 

Schmidt, Henry 4587 

Schneiderman, William 4579, 4580, 4.586 

Schumacher. John .__ 4587 

Seldes, George 4597 

Shermis, Cecelia (Mrs. Harry Shermis) , 4612 

Shermis, Harry . 4612 

Smolen, Morrie . 4.584 

Steinmetz, Harry L 4.566. 4606 

Still, Everett O 4579, 4.580 

Taylor, Dan . 4583 

Thibault, Frank 4.583 

Tito . . 4616 

Toback, .Tames E 4.583, 4604, 4613 

Tormey, James , 4580 

Tosney, Mike 4583 

Yolmer, Rose , 4.583 

Vossbrink, Ralph , 4602, 4617 

Wahlenmaier, Clarence .__ 4.582 

Wahlenmaier, Vernon . 4582 

Watrous, Rob 4610 

Weatherwax, John 4580 

White, Robert 4.583 

Whitehead, Julia 4581 

Whitehead, Ray , 4.581 

Williams, John 4.584 

Wilson, Bertha 4584 

Winston, Pauline , 4582 

Worcester, Daisy Lee 4583 

Wosk, David ' 4.583 

Yates 4587 

Yates, Oleta O'Connor (see also O'Connor, Oleta) 4579 


American Federation of Labor 4.566, 4569, 4.573, 4574 

American Lesion- 4508, 4605 

American Newspaper Guild 45*54 

American Veterans' Committee 4604-4607 

Cannery and Ap-riculture Workers Industrial Union 4.591 

Central Labor Council. AFL, San Diego, Calif 4565, 4566, 4569, 4,578, 4582 

Cleaners and Dyers Union, San Diego 4.587 

Columbia University 4596, 4613, 4614. 4616 

Columbia University, New York School of Social Work 4596, 4614 

Communist International 4584 

Commimist Party, East San Diego Branch 4602, 4609, 4610, 4611 

Communist Party. La .Tolla Club (California) 4610 

Communist Party, Los Angeles 4569 

Communist Party, Mexico 4.572 

Communist Party, National City Club (California) 4610 

Communist Party, Politlabor Committee, California 4569 



Couiiminist Tarty, Sau Diejj;o 4577 

Commuuist Party, San Francisco 4579 

Community Chest 4597 

Congress of Industrial Organizations 4566, 4573, 4574, 4581 45S6, 4607-4t)09 

Congress of Industrial Organizations, Political Action Committee 4607, 4608 

Cooics and Waitresses' Union, CIO 4609 

Federal Bureau of Investigation 4509 

Florence School, San Diego 4596 

Friends of the Soviet Union 4590 

International Association of Machinists 4574 

International Labor Defense 4579 

International Longshoremen's Association 4581 

International Typographical Union 4583 

Lenin Institute, Moscow 4590 

London Missionary Society 4606 

Longshoremen's Union 4600 

Mental Hygiene Clinic of Union County, Plainfield, N. J 4597 

National Negro Congress 4605 

Office of Naval Intelligence 4612 

Office of Price Administration 4603 

People's Bookstore, San Diego 4582 

Politlabor Committee, California 4569 

Progressive Party 4605, 4607 

Red International of Labor Unions 4566 

San Diego Board of Education 4588 

Spanish Refugee Appeal 4606 

Student Social Service Employees' Union 4614, 4615 

Unemployed Council 4587 

United Auto Workers 4573 

United Cannerv, Agricultural, Packing and Allied Workers of America, 

CIO 4566, 4586 

United Jewish Appeal 4596 

United States Army 4597 

University of Hawaii 4599 

Veterans of Foreign Wars 4598, 4605 

Works Progress Administration 4583 

World Congress of Communist Parties in Moscow, 1935 4580 

Young Communist League, California 4567, 4568, 4581-4583 

Young Communist League, Los Angeles 4579 

Young Men's Christian Association 4598 


Daily People's World 4569^571, 4579, 4584-4586, 4591-4593, 4604, 4610, 4612 

El Machete 4572 

Hoy 4572 

Obrera, Lucha 4572 

San Diego Sun 4586 

Santa Cruz Sentinel News 4593 

Trade Union News 4581, 458^ 

Western Worker 4584. 4586, 4587, 48; >J 



3 9999 05445 3U^u