Skip to main content

Full text of "Investigation of so-called "blacklisting" in entertainment industry; report of the Fund for the Republic, inc. Hearings"

See other formats












JULY 10 AND 11, 1056 

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

ii823 WASHINGTON : 1956 

HAkVA..: C......:_ L.:..ArilO 


United States House of Representatives 

FKANCIS E. WALTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman 


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


RiCHABD Abbns, Director 


July 10, 1956: Testimony of— Page 

John Coglcy 5175 

Afternoon session: 

John Coglev (resumed) 5208 

July 11, 1956: Testimony of— 

Arnold Forster 5227 

Frederick E. Woltman 5240 

Afternoon session: 

James F. O'Neil 5256 

George E. Sokolsky (statement) 5287 

Julv 12, 1956: Testimony of— 

Vincent W. Hartnett 5291 

Afternoon session: Testimony of— 

Roy M. Brewer 5312 

Paul R. Milton .. _ 5327 

July 13, 1956: Testimony of— 

Paul R. Milton (resumed) 5329 

Godfrey P. Schmidt 5353 

Afternoon session: 

Victor Riesel (statement) 5367 

Francis J. McNamara 5368 

July 17, 1956: 

Afternoon session: Testimony of — 

Gale Sondergaard (Mrs. Herbert Biberman) 5390 

Julv 18, 1956: Testimony of— 

Jack Gilford___" 5401 

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 dy the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 8tate» 
of America in Congress assembled, * * * 


Rule X 


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

Rule XI 


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

(A) Un-American Activities. 

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

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

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


House Resolution 5, January 5, 1955 




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

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

Rule XI 


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 goverment as guaranteed by our Constitu- 
tion, and (3) all other questions in relation thereto that would aid Congress in 
any necessary remedial legislation. 

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

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



TUESDAY, JULY 10, 1956 

United States House of Representatives, 

Committee on Un-American Activities, 

Washington^ D. C. 


The Committee on Un-American Activities convened, pursuant to 
call, at 10 : 15 a. m. in the caucus room, Old House Office Building, 
Hon. Francis E. Walter (chairman) presiding. 

Committee members present: Representatives Francis E. Walter 
of Pemisylvania, Morgan M. Moulder of Missouri, Cl;^de Doyle of 
California, James B. Frazier, Jr., of Tennessee, Edwin E. Willis 
of Louisiana, Harold H. Velde of Illinois, Donald L. Jackson of Cali- 
fornia, Gordon H. Scherer of Ohio. 

Staff members present: Richard Arens, director; and K. Baar- 

(Present at convening of hearing: Chairman Walter, Representa- 
tives Moulder, Doyle, Jackson, and Scherer.) 

The Chairman. The committee will be in order. 

The Committee on Un-American Activities this morning begins an 
inquiry into the Fund for the Republic's recently published report 
on alleged blacklisting in the entertainment industry. 

Call your first witness, Mr. Arens. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. John Cogley, please. 

Kindly remain standing while the chairman administers the oath to 
you, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you swear that the testimony you are about to 
^ive will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so 
help you God? 

Mr. CoGLEY. I do. 

The Chairman. Sit down. 


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

Mr. CoGLET. My name is John Cogley. I live at 21 Glover Place, 
Baldwin, N. Y. I am on the executive staff of the Fund for the 
Republic at present. 

Mr. Arens. In what capacity are you engaged on the executive 
staff of the Fund for the Republic, Inc. ? 



Mr. CoGLEY. My main duties, although it has not been formalized, 
seem to be that of a personal assistant to the president of the fund. 

Mr. Arens. Who is he, please, sir ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. Mr. Kobert Hutchins. 

Mr. Arens. Are you appearing today, Mr. Cogley, in response to a 
subpena which was served upon you by the House Committee on Un- 
American Activities? 

Mr. CoGLEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. How long have you been associated with the Fund for 
the Republic? 

Mr. CoGLEY. In my present capacity? 

Mr. Arens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CoGLEY. Since January 2, 1 believe, 1956. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Cogley, kindly give the committee a brief sketch 
of your own personal background. 

Mr. Doyle. Mr. Counsel, wouldn't it be well if the record shows that 
the witness appears without legal counsel? I think that is the fact. 
If it is, let's have the record show it. 

Mr. Arens. Are you represented by counsel today ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. I am not represented by counsel. 

Mr. Arens. You were advised, however, in an informal telephone 
conversation that you have every right to counsel ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. You were also advised, were you not, that it was the 
desire and liking of myself as director of this committee that you 
do appear today with counsel ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. I consulted counsel, sir, and counsel was under the 
impression, as I was, that this was an executive session and I do not 
know if this influenced his decision, but he did not think it was 
necessary for him to be present here today since he was under the 
impression that it was merely to answer some questions you had to ask. 

Mr. Arens. Kindly give us, Mr. Cogley, your own personal back- 
ground. Wliere were you educated ? 

Mr. Cogley. I attended parochial schools in Chicago. I attended 
Loyola University in Chicago. I did postgraduate work at the Cath- 
olic University of Fribourg in Switzerland. 

Mr. Arens. Tell us, please, sir, when you completed your formal 
education ? 

Mr. Cogley. I returned to school after the war and during the 
school year 1948-49 I attended the University of Fribourg, and I have 
not attended formal classes since. 

Mr. Arens. Pick up the thread of your life and give us a chronology 
of the principal employments which you have had since completion of 
your formal education. 

Mr. Cogley. I have almost throughout my adult life been a Catholic 
journalist working on Catholic publications until I undertook the 
blacklisting study for the Fund for the Republic, 

Mr. Arens. What was the last publication on which you worked? 

Mr. Cogley. The Commonweal. 

Mr. Arens. Is that a Catholic publication ? 

Mr. Cogley. It is a member of the Catholic Press Association. 

Mr. Arens. Is it a Catholic magazine ? 

Mr. Cogley. Yes, sir. 


Mr. Arens. Are you cognizant of the fact that under date of March 
27, 1954, the Very Keverend R. G. Bandas, in The Tablet, a Catholic 
magazine, made the statement for publication : 

It is unfortunate that the Commonweal is described as a Catholic magazine, 
for actually such is not the case. 

Are you cognizant of that statement by the Reverend Bandas ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. I am, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Was he in error ? 

Mr. CoGLET. I would say, sir, that as long as the Commonweal 
remains a member in good standing of the Catholic Press Association, 
the Commonweal can be truly described as a Catholic publication. 

Mr. Arens. When did you first become associated with the Fund 
for the Republic? 

Mr. CoGLEY. I became associated with the Fund for the Republic 
in September 1954. I am not sure of the exact date, but I think it 
might have been September 16. 

Mr. Arens. In what capacity were you first associated with the 
Fund for the Republic? 

Mr. CoGLEY. At that time, in September — if it was the 16th or 
15th; but surely around that time — I was summoned to the office of 
the Fund for the Republic by the president of the Fund, Mr. Hut- 
chins, and the vice president of the Fund at that time, Mr. Ferry. I 
had met neither of these gentlemen before that time. 

They asked me — they told me, rather, that the board of directors 
of the Fund for the Republic had authorized a blacklisting study; 
that is, blacklisting in the entertainment industry, and they asked me 
if I was interested in undertaking this and directing it. 

I said that I wanted to think it over, since it meant my leaving the 
Commonweal, but at that time I felt that I wanted a change and I 
think it was about 2 days later that I called and agreed to do this 
work for the Fund for the Republic. 

Mr. Arens, Were j^ou engaged as the director of the project? 

Mr. CoGLEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Prior to the time that you accepted the employment 
with the Fund for the Republic, were you cognizant of the position 
which had been taken by Robert Maynard Hutchins on the question 
of employment of Communists? 

Mr. CoGLEY. I think, sir, that I might mention that I was not em- 
ployed by the Fund for the Republic in the usual sense. I was as- 
signed as a consultant which meant that I was not on the employment 
roll, but rather, on the consultants' roll. 

Mr. Arens, You received compensation for your labors, did you 

Mr. CoGLEY. I received a consultant's fee to which the usual em- 
ployment benefits did not apply. 

Mr. Arens. Reverting, if you please, sir, to the principal question 
which is outstanding: Prior to the time that you assumed this re- 
sponsibility as director of the project to which we have been alluding 
in our questions and answers, were you cognizant of the positions taken 
by Mr. Hutchins, the president of the Fund, on the question of employ- 
ment of Communists ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. This was in September 1954 that I accepted this as- 
signment from the Fund for tne Republic. Before being called by 


Mr. Hutchins and Mr. Ferry, I must say that I had never heard of 
the Fund for the Eepublic. 

My knowledge of Mr. Hutchins was as an editor and I had read 
his books on education. I had no knowledge that Mr. Hutchins was 
the president of the Fund for the Eepublic. I had a hazy remem- 
brance that lie was associated in some way with the Ford Foundation. 

Mr. Arens. Do you have any recollection as to whether or not you, 
prior to the time that you assumed your responsibilities as director 
of the study for the Fund for the Eepublic, were aware of the 
positions taken by Mr. Hutchins on the question of employing 
Communists ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. I knew nothing of Mr. Hutchins' position on this or 
any other question, except his educational theories, before taking this 

(At this point Chairman Walter left the liearing room.) 

Mr. Arens. Now, kindly tell us, if you please, sir, what were your 
general duties and responsibilities as director of the project? 

Mr. Cogley. I was told by these two officers of the Fund for the Ee- 
public that the board of the Fund had authorized this study, and that 
I was being asked to direct the study. These are the instructions I 
received : 

First, that I should find the facts and the only mention made here 
was that the board, in its authorization for this study, had said that 
they wanted the study to 

Mr. Moulder (presiding). Would you suspend, please, Mr. Coun- 
sel ? Would the talking and interruptions be discontinued ? 

Mr. Arens. Can we resume ? 

Mr. Moulder. Proceed. 

Mr. Cogley. My only instructions were that I should get the facts, 
regardless of what they were. I was in complete charge. The Fund 
would supply me with such staff as I needed and this staff could be 
of my own choosing. 

Mr. Arens. Did you select the staff ? 

Mr. Cogley. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Did you select all members of the staff? 

Mr. Cogley. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Did you select Paul Jacobs ? 

Mr. Cogley. I selected all members of the staff, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Prior to the time that you selected the members of the 
staff, did you undertake to ascertain their background and compe- 
tency to engage in the study which you were inaugurating ? 

Mr. Cogley. Yes, sir. 

Mr. AnENS. Did you check into the background of Michael Har- 
rington ? 

Mr. Cogley. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Wliat was Michael Harrington's responsibility with the 
study ? 

Mr. Cogley. Michael Harrington was assigned by me to be a per- 
sonal assistant throughout the study. 

Mr. Arens. Tell us just in a word what were the general areas of 
his activity. 

Mr. Cogley. He accompanied me on interviews. I consulted with 
him from time to time. At the very beginning of the project, I asked 
him to join with me in trying to get an overall picture of this situation 


before we cliose the staff so that we would know what kind of staff to 

Mr. Akens. Did he help you in selecting the staff ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. I consulted with him ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Did you know at the time that you engaged Michael 
Harrington that he had been a member of the Young Socialist League ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. I did not know what organizations Mr. Harrington 
belonged to at that time. 

Mr. Arens. Did you ascertain from him whether or not he was a 
Socialist ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. You mean did I ask him, "Are you a Socialist ?" 

Mr. Akens. Yes ; did you ascertain from any source whether or not 
your assistant, your right-hand man, Michael Harrington, was a So- 
cialist ? 

Mr. Cogley. I knew that he was a Socialist. I did not know what 
organizations he belonged to. 

Mr. Arens. Did you know that he had authored a number of articles 
or at least some articles in Challenge, the Young Socialist League's 
section in Labor Action ? 

Mr. Cogley. No, sir. I knew about his 30 articles in the Catholic 
Press and anti-Communist articles in the Catholic Press with which 
I was much more familiar. 

Mr. Arens. Did you know about Michael Harrington's activities on 
behalf of the Rosenbergs ? 

Mr. Cogley. Would you describe those activities, sir ? 

Mr. Arens. Did you know of any activities by Michael Harrington 
on behalf of the Rosenbergs ? 

Mr. Cogley. May I consult a paper ? 

Mr. Arens. Certainly. 

Mr. Cogley. This is the extent of my knowledge of Michael Har- 
rington's activities on behalf of the Rosenbergs. I read in the March 
1953 Catholic Worker a story under the head "Story on Rosenberg 
Case, Stalinist Intrusion of Anti-Semitism Into the Case." 

Mr. Arens. Was that the only information you had respecting any 
connection of Michael Harrington with the movement to secure clem- 
ency for the Rosenbergs ? 

Mr. Cogley. That is all I knew at that time; what was in that 

Mr. Arens. Did you know of Michael Harrington's connection with 
the War Resisters' League ? 

Mr. Cogley. Not at that time ; no, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Did you subsequently learn of his connection with the 
War Resisters' League ? 

Mr. Cogley. No, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Did you know of his connection with the War Resisters' 
League at any time prior to the time that I have just posed these ques- 
tions to you ? 

Mr. Cogley. No, sir. I do not know the organization. Perhaps I 
can clarify things if I say the only organization I knew Michael Har- 
rington to be connected with was the Workers Defense League, where 
he had been employed some time before he joined our staff or, that is, 
the blacklist project staff. 

Mr. Arens. Did you employ Paul Jacobs as one of your assistants 
in this study ? 


Mr. CoGLEYs Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. In what capacity was Paul Jacobs employed ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. Paul Jacobs was recommended to me as a knowledge- 
able anti-Communist by a movie producer ; that is, a movie executive. 
Therefore, I assigned Mr. Jacobs to the Hollywood study — ^he lives in 
Los Angeles — to concentrate especially on communism in Holly- 
wood and the labor situation in Hollywood. 

Mr. Arens. Did you know that Paul Jacobs had been a member 
of the Young Communist League ? 

(Chairman Walter and Representative Frazier entered the hearing 
room at this point.) 

Mr. CoGLEY. I knew not at the time I hired him what his affiliations 
were, but I understood very shortly after that that some 20 years 
earlier, or 22 years earlier, I believe, Mr. Jacobs had briefly belonged 
to the Young Communist League. 

Mr. Arens. Did you hire Dr. Marie Jahoda as one of your associates 
and assistants ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. Dr. Marie Jahoda was involved in the project on quite 
a different basis. A grant was made to the New York University Re- 
search Center — I can't think of the name of it right now — that is, she 
is associated with it. 

Mr. Arens. Was that the Research Center for Human Relations 
of New York University ? 

Mr. Cogley. That is right, sir. This was at my suggestion. The 
grant was taken from the money which had been applied to be used 
for the blacklist study. 

Mr. Arens. Did you check into the background of Dr. Marie Jahoda 
before you recommended her for engagement by the Fund to make this 

Mr. CoGLEY. I recommended the New York University Research 
Center that you referred to earlier, not her particularly. 

Mr. Arens. Did you know when she was admitted into the United 

Mr. CoGLEY. No, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Did you know that she was admitted into the United 
States only in 1945? 

Mr. CoGLEY. She has a pronounced accent. I presumed it was not 
too long ago. 

Mr. Arens. Did you know that prior to her association with the 
study of which you were director that she had issued reports or studies 
herself critical of the loyalty programs of this Government, published 
reports ? 

Mr. Cogley. I had read nothing of Dr. Jahoda's before the grant 
was made to the Research Center of New York University. 

Mr. Arens. Did you know anything about her connection with the 
Socialist Democratic Party in Austria prior to the time that she be- 
came identified with the Fund for the Republic? 

Mr. CoGLEY. I knew nothing about Dr. Jahoda's personal life ex- 
cept that she was associated with New York University and was in 
charge of the research center there. 

Mr. Arens. Did you engage any former FBI agents as your assist- 
ants to develop this study ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. Not that I know of. 


Mr. Akens. Did yon, in the course of your work in developing the 
facts for this study, consult with the Federal Bureau of Investigation ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. No, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Did you know that the Federal Bureau of Investigation 
has an accumulation of information which is available to such or- 
ganizations as the Fund for the Republic and other such groups upon 
solicitation ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. No ; I did not know that at the time. 

Mr. Arens. Did you subsequently learn that the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation has a vast accumulation of information which is avail- 
able to private foundations and groups on various subjects within the 
purview of the jurisdiction of the Bureau? 

Mr. CoGLEY. I did not know until right now. 

Mr. Arens. Give us, if you please, sir, just a word about the time 
element involved in this study. When did the study begin and when 
was it completed ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. The study began during — that would be between, I 
would say, around the first of October, with only Mr. Harrington and 
me surveying the situation so that we would know what kind of a staff 
we needed, how many we needed, and so on. 

It wasn't until around the first of January 1955 that we had as- 
sembled the staff and began in earnest. It was at that time that we 
hired, or rather rented, an office in the Chelf Hotel in New York City. 

The staff worked 8 or 9 months. Some finished earlier than others, 
and during the summer months and the fall months they were dis- 
missed and three persons remained — myself, Mr. Harrington, and 
James Greene, who functioned as secretary. 

At this point, I assembled the mass of material and produced the 
report. I turned the report in in this mimeographed version you have 
in front of you, I think it was on December 15 or thereabouts, 1955, to 
the vice president of the Fund for the Republic. 

Mr. Ajjens. Now, was that report which you turned in in mimeo- 
graphed form subsequently revised ? 

Mr. Cogley. It was revised ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Who did the revising? 

Mr. Cogley. I did. 

Mr. Arens. During the course of your study did you solicit and 
acquire information on this subject matter from the House Committee 
on Un-American Activities ? 

Mr. Cogley. Wlien you ask questions like this, sir, may I take it 
that you mean also members of my sta ff , not me, personally ? 

Mr. Arens. That is correct ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Cogley. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Did you have before you a library of the hearings of 
the House Committee on Un-American Activities ? 

Mr. Cogley. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. And did you solicit and acquire information from the 
Senate Internal Security Subcommittee ? 

Mr. Cogley. I can't answer that, sir, at the moment because I know 
that one of my staff members came to Washington and talked with 
several people, and I don't know which committee they were associated 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Cogley, you have a set of the reports with you ? 

Mr. Cogley. Yes, sir. 


Mr. Arens. I invite your attention at this time, if you please, sir, 
to volume I, page 89. I should like to read you the footnote there. 
Then I will have a question or two. 

Do you have it before you now, please, sir ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. I will read slowly. [Beading:] 

There is a California act setting forth that, "No employer shall coerce or Ib- 
fluence or attempt to coerce or influence his employees through or by means of 
threat of discharge or loss of employment to adopt or follow or refrain from 
adopting or following any particular course or line of political action or political 

That is a footnote on page 89 of volume I of the report ; is it not ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. It is a partial footnote. Would you continue it, sir? 

Mr. Arens. I want only that part of it. That is the part that is 
in quotes to which I want to invite your attention. 

Mr. CoGLEY. May I ask you to continue reading the whole footnote ? 

Mr. Arens. I am going to continue reading it in a moment. I want 
to invite your attention to the quotation, sir, of the California act 
which I have just quoted to you. That is a quotation of the California 
act, is it not ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Do you accept that quotation there in the footnote of 
volume I on page 89 of your report as encompassing what you de- 
scribe as blacklisting? 

(At this point Representative Willis entered the room.) 

Mr. Doyle. May I have that question again, please ? 

Mr. Arens. I think that perhaps I could give it to the Congress- 
man in reference to the language I have just read so that the whole 
question is complete. I have just read, Congressman Doyle, to Mr. 
Cogley a quotation from a California act. 

Mr, Doyle. I have the reference, but I was listening carefully and 
I did not clearly hear your question of the witness. 

Mr. Arens. I asked him whether or not the definition which is con- 
tained in this footnote from the California act which I have just 
read to Mr. Cogley encompasses his definition or description of black- 

Mr. Doyle. You mean his personal definition ? 

Mr. Arens. The definition contained in the report. 

Mr. Cogley. This would be a partial description of blacklisting as 
it is used in the report, but certainly it would not suflBce to me to be a 

Mr. Arens. May I ask you now with reference to the language 
which you first pointed out a few moments ago : This footnote which 
we have just read says among other things in addition to the defi- 
nition : 

The California Supreme Court, however, has decided that this statute does 
not prohibit an employer's discharging persons whose loyalty to the Nation has 
not been established to the satisfaction of the employer, because disloyalty or 
"subversive" activity is not a protected "political activity." 

I ask you, Mr. Cogley, do you accept this annotation which I have 
just read as the definition of blacklisting as contained in your report? 

Mr. Cogley. I would say that there could be blacklisting which 
might be justified legally or nonjustified. Any blacklisting that is 
refusing to hire certain persons according to this doctrine as enunci- 


tited by the California Supreme Court would certainly be legal black- 

Mr. Arens. Then the blacklisting which you describe in this report 
is something which encompasses more than legal blacklisting; is that 
correct ? 

Mr. CoGLEY, Pardon, sir ? 

Mr. Arens. Is the area circumscribed in your report and described 
in your report as blacklisting something more than blacklisting as 
defined by the law ? 

Mr. Cogley. I think that in our legal study which is part of this 
report we find that there is no recourse to the law for any kind of 
blacklisting, tha.t it is a problem which has to be solved outside the 

Mr. Arens. Just answer that question precisely, if you please, Mr. 

Mr. Cogley. Perhaps I did not understand. 

Mr. Arens. This definition of blacklisting contained in the Cali- 
fornia statute? 

Mr. Cogley. I don't know that it is a definition, sir. 

Mr. Arens. The definition of what you have called political screen- 

Mr. Cogley. Is it a definition ? Are you asking me, is this a defi- 
nition ? 

Mr. Arens. Let's be as precise as human language, at least at my 
command, can make it. The California statute which is quoted in the 
footnote on page 89 of volume I prohibits the coercion or influence 
by an employer of an employee for a line of political action or political 
activity ; does it not ? 

Mr. Cogley. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. The annotation to the statute states, in effect, does it 
not, that the California Supreme Court says that the statute does not 
prohibit an employer discharging persons whose loyalty to the Nation 
has not been established to the satisfaction of the employer because 
disloyalty or subversive activity is not a protected political activity; 
that is correct ; is it not ? 

Mr. Cogley. That is correct. 

Mr. Arens. Now, throughout your report you speak of blacklisting ; 
do you not? 

Mr. Cogley. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Is the blacklisting which you encompass in your report 
something more than the blacklisting or the activity described in the 
California statute which I have just read to you ? 

Mr. Cogley. I would say that in this particular volume which deals 
with employees in California, it is covered by this footnote; in other 
words, that the loyalty to the Nation has not been established to the 
satisfaction of the employer because loyalty or subversive activity is 
not a protected political activity, depending upon the employer. 

I interviewed a number of employers and some employers in this 
industry put their argument on an economic basis. 

Mr. ^Vrens. May I approach this question a little differently ? Are 
there any cases in your treatise here which you describe as lilacklist- 
ing which fall within the purview of the annotation to the California 
act : namely, instances in which an employer has discharged persons 


whose loyalty to the Nation has not been established to the employer's 
satisfaction ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. Yes, sir. 

(At this point Representative Velde entered the room.) 

Mr. Arens. Then your definition of blacklisting goes fmther than 
the definition of acts contained in the California statute ; is that cor- 

Mr. CoGLET. You asked me if there was a case in this volume. I 
answered there is a case in this volume. Do you wish me to describe 
the case? 

Mr. Akens. No ; I am only trying to establish here a matter of se- 
mantics. We have quoted to you a California statute to which you 
have alluded in your volume prohibiting certain acts. We have also 
quoted to you the annotation to that California statute which you 
have quoted in your treatise, and in that annotation we find that a 
discharge for subversive activity or a discharge of a person whose 
loyalty to the Nation has not been established to the satisfaction of 
the employer is not within the purview of the statute. 

I am now asking you again, do you treat as blacklisting the dis- 
charge of people whose loyalty to the Nation has not been established 
to the satisfaction of the employer ? 

MJr. CoGLEY. Anyone that the employer will not employ as a per- 
son, I would say, is blacklisted by the employer. In further answer 

to your question 

' Mr. Arens. May I interpose this question, not trying to be dis- 
boiirteous to you ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Irrespective of the reason ; is that correct ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. At that point, may I ask you, is it blacklisting, accord- 
ing to your semantics here in this treatise, for an employer to dis- 
charge a person who has been identified before a congressional com- 
mittee as a member of the Communist conspiracy ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. Well, we will have to take it this way : If the employer 
says, "I will not hire this person who has been identified as a mem- 
ber of the Communist conspiracy, or any other person who has been 
identified as a member of the Coromunist conspiracy," we have to find 
a word for that decision, and for that practice, and for that thought. 

The usual word is "blacklisting." 

Mr. Arens. Then, is it a fact that your definition and use of the 
term "blacklisting" encompasses those cases in which an employer 
discharges an employee because he has been identified before a con- 
gressional committee under oath as a member of the Communist con- 
spiracy ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. It encompasses, but it is broader than that. 

Mr. Arens. It is even broader than a discharge of people who have 
been identified as Communists; is that correct? 

Mr. CoGLEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Now, I invite your attention, if you please, sir, to page 
97 of volume I of your treatise on movies. At the top of the page we 
read this language : 

Names of those cited as Communists by cooperative witnesses were listed 
alphabetically. Everyone cited was blacklisted in the studios. 


That language appears in your report, does it not ? 
Mr. CoGLEY, Yes, sir, 
Mr. Moulder. What page ? 
Mr. Arens. Page 97 of volume I. 

So that the record is clear, let me read this again. On page 97 of 
volume I you say : 

Names of those cited as Communists by cooperative witnesses were listed 
alphabetically. Everyone cited was blacklisted iu the studios. 

That is a correct quotation from your report, is it not? 

Mr. CoGLEY. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Now, those cited as Communists were people who had 
been identified as Commimists before a congressional committee, were 
they not ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. And when you say those people were blacklisted, then 
your term on blacklisting encompasses the refusal to hire people who 
have been identified as Communists ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Cogley. It encompasses and it is broader ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Now, I invite your attention to page 162 of volume I. 
About halfway down toward the middle of the page, I invite your at- 
tention to this language : 

All the studios are now unanimous in their refusal to hire persons identified 
as Communist Party members who have not subsequently testified in full before 
the House Un-American Activities Committee. The studios are equally adamant 
about not hiring witnesses who have relied upon the fifth amendment before 
congressional committees. 

Is that a correct recitation of the language from your report ? 

Mr. Cogley. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Abens. Is it correct, then, to state that your concept of black- 
listing, as used throughout this report, encompasses people who have 
been identified as Communist Party members before the House Com- 
mittee on Un-American Activities, and when, in addition to the 
identification, they have been called before the committee and have 
invoked the fifth amendment ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Cogley. It encompasses, but it goes beyond that. 

Mr. Arens. Yes; we will get into how far it goes beyond that in 
just a little while, if you please, sir. 

Now, I invite your attention to page 22 of volume I. On page 22 of 
volume I we read what you have subsequently described as the Wal- 
dorf statement, do we not ? 

Mr. Cogley. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. I should like, if I may, sir, to read to you certain ex- 
cerpts from the heart of the Waldorf statement. If I omit anything 
that you think is pertinent, germane, or important, you invite my at- 
tention to it. 

We will forthwith discharge or suspend without compensation those in our 
employ and we will not reemploy any of the 10 until such time as he is acquitted 
or has purged himself of contempt and declares under oath that he is not a 

On the broader Issue of alleged subversive and disloyal elements in Holly- 
wood, our members are likewise prepared to take positive action. 

We will not knowingly employ a Communist or a member of any party or 
group which advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States 
by force or by any illegal or unconstitutional methods. 

92<5n3— 5«— pf. 1 2 


Is that a true and correct representation of the heart of the Waldorf 
statement ? 

Mr. CoGLET, Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. I invite your attention to page 23, the subsequent page, 
to the last 2 or 3 lines. Quoting from your report : 

Such were the beginnings of blacklisting in the motion-picture industry. 

Is it a fair appraisal and characterization of the Waldorf statement 
together with your characterization, that the refusal of the motion- 
picture industry to employ people who have been identified as Com- 
munists, and their recitation and announcement that they will not 
knowingly engage subversive or disloyal elements, was the beginning 
of blacklisting within the framework of that term used in this report ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. Perhaps I can explain myself if I say that I think that 
in ordinary usages, a refusal to hire someone is called blacklisting that 

Mr. Arens. Irrespective of reason ; is that correct ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. Irrespective of reason ; yes, sir. 

Mr. ScHERER. What was that answer ? 

Mr. Arens. Irrespective of reason. 

Mr. Scherer. Includes blacklisting? 

Mr. Arens, Yes, sir. 

Now, I invite your attention, if you please, sir, to page 77 of volume I, 
about the middle of the page. Alluding to the Waldorf statement, we 
see this language, sir : 

As a result of the Waldorf policy, 10 men were fired immediately. 

Now, within the framework and concept that you have of the term 
"blacklisting," were those 10 men who were fired immediately pursu- 
ant to the Waldorf policy, blacklisted ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. After they were fired, they were blacklisted ; yes, sir. 
They would not be rehired. I would not confuse the word "fire" with 

Mr. Arens, Now, kindly tell us whether or not, within the frame- 
work of your definition or use of the term "blacklisting," it is black- 
listing for an employer to refuse to hire or to maintain in employment 
a Communist sympathizer ? 

Mr. Cogley, a refusal to hire a person for whatever reason, as I 
said before, in ordinary usage is called blacklisting that person. Tliis 
may be justified, unjustified, wrong, or right, but I know no other Eng- 
lish word to describe the process. 

Mr. Arens. Is it justifiable for an employer to refuse to hire within 
the framework of your term "blacklisting" a person who has been 
identified before a congressional committee as a member of the Com- 
munist conspiracy, and who, when confronted with the live witnesses 
that testifi,ed, invokes the fifth amendment ? 

Is that action on the part of the employer justified, even though you 
have called it blacklisting ? 

Mr, Cogley. Is that action on the part of the employer justified ? 

Mr, Arens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Cogley. I think that depends on the job that the person is 
doing. I think that at least in California the employer has a perfectly 
legal right to do this if he chooses, I can only put forth my own 
opinion on whether it is good or bad. 


I think I have to have a specific case, but thiougliout this report- 

Mr. Arens. We will get to a number of specific cases later, Mr. 
Cogley. I just want to get from you the position which you maintain 
in tliis report published by the Fund for the Republic at tax-exempt 
operations, whether or not your position is that an employer is justi- 
fied in discharging a person identified as a Communist. 

Mr. Cogley. I have not expressed any position in the report. I 
would prefer not to express any position now. I have simply stated 
the various alternatives and the various arguments that have been 
put forth, as you notice, reading through the report. 

Mr. Arens. Is an employer justified in discharging or in refusing 
to hire, which mean about the same attitude, a person who is a Com- 
munist Party sympathizer? 

Mr. Cogley. Are you asking me if I say so in this report or my own 
feeling ? 

Mr. Arens. Is it your position that an employer in the entertain- 
ment industry is justified in refusing employment to such a person? 

Mr. Cogley. I have no position. I have put forth no position in 
the report. I have put forth no position in any public place and I 
would consider this very private, and I wonder if it is necessary for 
me, for the first time, to put forth my position on this? 

Mr. AitENS. May I pose the question a little bit differently ? If an 
employer discharges or refuses to hire a person who is on the basis of 
the satisfactory judgments of the employer a Communist Party sym- 
pathizer, is that employer engaged in blacklisting ? 

Mr. Cogley. He has certainly blacklisted the person he has refused 
to hire if we accept the only word in English I know which describes 
the process. 

Mr. Arens. Now, if an employer refuses to hire or if he discharges 
a person who is a Communist Party fellow traveler, is he blacklisting 
that person? 

Mr. Cogley. I think I would have to give the same answer. Again, 
it is the only word I know to describe refusal to hire somebody. 

Mr. Arens. Wliat do you mean by a Communist Party sympathizer ? 

Mr. Cogley. Shall I answer, sir? 

Mr. Arens. Yes, sir. Wliat do you mean by a Communist Party 
sympathizer? We have been discussing that. 

Mr. Cogley. I suppose I would mean by that a person who has no 
membership in the Communist Party, but has a certain sympathy for 
the Communist Party, period. I guess that is it. 

Mr. Arens. You use that term throughout your book, do you not ? 

Mr. Cogley. I don't recall how often I use it. 

Mr. Arens. I invite your attention to page 153 of volume II at the 
middle of the page, an illustration which I have just picked out as 
one of many in which you use the term "either Communists or party 

"\Vliat do you mean by a "fellow traveler"? 

Mr. Cogley. I am sorry. Is this 152? 

Mr. Arens. Page 153 of volume II. What do you mean by a 
"fellow traveler"? 

Mr. Cogley. By a fellow traveler, I think I would take as a defini- 
tion a man who does not belong to the Communist Party but goes along 
with the Communist Party on most issues. 


Mr. Aeens. And could a person be a fellow traveler or some entity 
other than in the Communist Party by your concept ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. Well, the word is used usually to define someone who 
has that kind of a relationship to the Communist Party. I have heard 
it used colloquially to refer to other things, other relationships, but I 
think that is the usual understanding of the word "fellow traveler." 

Mr. Arens. Now, on page 137 of your report on radio and television, 
volume II, you de.scribe George Sokolsky as "an AWARE fellow trav- 
eler" ; do you not ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. I assume you mean by that that his relationship ta 
AWARE is in the same pattern and is the relationship of a fellow 
traveler to the Communist Party. 

Mr. CoGLEY. He is not a member of the group, but he is sympathetic 
to its aims and program. 

Mr. Arens. Now, if a banker — and the chairman of this committee 
is a banker — happens to learn that one of his employees is a gambler 
and discharges him for that reason, is the banker who commits that 
act engaged in blacklisting ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. The discharge is certainly not blacklisting, but if the 
employee can never again get a job hi that company, the usual English 
word for that situation is that he is blacklisted in that company. He 
cannot return there to work because of his bad reputation. 

Mr. Aeens. Now, I invite your attention, if you please, sir, to volume 
II of your report, page 28, and I use that reference, as I believe you 
will agree with me, as a typical illustration of the terminology of the 
report, in which you say : 

Political discrimination had existed in the radio industry before 1949. 

You then go on with other phraseologies. 

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

Mr. CoGLEY. What page is this, sir ? 

Mr. Arens. Page 23, if you please, sir, of volume II on radio and 
television. You say "Political discrimination." Is it political dis- 
crimination by your concept and by the concept of the report for an 
employer to discharge an employee because that person has been identi- 
fied before a congressional committee as a memoer of the Communist 
conspiracy ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. If he is discriminating against him, that is a word, 
"discriminating" against him because he is a member of the Commu- 
nist conspiracy, and one wanted to find an adjective, I can't think of 
any other adjective than "political" unless one could say "conspira- 
torial discrimination." 

Can you suggest a word, sir ? I thought and thought, trying to fuid 
one and all I found was "political." 

Mr. Arens. Now, I invite your attention to volume II, page 214, 
toward the bottom of the page, in which Paul Robeson is described as^ 
a "political person." 

Mr. CoGLEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. That appears in this report ; does it not ? 

Mr. Cogley. With quotes ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. That Paul Robeson was described as a "political per- 

Mr. CoGLEY. In quotes. 


Mr. Arens. At the time that this report was written, were you 
•cognizant of the fact that Paul Robeson was one of the hard, hard- 
core members of the Communist conspiracy in tlie United States? 

Mr. CoGLET. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. T\1iy didn't you describe him, instead of a "political 
j>erson," describe him as a Communist, as a Communist agent? 

Mr. CoGLEY. I could have. 

Mr. Arens. Well, do you feel that the term "political person" en- 
compasses a Communist? 

Mr. CoGLEY. No, I have to ask you to consider this choice of words 
in the context of the sentence. 

Mr. Arens. I will read you the entire sentence, then, sir. 

Mr. CoGLEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens In fact, I will read the entire paragraph : 

In general the few actors who have found it diflBcult to find work on Broad- 
way are people so politically active that their "unemployability" is based on the 
fact that they are a nuisance to work with. Producers who are quite willing 
to hire actors "listed" in Red Channels or even those who refuse to cooperate 
with congressional committees, draw the line in cases where they feel a per- 
former is primarily a "political person." 

Mr. CoGLEY. Political person. 

Mr. Arens. Political person is in quotes — 

who also acts, rather than an actor who happens to take an interest in poli- 
tics. But these cases are relatively few in number. The exclusion of such per- 
formers is not based on the existence of any kind of a "list." 
Paul Kobeson is a good example. 

Do you mean that Paul Robeson is an example of a "political 
person" ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. I mean that Paul Robeson has to be distinguished 
between other persons who have the general reputatioii of being Com- 
munists or. who have refused to cooperate with this committee at 
least by taking the fifth amendment. These persons are not unem- 
ployable on Broadway. 

Paul Robeson is. I could not have made my point if I merely re- 
ferred to Paul Robeson as a Communist because there are Communists, 
I presume, who are employed on Broadway. 

Mr. Arens. May I ask you whether or not in your judgment Paul 
Robeson is a "political person" ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. I used this phrase in quotes meaning, as I say here, one 
who is so active that he becomes a nuisance to the rest of the cast. 

Mr. Arens. Would the refusal to employ Paul Robeson or the dis- 
charge of Paul Robeson constitute blacklisting in your concept as used 
in the report? 

Mr. CoGLEY. If Paul Robeson cannot work on Broadway, I know 
no other word to describe his not working, that process, in any case, 
by which he is excluded except that he is blacklisted on Broadway. 

Mr. Arens. Do you know of any cases or did your study develop 
any cases in which a person was denied an employment because he 
was a member of the Republican Party or of the Democratic Party ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. No, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Then, your term "political discrimination" and "po- 
litical screening," and "political person" does not encompass an ac- 
tivity that is legitimate within the Republican Party or the Democratic 
Party ; i s that correct ? 


Mr. CoGLEY. I know people who have been blacklisted who belong 
to one of these two parties, but they were not blacklisted precisely 
because they belonged to these parties. I would say that my definition 
includes more than membership in the Communist conspiracy. 

Mr. Aeens. Does there exist, and did your study develop facts indi- 
cating the existence of an actual blacklist? I emphasize, now, the 
word "list." 

Mr. CoGLEY. In which industry, sir ? 

Mr. Arens. In any industry. 

Mr. Cogley. Well, I covered two. 

Mr. Arens. Let's take the television industry. Does your study 
develop the existence of a list ? 

Mr. Cogley. I think I say in the study there is a multiplicity of 
lists which are used or have been used in the past in a most erratic 
way by people employing persons in the radio-television industry. 

Mr. Arens. I invite your attention, if you please, sir. 

Mr. Cogley. Shall I answer on the movie industry ? 

Mr. Arens. Yes, sir. I did not mean to preclude you from a com- 
plete answer. 

Mr. Cogley. A movie producer, Mr. Y. Frank Freeman, of the 
Paramount Pictures, when I asked him about this, leaned back and 
picked up the annual reports of this House committee and said, "I do 
not employ anyone who is found on these lists." 

Mr. Aren. "Wlien he said "found on these lists," did he explain 
to you that he meant people who had been identified under oath by 
responsible witnesses before this committee as members of the Com- 
munist conspiracy ? 

Mr. Cogley. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Now, I invite your attention, if you please, sir, to page 
237 of volume II, report of blacklisting, about the middle of the page. 
I believe this is tlie contribution, is it not, of Miss Jahoda ? • 

Mr. Cogley. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. When she speaks on the question of blacklisting, she 
says, "But there is no list." Do you see it ? I will show you on my 
copy and it will help j^ou. "But there is no list." She was speaking 
the truth, was she not, when she said in this report there is no list? 
There is no blacklist, as such ? 

Mr. Cogley. I think that if you will read this paragraph you will 
see that the first sentence : 

The essential aspect of this definition * * * is denied by all top executives 
who were consulted. 

Then she is quoting the executives. 

There are "sources." * * * There are "mysterious telephone numbers." * * * 
But there is no list. 

Mr. Arens. But she is not there quoting the executives when she 
says there is no list. 

Mr. Cogley. I don't know. 

Mr. Arens. Let's try another one. Look at page 121 of volume II, 
and I invite your attention to the footnote there alluding to the ques- 
tion of blacklisting. The footnote reads as follows, and I will read 
it slowly : 

These are not to be taken as literal lists. Those who are totally "unemployable" 
(comparatively few) are, in this context, "blacklisted." 


Now, I ask you, Is there a list, a blacklist, as such ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. I said earlier that there were a multiplicity of lists, no 
one list, in this particular field used by a number of people without any 
order at all, and I think I made that point clear throughout the book. 

Mr. Arens. May I invite your attention again to this same footnote 
on page 121 of volume II : 

Those who are totally "unemployable" (comparatively few) are, in this 
context, "blacklisted." 

In your judgment, on the basis of your study and investigation, how 
many were at the time of your report "totally unemployable"? 

Mr. CoGLET. Since this whole process is largely carried on in secret, 
I would not know the difference between totally unemployable and 
partially unemployable, I would say, though, that persons who have 
been identified before this committee and have either not come forth 
and cooperated with the committee or have taken the fifth amendment 
before this committee are by and large totally unemployable in this 

Mr. Arens. You, in your report, list the names of a number of people 
who have been identified as members of the Communist Party who, Dy 
your own statements, are presently employed on Broadway ; isn't that 
correct ? 

Mr. Cogley. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. I invite your attention, if you please 

Mr. Cogley. This, sir, was referring to radio-television industry, 
this reference that you referred to. I said they are totally unemploy- 
able in the particular industry, not totally unemployable. 

Mr. Arens. I see. Now, do you consider that blacklisting, as you 
described it within the framework of the treatise here, is a difficult 
problem within the radio-television industry ? 

Mr. Cogley. Very difficult. 

Mr. Arens. I invite your attention to volume II, page 265, of your 
report to a questionnaire which you circulated to numerous people in 
the industry. 

Mr. Cogley. That was Dr. Jahoda's survey. I had nothing to do 
with it. 

Mr. Arens. Dr. Jahoda's survey circulated a questionnaire to a great 
number of people in the industry, and one of the questions was as 
follows : 

What do you consider the most difficult problem facing the (radio) (TV) 
industry today? 

There are a number of possible selections. How many answered 
the question as to whether they considered blacklisting to be a difficult 
problem ? 

Mr. Cogley. I am sorry. I don't understand. 

Mr. Arens. Only one person in the whole questionnaire answered 
that he, as a spokesman for the industry, considered blacklisting to be 
a difficult problem; isn't that correct? And I invite your attention 
to the answer to the questionnaire sent out by Miss Jahoda for her 
study, on page 265 of volume II. 

Mr. Cogley. It is not correct. 

Mr. Arens. Then you give me the correct answer. 

Mr. Cogley. The statement is : 

What do you consider the most difficult problem facing the (radio) (TV) 
industry today — 

not a difficult problem. 


Mr, Arens. Well, within the framework of your qualification as to 
whether or not it is a most difficult, or the most difficult, problem we 
see the following questions : 

Radio TV 

Economic survival : Immaturity 

Management does not meet TV Mediocrity, poor quality 

challenge High production costs 

Radio must lose Sponsors and ad agencies only inter- 

Ohallenge serious but radio can win ested in selling 

Management misjudges public 

and so forth. 

But to that questionnaire, only one person, is it not true, answered 
that he found blacklising to be the most difficult problem facing the 
radio-TV industry? 

Mr. CoGLEY. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. Arens. I invite your attention, if you please, to this subject 
matter. On the basis of your study and investigation with the re- 
sources of this fund at your disposal, did you ascertain how many 
people have instituted lawsuits under the law on defamation because 
they had been wrongly characterized as members of the Communist 
conspiracy and, therefore, deprived of employment ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. A special study was done on the legal problem here 
involved in this situation. I never questioned that people who were 
named before the committee as Communists who did not come forth, 
that any percentage whatsoever of them instituted lawsuits. 

Mr. Arens. Did you undertake to ascertain how many criminal 
actions under the criminal libel statutes were instituted against people 
for falsely and maliciously charging other people with being members 
of the Communist Party and, therefore, depriving them of their em- 
ployment in the industry ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. There are many things ; there are many different ways 
this study could have been written. 

Mr. Arens. Did you make an ascertainment of that fact ? 

Mr. Cogley. You could ask me 600 questions as to "Did you do 
this?" I think I should answer what I did, not what I should have 
done or what you would have done. 

Mr. Arens. Tell us what you did to make an ascertainment of the 
number of people who were subjected to criminal proceedings because 
of falsely naming another as being a memb-er of the Communist con- 
spiracy ? 

Mr. Cogley. I did not; no, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Did you make a study on the number of persons who, 
though one-time members of the Communist conspiracy, had been 
rehabilitated and, therefore, reemployed by the industry? 

Mr. Cogley. The exact number, no ; but a general idea, yes. 

Mr. Arens. What is a fair approximation of the number of people 
who, though one time deprived of employment because of Communist 
activities or affiliations, were nevertheless subsequently rehabilitated 
and reemployed? 

Mr. Cogley. I do not have my files, and I would not make an ap- 
proximation, but I think by going through the records of this, if this 
committee will, it would be easy to find. 


Mr. Arens. Would it be in the hundreds ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. I doubt it. 

Mr. Arens. Would it be in the dozens ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. It would be at least more than a dozen ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. How many people on the basis of your study who broke 
with the Communist conspiracy came before this House Committee 
on Un-American Activities or some other governmental agency and 
disclosed the facts of their prior activities and patriotically revealed to 
the representatives of their government the operation of the con- 
spiracy of which they had cognizance? How many of those people, 
to your knowledge, were thereafter deprived of employment in the 
industry ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. In the very early days, I think there was some difficulty 
in these people getting work. After that the situation was straight- 
ened out und most of them went back to work. 

Mr. Arens. I invite your attention, if you please, sir, to volume I, 
page 80, of your report. I should like to read you some language : 

Gale Sondergaard, wife of Herbert Biberman of the Hollywood Ten, found 
that she was suddenly "unemployable" after her husband refused to testify, 
though she had previously made about 45 pictures, had won an Oscar for her 
performance in Anthony Adverse and had been nominated for another after 
she appeared in Anna and the King of Siam. Following the 1947 hearings. Miss 
Sondergaard made only one film, produced by Mervyn LeRoy. LeRoy told 
her that he had been questioned by dozens of people who asked him wonderingly 
if he did not know who she was. 

The theme of that narrative is continued on page 162 of the same 
volume. I shall continue reading: 

At the time of the 1951 hearings. Gale Sondergaard addressed the executive 
board of the Actors Guild through an ad in Variety. Miss Sondergaard asked 
the union to support her right to plead the fifth amendment and to make a 
public declaration that it would not tolerate any industry blacklist against any 
of its members. 

That appears in your volmne, does it not, as one of the sad cases of 
blacklisting ; isn't that correct ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Why didn't you tell your readers in tliis publication of 
this sad case of Gale Sondergaard, who was blacklisted that the public 
testimony before this committee of 12 people either who were members 
or former members of the Communist conspiracy identified Gale Son- 
dergaard as a member of the Communist conspiracy? 

Mr. CoGLEY. Sir, in the first place, I was referring here to the story 
of 1947 in the first reference you made. At that time. Miss Sonder- 
gaard, as far as I know, had not been named. In the 1951 mention 
here, you will find I think 

Mr. Arens. This report was written in 1953 and 1954 and 1955; 
was it not ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. That is correct. I say I am merely relating the details 
here that in 1947 this had happened. At that time she had not been 
named before the committee. Then you made two references. You go 
to 1951 hearings and tliat she was subpenaed to the 1951 hearings, and 
you will see that I said also in this book, quoting a former representa- 
tive of this committee, that in the 1951 hearings the committee called no 
one unless they had proof that that person was a Communist. 

If a person were to read the book, he would know that all that 
were called at the 1951 hearings, at least, that the committee had proof 


that they were Communists, Therefore, the reference to Miss Sonder- 
gaard as liaving been called at the 1951 hearings shows that Miss 
Sondergaard in the opinion of this committee, in any case, was a proved 

Mr. Arens. Now on your page 80 of volume I, isn't it a fair appraisal 
of your language that Miss Sondergaard's failure to obtain work was 
attributed to the refusal of her husband, Herbert Biberman, of the 
Hollywood Ten, to testify ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. May I ask, in return, was Miss Sondergaard in 1947 
when she failed to obtain work at that time had she been identified 
before this committee or any other committee ? 

Mr. Arens. Although I am not a witness, I will say that the public 
testimony before this committee identifying her as a member of the 
Communist conspiracy did not come until 1951. 

Mr. CoGLEY. I am referring, then, to her losing her work in 1947. 

Mr. Arens, Is it not a fair appraisal of your language here that it 
is designed to lead the human mind to believe that Miss Sondergaard's 
failure to obtain work was attributed to the fact that her husband 
refused to testify ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. In 1947, Miss Sondergaard had not yet been named 
before this committee or any other committee. This seems a fair 
appraisal that this was the reason, 

Mr. Arens. Did it occur to you that you might drop a footnote there, 
as you did in other instances, and say that Miss Sondergaard had been 
identified by 12 people under oath before the House Committee on 
Un-American Activities as a member of the Communist conspiracy ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. That is one thing I could have done. This is the way I 
wrote the book. 

Mr. Arens. May I invite your attention to volume I, page 78 of your 
book, at the top of the page, sir : 

Gordon Kahn, another "unfriendly" screenwriter, found it bard to get work 
after 1947. 

Mr. CoGLEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Did you know, or did you ascertain, that Gordon Kahn 
had been identified as a member of the Communist conspiracy by at 
least a dozen people ? 

Mr, CoGLEY. In 1947? 

Mr. Arens, At any time. 

Mr. Cogley. Was he ? I did not know that he had been named in 
1947. I knew that he had been named later, I am recounting history 
here, and saying that he found it hard to get work after 1947, 

Mr, Arens, Did you at any place in your book, at any time, allude 
to the fact that Gordon Kahn had been identified under oath by 
approximately a dozen people as a member of the Communist 
conspiracy ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. I specified some cases. I did not mention everyone 
by name who had been mentioned before this committee. I referred 
to Gordon Kahn here merely in reference to the situation that ex- 
isted in 1947. 

Mr. Arens. That was because he refused to testify before the House 
Committee on Un-American Activities pursuant to an identification 
of him as a member of the Communist conspiracy ; is that not true ? 


Mr. CoGLEY. I don't understand your question, sir. 

Mr. Arens. His unfriendly attitude which you envisage as the cause 
of his so-called blacklisting was attributed, was it not, to the hearings 
before the House Committee on Un-American Activities ? 

Mr. CoGLET. By "unfriendly" I meant the use of the word "un- 
friendly" here, that he did not cooperate with the committee in its 
hearings. This was the word that was used quite often at that time. 

Mr. Arens. Now, I invite your attention to the case of Anne Revere 
alluded to in volume I, page 79. 

Among those who had participated in every major public protest against the 
hearings was Anne Revere, a character actress who had won an academy 
award for her performance in "National Velvet" and had been nominated for 
roles in "Gentlemen's Agreement" and "Song of Bernadette." 

Between 1940 and 1950, Miss Revere appeared in 40 motion pictures and her 
career ascended steadily until the end of 1947. That year she worked 40 weeks. 
In 1949, when her name appeared on the amicus curiae brief, she worked 8 days, 
and in 1950, when her name appeared in Red Channels, she worked only 3 weeks. 
That year her agent went directly to the major Hollywood producers to find 
out if she was being blacklisted. The agent reported back to her that Dore 
Schary, of MGM, said he would hire her if he had a suitable part ; but Y. Frank 
Freeman, of Paramount, and a Warner Bros, executive both said bluntly that 
their studios wanted no part of her. When the Hollywood hearings were resumed 
in 1951, Anne Revere was one of the first subpenaed. She invoked the first and 
fifth amendments and has not worked in films since. 

Why don't you tell your readers, in connection with the sad case of 
Anne Revere, that she has been identified before the Committee on 
Un-American Activities by a competent witness under oath, subject 
to the pain and penalties of perjury, as a member of the Communist 
conspiracy ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. I told my readers that all those who were subpenaed in 
1951, in the opinion of the committee, were proved Communists. 
Anne Revere was one of those. 

Mr. Arens. Did you quote the testimony of the witnesses who laid 
their liberty on the line and testified under oath, suljject to the pains 
and penalties of perjury, that Anne Revere was a member of the Com- 
munist conspiracy ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. I said earlier that in all these cases I couldn't repeat it 
over and over again. I said that anyone that was called in the 1951 
hearings by this committee, in the opinion of this committee was a 
proved Communist. 

Mr. Arens. Why didn't you make allusion, not to the opinion of 
this committee, but to the fact of the testimony by live witnesses be- 
fore this committee who would put their liberty in jeopardy, on the 
word that Anne Revere was a member of the Communist conspiracy? 

Mr. CoGLEY. Again, it was a question of a book that I wrote. There 
were many ways I could have written this book. I would resent 
heartily any implication that I was defending anyone or that I was de- 
fending communism in any way whatsoever. 

Mr. Arens. In view of that statement, I invite your attention to 
pages 102 and 103, volume I, of your report on movies. I would like to 
say at least on behalf of the staff, and I would surmise on behalf of 
the committee, that you can say anything you want in your book and 
that the purpose of these hearings is not in any sense to censor what 
you say or to in any way restrict what you say. 


The purpose of these hearings is exclusively to develop before this 
committee the facts and the truth. On pages 102 and 103 we read this 
language in your book : 

By the time the 1951-52 hearings were well underway, the Smith Act had 
been held valid by the Supreme Court. Some of those subpenaed in the spring 
of 1951 did not know whether they would be jailed or not. They knew that if 
they failed to cooperate with the committee there was absolute certainty that 
they would be blacklisted. The only real question, then, was what defense they 
might use to avoid imprisonment. 

May I pause to interpolate? Wasn't there some question as to the 
possibility that they would tell the truth and tell the whole truth to the 
committee ? 

You say here the only question they had in their minds, the only 
question, was what defense they might use to avoid imprisonment. 
Couldn't there possibly have crossed their mind the possibility that 
the real question was, "Am I as a patriotic citizen going to tell this 
Committee on Un-American Activities the whole truth ?" 

Mr. CoGLET. That was undoubtedly true of some of those subpenaed. 
I am referring to only one group ; some of those subpenaed, not all of 
those subpenaed. 

Mr. Arens (reading) : 

The 10 had been jailed after depending fruitlessly on the first amendment, and 
no other defense from a contempt charge for declining to answer questions before 
a congressional committee had been definitely established. The fifth amendment, 
with its clause protecting a witness against self-incrimination, appeared to many 
to be their only safe course. 

This, however, carried with it a serious disadvantage. In 1950, the Supreme 
Court had decided in Rogers v. TJ. S. that a witness could not refuse to answer 
a question about the party under the fifth amendment, once he had admitted 
party membership. Since the committee made it clear during the Larry Parks 
hearing that after a man had admitted party membership he was expected to name 
others he had known as Communists, witnesses who would not name others but 
wanted to stay out of jail had the choice of either denying party membership 
and running the risk of perjury indictments, or of refusing to answer the ques- 
tion at all. 

This meant that they also had to remain silent about accusations of dis- 
loyalty, espionage, and conspiracy which they were anxious to deny. 

That is a true presentation of the language of your report; is it not? 
Mr. CoGLET. Would you read the footnote that is attached to the 
paragraph you just read ? (P. 103, vol. I.) 
Mr. Abens (reading) : 

It is beyond the competence and legal knowledge of the author of this report 
to venture an opinion on whether they were justified, according to this reason- 
ing, to resort to the fifth amendment. 

Now, may I ask you could they not have testified respecting the 
activities of other persons in the Communist Party ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. If they had not engaged in espionage, if they had not 
engaged in disloyalty, if they had not engaged in a conspiracy alluded 
to in the middle paragraph on page 103, could they not have taken 
an oath and denied it before the committee without invoking the fifth 
amendment ? 

Mr. CoGLET. Yes, sir; I should say I am not putting forth in any 
sense a position of my own. I am trying to describe what happened 
to a certain number of people or how they acted. I certainly put no 
approval or disapproval on it in the book, nor on any other thing in 


the book, since I have not made judgments on the actions of any people 
in the book. 

Mr. Arens. I invite your attention, to page 107, volume I. 

Witnesses who invoked the fifth amendment were banished from the studios 
in a variety of ways. 

That appears in your book, with reference to persons who invoked 
the fifth amendment before the committee; does it not? 

Mr. CoGLET. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. That banishment from the studios was not because they 
invoked the fifth {imendment, in truth and in fact was it ? It was be- 
cause they had been identified as members of the Communist con- 

Mr. Cogley. And had not cooperated with the committee. 

Mr. Arens. Isn't it a fact that what you regard as banishment 
from the studios was not attributed exclusively to this invocation of 
the fifth amendment, but that banishment from the studios was, in 
addition, caused by the fact that they had been identified under oath 
by live witnesses before a congressional committee as members of 
the Communist conspiracy ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. Yes, sir ; and that they did not then come before the 
committee and cooperate fully, but invoked the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Arens. I invite your attention on page 107, volume I to the sad 
case of Howard Da Silva, in which you recite the facts of the Da Silva 
case and then quote someone as saying, "It is a case of blacklist, but I 
can't help it." 

Mr. Moulder (presiding) . To what are you referring? 

Mr. Arens. To the middle of page 107 at the end of the recitation 
of the Da Silva case. "It is a case of blacklist, but I can't help it." 
Did you know at the time you authored this case of Da Silva that 
Da Silva had been identified in public testimony as a member of the 
Communist conspiracy ? 

Mr. Cogley. I say, sir, in my discussion of Da Silva that he was 
called before the committee in 1951 and as I will repeat again, I said 
all those called before the committee in 1951 in the opinion of this 
committee were proved Communists. 

Mr. Arens. I now invite your attention, if you please, to page 110 
volume I with reference to the Sol Kaplan case, where you recite 
that — 

blacklisting proceeded through 1951, 1952, and 1953 — 

and in which you say — 

The industry had accepted, the conunittee'a — 

that is, the House Committee on Un-American Activities — 

new emphasis on "prestige, position, and money." 

Mr. Cogley. As opposed to film content. That was one reason 
to get rid of Communists in Hollywood, 

Mr. Arens. Yes; now, I invite your attention to page 111 with 
further reference to the Kaplan case. 

A new order had made Kaplan's dismissal necessary, the executive told him. 
When Kaplan pressed him, the studio executive finally admitted that the 
musician was being fired for political reasons. 

That is a true representation of your language, is it not? 

Mr. Cogley. Yes, sir. 


Mr. Arens. Did it occur to you that you might have put a footnote 
there after recitation of the executive that Kaplan was being fired for 
political reasons and point out to the public reading this treatise 
published with tax-exempt funds that Kaplan had been identified as 
a member of the Communist conspiracy ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. If you will read the Kaplan case, sir, you will find that 
I said : 

During his testimony, on April 8, 1953, Kaplan challenged the committee to 
produce his accusers and invoked almost the entire Bill of Rights when he refused 
to cooperate. 

Mr. Arens. Did you also, any place in your book, say that on Sep- 
tember 11, 1953, there was made public the testimony of an individual 
testifying under oath before this committee that she knew Kaplan 
as a member of the Communist conspiracy ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. What year was this, sir ? 

Mr. Arens. So that your readers wouldn't get the impression that 
Kaplan was fired for "political reasons" ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. What year, sir, was that ? 

Mr. Arens. 1953. 

Mr. CoGLEY. What months, sir ? 

Mr. Arens. September 1953. 

Mr. CoGLEY. When did I say Mr. Kaplan was fired? April 1963. 

Mr. Arens. I am asking if you in any place in your report which 
you prepared after this testimony in 1953, made allusion to the fact 
that there was made available to the world at large the testimony of a 
witness who identified Kaplan as a member of the Communist con- 
spiracy before the House Committee on Un-American Activities under 

Mr. CoGLEY. I don't know how this would have affected his previous 
firing before the lady had identified him. He was fired before he was 
identified, so it seems safe, then, to say that he was being fired for 
political reasons. 

Mr. ScHERER. Isn't it conceivable that the industry that fired him 
knew at the time they fired him that he was named as a member of the 
Communist Party ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. I should have expected them, in this case, to come to this 
committee immediately and tell them, and for this committee to 
publish it. 

Mr. ScHERER. Perhaps they did. 

Mr. Arens. Now, I invite your attention, if you please, sir, to page 
170 of volume I beginning in the first full paragraph. 

Mr. CoGLEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens (reading) : 

Blacklisted persons in the motion-picture industry include some who have 
won academy awards and many who have been nominated for the coveted Oscars 
at one time or another. Besides highly successful workers like Paul Jarrico, 
who was earning $2,000 a week at the time he was blacklisted, they number such 
well-established writers as Michael Wilson, who won an academy award for 
his part in writing the script of A Place in the Sun. 

Let me pause there and then we will pick up the thread of your 
language. Did you any place in your report tell the American people 
that Michael Wilson has been identified in public session under oath 
by several people as a member of the Communist conspiracy? 


Mr. CoGLEY. I have said that all those who are blacklisted in Holly- 
wood are persons who refused to cooperate with this committee by 
either taking the fifth amendment when they were called before this 
committee or by not coming before this committee in any case, but 
having been named as Communists. 

It is implied there that anyone who is referred to here as a black- 
listed person in the industry is one of those people. 

Mr. Arens. And in this same paragraph, you allude to the sad case 
of Abraham Polonskj-, writer-director, who wrote Body and Soul. 
You, of course, are cognizant of the fact that Abraham Polonsky has 
been identified repeatedly as a member of the Communist conspiracy. 

Mr. CoGLEY. I am aware that all the persons referred to here as 
blacklisted have been named before the committee and have refused to 
come before the committee without taking the fifth amendment, as I 
said in the book several times. 

Mr. Arens. I don't want in any sense to be putting you at a dis- 
advantage because of misapprehension of the question. 

Mr. CoGLEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. You just said that everyone w^lio has been blacklisted, to 
your knowledge, had been identified as a Communist, and then subse- 
quently invoked the fifth amendment. 

You said that just a moment ago. I want you to be sure that you 
understood that you said that because I think that you want to qualify 

Mr. CoGLEY. Here is what I said : That the movie or film industry 
is adamant in refusing to hire anyone who was named as a Communist 
and did not come before the committee and cooperate fully or who 
came before the committee and took the fifth amendment. 

That would include all those listed here as blacklisted persons in the 
motion-picture industry. 

Mr. Arens. Does that include the sad case of Ben Maddow men- 
tioned on page 170 of volume I. 

Mr. CoGLEY. I say, sir, that it would include all of them listed here. 

Mr. Arens. Now, I invite your attention, if you please, sir, to page 
172 of volume I in which you tell us about the very sad case of "M" who 
was having difficulty obtaining employment and maintaining employ- 
ment. In the course of this recitation of the sad case of M you say M 
is not only blacklisted from acting, but he is blacklisted in the elec- 
tronics industry. 

Is M a person who, to your knowledge, was identified before a con- 
gressional committee as a member of the Communist conspiracy ? 

Mr. Cogley. I believe you will find the second sentence says he was 
one of the group of more than 160 people named by screenwriter Mar- 
tin Berkeley as a Communist before the House Un-American Activities 

Mr. Arens. If M is permanently blacklisted, doesn't there follow a 
sense of duty to tell this committee who M is so that we can reveal it, 
because perhaps he may be engaged in some type of defense work in the 
electronics industry ? 

Mr. Cogley. This committee knows who M is. He was named before 
this committee by screenwriter Martin Berkeley. 

Mr. Arens. Would you tell us who M is ? 

Mr. Cogley. I cannot say so. 


Mr. Arens. Would you confirm my suspicion that M is Michael 

Mr. CoGLEY. This research was done by a member of my research 
staff. I would have to consult with this person who did the re- 

Mr. Arens. On the basis of the facts cited in the sad case of Mr. 
M who has been cited not only in motion-picture industry, but like- 
wise in the electronics industry, because he is a Communist, it ap- 
pears to me and to other members of our staff that it must be Michael 

Couldn't you tell us whether or not this man who is presently black- 
listed in the electronics industry is the person identified heretofore as 
a member of the Communist conspiracy by the name of Michael 

Mr. CoGLET. I cannot tell you, sir, without checking with the re- 
search reporter who did this particular work. The name Michael 
Killian is not familiar to me right now. 

Mr. Arens. Will you check with the reporter who did this research 
work and advise the committee whether or not this individual in this 
sad case of M is Michael Killian ? 

Mr. CoGLET. I will see if this reporter is willing to name the source 
of this information. 

Mr. Arens. All right, sir. Now, I invite your attention to pages 
139 and 141 of volume I. "L," another actor, found himself ''grey- 
listed." That is something less than blacklisted. 

Mr. CoGLEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens (reading) : 

* * * because, though no one has charged him with being a Communist that 
he knows of, he has not denied party membership, L's agent told him that until 
he makes such a denial he will not work again in motion pictures. L says he 
refuses to "clear" himself, because he believes it impossible to be cleared without 
naming others. 

Please tell us what these others had been doing that he doesn't 
want to tell us about ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. I don't know. 

Mr. Arens. Will you find out and let the committee know ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. I can make an attempt, sir, to find out what he told 
the researcher and if the researcher is willing to name him, the re- 
searcher who did this 

Mr. Arens. You know, of course, as a matter of practice on the 
basis of your intensive study of this question, that Communists have 
no hesitancy at all in Ij^ing if they are not under oath and not subject 
to the pains and penalties of perjury. 

Mr. CoGLEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Now, I invite your attention to page 138 of volume I. 
It is the case of "R." I will not consume the time to read it. It is a 
case in which II won't recite whether or not he is a member of the 
Communist conspiracy and therefore has been subject to some kind 
of obstacles in his employment. 

Would you tell this committee who R is so that we can see whether 
or not he will tell the committee under oath whether or not he has 
ever been a member of the Communist conspiracy ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. I will have to give the same answer I gave to the last 


Mr. Arens. Now, I invite your attention to page 24, volume II of 
your report ; please sir, the first full paragraph : 

In the spring of that year, William Sweets, a well-known radio director em- 
ployed by the Phillips H. Lord packaging firm in New York, was told that the 
sponsors of the two shows he worked on had raised questions about his political 
associations. Sweets later said publicly that he was forced to resign. A group 
called the Voice of Freedom Committee took an interest in his case and loudly 
protested the forced resignation. 

Did you know tlitit the Voice of Freedom Committee is on the Attor- 
ney General's designated list ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. There is a subsequent discussion in this book of the 
Voice of Freedom Committee. Would you permit me to refer back 
to it? 

Mr. Arens. Certainly, but did you at any place in your report tell 
the people who were reading this treatise published with tax-exempt 
funds that the Voice of Freedom Committee which raised this hue 
and cry over the difficulties of Mr. Sweets was a Communist-controlled 
organization ? 

Mr. CooLEY. I will have to refer back to — you see, this is a mass of 
material here and I have to familiarize myself all over again with 
some parts of it so I have to refer back to the other discussion of the 
Voice of Freedom. 

T think the fact was left certainly quite clear in this discussion of 
the Voice of Freedom that it was connuunistic at least. 

Mr. Arens. Would you just take all the time you want and show 
this committee where you tell the people that tlie Voice of Freedom 
Committee was communistic, at least ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. I said the implication was there, sir. I don't think it 
was spelled out. 

Mr. Moulder. You say that — 

Later, attendance at Voice of Freedom rallies for Sweets was noted on various 
dossiers as evidence of pro-Communist sympathy. 

Mr. CoGLEY. That is a fact. 

Mr. Moulder. And that is a fact ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. Yes, sir ; that is a fact. It is noted in Red Channels 
and other listings that persons attended that. 

Mr. Arens. Was it the William Sweets mentioned on page 24, who 
had questions raised about his political associations? 

Mr. CoGLEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Did you any place tell your readers in this treatise 
published with tax-exempt funds that he had been a sponsor of the 
committee for the reelection of the Communist Benjamin Davis, that 
that was a matter of public record? 

Mr. Cogley. I didn't think I referred to that. 

Mr. Arens. Did you at any place tell your readers in this treatise 
that was published with tax-exempt funds that Bill Sweets, who was 
discriminated against because of his "political associations," was a 
sponsor of the May Day Parade in 1946, 1947, and 1948, the annual 
Communist celebrations ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. Sir, let me say right now that I was writing the history 
of this blacklisting problem in this industry. I was not rewriting 
Red Channels. 

Mr. Arens. Did you tell them about Sweets' activities on behalf of 
the election of Benjamin Davis, the Communist, and his activities in 

82833— 56— pt. 1 3 


promoting the Comniunist May Day Parade and about his sponsorship 
of the Communist-controlled Cultural and Scientific Conference for 
World Peace in 1949? 

(At this point, Representative Velde left the hearing room.) 

Mr. CoGLEY. I can only repeat what I said before. I was not writ- 
ing that kind of a book. 

Mr. Arens. I invite your attention to page 30, volume II. 

Mr. ScHERER. But what you said in your book wouldn't have been 
as effective if you had revealed what the counsel has said about Sweets. 

Mr. CoGLEY. Pardon me, sir ? 

Mr. ScHERER. The points you were trying to make in your book 
would not be nearly as effective in substantiating your position if you 
had mentioned these facts. 

Mr. CoGLEY. In many cases I did mention them and gave long list- 
ings right out of Red Channels. 

Mr. Arens. On page 30, volume II, of your treatise you make allu- 
sion to the case of Paul Draper and Larry Adler who had been accused 
of pro-Communist sympathy. They had not been accused of com- 
munism. They had been accused of pro-Communist sympathy. Isn't 
that correct, on page 30 ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Did you at anj^ place in your treatise list the Commu- 
nist-front record of Larry Adler and of Paul Draper which is as long 
as two arms ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. I was not dealing with that. I was discussing the fact. 
I was actually discussing Mrs. McCullough at this particular time, and 
made a reference merely to Mrs. McCullough and that was not re- 
ferring to Paul Draper or Larry Adler only as it referred to Mrs. 

Mr. Moulder. You were referring to a lawsuit at that point. 

Mr. CoGLEY. Let me read the paragraph and I think I will make 
myself clear. 

Among those Kirkpatrick called was Mrs. Hester McCullough of Greenwich, 
Conn., wife of a Time editor. Mrs. McCullough had recently been involved in 
a legal suit with Paul Draper, the dancer, and the harmonica player Larry Adler. 

I was discussing Mrs. McCullough. She had accused these enter- 
tainers of pro-Communist sympathy which was a basis of the legal 

Mr. Arens. I call your attention to page 47, volume II. 

On the other hand, there are shows where the employment record indicates a 
constant use of people associated with the lef twing. 

Then you list performers such as Morris Carnovsky, Alan Manson, 
Tx)u Polan, John Randolph, Elliott Sullivan. Did you know at the 
time you made that presentation to the American people with tax- 
exempt funds that Morris Carnovsky, Alan Manson, Lou Polan, John 
Randolph, and Elliott Sullivan were not just associated with the left- 
wing, but they were identified as members of the Communist con- 
spiracy ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. May I ask when they were, sir ? 

Mr. Arens. All before the time that you wrote your report. 

Mr. CoGLEY. Before 1951 ? 

Mr. Arens. All before the time you wrote your report. 


Mr. CoGLEY. Yoli see. this is a veiy difficult procedure— I don't 
Jmow that anyone has ever done it before — to take a book that a man 
writes, to rip things out of context, demand an answer from him, 
and it is very difficult for me to explain each question I am asked. 

Mr. Arens. Let us take it in context. You wrote this language about 
these people being associat<»d with the leftwing wlien? '\^nien did 
you write it ? 

Mr. CoGi.EY, I wrote this ]5robably last summer. I can't say when 
T wrote this particular paragraph. 

Mr. Arens. Question No. 2 is, did you know at the time you wrote 
this that these people whose names I have recited to you, namely, 
Carnovsbv^ Manson. Polan, Randolph and Sullivan, had been iden- 
tified under oath by live witnesses before the House Committee on 
Un-American Activities as members of the Communist conspiracy? 

Mr. CoGLEY. I may be mistaken, but I think that some of these were 
identified last summer, in August; is that correct? 

Mr. Arens. Did you know at the time you wrote this language 
that these people had be^n identified as Communists? 

Mr. CoGLEY. I think tliat I probably did not, because T ]:»robably 
wrote this in June or July. However, I don't think that affects the 

Mr. Arens. If you don't know it we will drop the issue there, but let 
me ask you this question: If these people who have been identified as 
members of the Communist conspiracy were used on Broadway 

Mr. CoGLEY. I am not discussing Broadway. 

Mr. Arens. I mean in New York City, in the television industry, if 
there was a constant use of people who were members of the Commu- 
nist conspiracy in the television industry in New York City, then 
the blacklisting which you speak of apparently has a rather wide 
mesh, does it not ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. Yes, sir; as you will find in my last paragraph here: 

A study of castiiiji lists, therefore, bears out the oft-repeated charge that anti- 
Communists had difficulties in certain quarters. Tlie important thing distin- 
guishing the leftwing blacklisting operation from the industrywide steps taken 
later, is that the former was sporadic, informal and unorganized. 

I was referring, incidentally, to these peo])le's union record which 
was the way I went about this, if I rSay explain to the committee. 
This was a most difficult thing. One way to go about it, I thought, 
was to check casting lists against people from their union, whether 
they were right or leftwing within the union as such, and when you 
would find those who consistently voted leftwing, as it is called, in 
the union and you did not find in these programs rightwing people as 
it is called in the union, I concluded that there must be some informal 
kind of blacklisting being carried out, but the leftwing group contains 
anti-Communists within the unions. 

It seems a little unfair to require this out of context. 

Mr. Moulder. Wliat page is that? 

Mr. Cogley. Page 48. 

Mr. Arens. Let us look at page 58, talking about the charges brought 
against certain people. "The groups who make these continuing 
charges are almost always alined with the extreme rightwing oi 
American politics." 

Mr. Moulder. From what page are you reading ? 


Mr. Arens. Page 53, volume II : 

Their techniques are essentially the same as those employed in Red Chan- 
nels — people are "listed" with the organization they allegedly joined, and some 
"citation" is given to show that these organizations are, or at least were, tied 
in with commnnism. 

In the course of your study, did you ever find a single person who 
was trying to rout people from this nerve center of mass media of 
communication which ^^•as moving solely and exclusively out of patri- 
otic motives, or were they all on the fanatical, irrational fringe ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. First of all, I didn't use the words "fanatical" or 

Mr. Arens. You said the extreme rightwing. 

Mr. CoGLEY. Which does not at all imply to me fanatical or irra- 
tional in any case. I don't think that there is any contradiction at 
all between patriotism and fanaticism. I think a man may well be 
fanatic about his patriotism. 

I don't think there is a contradiction whatsoever. As for the sin- 
cerity of these groups or any other groups, I would not pretend to 
judge them. 

Mr. Arens. On page 80, volume II, you make reference to certain 
news commentators, radio newsmen who were deprived of livelihood 
or at least had obstacles in their employment activities because they 
were listed in Ked Channels ; isn't that correct ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. Some of them. Some of them didn't have any, as I 
point out. Some didn't have any difficulties, as I quote them as saying. 
Some did. Some didn't. 

Mr. Arens. Did you make any reference any place to the extensive 
Communist-front record of those people who were alluded to on page 
80, particularly William S. Gailmor, Eoderick B. Holmgren, Arthur 
Gaeth, Johannes Steel 

Mr. CoGLEY. May I direct you, sir, to page 8o of that volume, where 
you will find : 

When Red Channels was published, Steel had the distinction, such as it was, 
of 34 Communist-front citations, more than any other radio commentator. 

Mr. Arens. I want to invite your attention to page 89, volume II, 
where we see this language. ■This chapter is on "clearance," clearing 
people who have been blacklisted. 

A New York public-relations expert who has guided more than a dozen once- 
blacklisted performers to the "riii;ht people" explained his role this way. * * * 

Then in the succeeding sentences of that page and continuing to 
the next page, we see the procedure followed by this public-relations ex- 
pert who has guided a dozen people through the maze of blacklisting : 

Somewhere along the line I may find George Sokolsky is involved. I go to him 
and tell him that the Legion ofiicial tliinks this boy is all right. If I can convince 
Sokolsky, then I go to Victor Riesel, Fred Woltman (New York World-Telegram 
and Sun staff writer) or whoever else is involved. 

When I've gotten four "affidavits" from key people like these, I go to Jack 
Wren at BBD and O and to the "security officer" at CBS. 

Tell us, if you please, sir, who is this public-relations expert quoted 

in your treatise describing a kind of a clearance board to get people 

cleared who are blacklisted in the entertainment industry? 

(At this point Representative Scherer left the hearing room.) 

Mr. CoGLEY. It is always difficult for a reporter to name sources 

that he has promised should remain confidential. I would like to 


know the feeling of tliis committee as to whether I am expected to 
name sources of this kind. I will face a problem on some cases. 

In some cases I have been released from promises made to persons. 
In others, I have not been released. I want to know if the committee 
will insist upon my naming all confidential sources. Could I transmit 
that question to the committee ? 

Mr. Arexs. Could you answer this one question ? 

Mr. Moulder. I think the witness is entitled to know the feelmg 
of the committee on that. 

Mr. Doyle. I wish to say that I do not think he ought to be required 
to reveal his confidential sources as a neAvspaperman and author, as far 
as I am conceined as a member of this committee. 

The matter has not been discussed with me before as a member of 
the committee, but I agree with oMr. Moulder that this witness has 
asked a frank question and I want my position known at this point on 
that sort of question. 

Mr. Moulder. Mr. Frazier, do you care to express your opinion ? 

Mr. Frazier. I do not believe that he should be required to reveal 
confidential information. 

Mr. Moulder. Mr. Willis ? 

Mr. Wn.Lis. I fully concur in that position. 

Mr. jNIoulder. With the position taken by the witness ? 

Mr. Willis. With the position taken by the members. 

iMr. Moulder. Mr. Jackson ? 

Mr. Jackson. I am inclined to agree. I think perhaps the in- 
dividual concerned might have no objection to having his identity 
made known, and I would suggest that the witness inquire from the 
individual concerned and if that is the case, give the name of the 
individual to the committee. 

Mr. Arens. We have a number of questions on this point irrespec- 
tive of the particular identity of the individual. 

Mr. Willis. There may be situations, if this witness were being 
questioned about his own activities and life and so on, where the ruling 
might be different. 

Mr. Moulder. In this situation the witness would be correct. 

Mr. Willis. It is a question about the book he has written, and I 
think it would be well, in frankness, for him to find out and be released. 

Mr. Arens. Will the committee hold in abeyance its decision pend- 
ing preliminary questions on that subject matter, because there have 
been some press releases issued by a certain person who has, at least in 
tlie public ]:>ress, alleged to be the public-relations expert. 

Mr. DoTLE. May I make this further statement? As I take this 
hearing, there is no inference even that this witness is subversive. 

Mr. Willis. Of course not. 

Mr. DoYT.E. Nor is there any inference, and I take it there is no 
evidence, that there is any claim that this public-relations person is 
subversive. This is an investigation into subversive activities and 
unless there is a showing along that line, I think it is a violation of 
freedom of authors and of the press to go to this extent, in my judg- 

Mr. Arens. May I ask you this question ? 

Mr. Moui.der. I want to make my position on the record clear. I 
concur with Mr. Doyle in this respect. 


Mr. Akens, Is this public-relations expert who has guided more 
than a dozen once-blacklisted performers to the right people one per- 
son, or is it a composite of persons ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. Sir, before I answer that could I ask the chairman, the 
conference that was just dropped, does it have any special meaning 
for me or is it just the committee discussing something among them- 
selves ? 

I realize that I am not putting that in very legal terms, but I am not 
a lawyer. 

Mr. Moulder. Let us proceed. 

Mr. Arens. Is this public-relations expert alluded to on page 89 
a single person or is it a composite of persons? 

Mr. CoGLEY. It is a single person. 

Mr. Jackson. Before we leave this matter of any identifications, I 
think a distinction should be made as between a working member of a 
free American press respecting the sources of his information and 
one who compiles a work, is paid for the compilation of that work, 
and the work is done for a foundation which is granted certain privi- 
leges by the Federal Government from a tax standpoint. 

Now, while I am not inclined to press for the disclosure of this name, 
I do want to be very clearly on record as making a distinction in my 
own mind as between a working newspaperman and someone who does 
a job for pay of this nature. I think there is a distinction which should 
be made and I make it and want to be on the record as having made it. 

Mr. Doyle. May I say that I also recognize a slight distinction, but 
it does not change any statement originally made. 

Mr. Moulder. Your statement was that if it has to do with subver- 
sive activities or on the subject of inquiry or investigation, then there 
would be an exception made and the questions should be answered. 

Mr. Doyle. That is right. 

Mr. Moulder. Proceed, Mr. Arens. 

Mr. Arens. Are you cognizant of the fact that a person by the name 
of Arnold Forster engaged in an exchange of public statements or 
public releases respecting this particular section of volume II in which 
Mr. Forster said, in effect : 

Although I do not consider myself a public-relations expert, I recognize some 
material attributed to such a person by the report as things which I told to an 
interviewer for the project who came to see me while the study was being made. 

Are you cognizant of that public release ? 

Mr. Cogley. I have the letter in front of me, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Are you cognizant of it ? 

Mr. Cogley. Of the letter's existence ? 

Mr. Arens. Yes. 

Mr. Cogley. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Are you cognizant of the fact that that was made public 
to the world ? 

Mr. Cogley. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Did the Fund for tlie Republic or any of your investiga- 
tors or yourself, in the course of your investigation, contact Arnold 
Forster for information ? 

Mr. Cogley. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Did Arnold Forster say to the Fund for the Republic, in 
effect, that he has guided a dozen once-blacklisted performers to the 
right people? 


Mr. CooLET. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Did he explain his role in substantially the way it is 
explained on pages 89 and 90 of volume II of your report on black- 
listing ? 

Mr. CoGLET. Mr. Forster came forth on his own with this letter. 
Therefore, I do not feel that I am betraying a confidence in his case. 

Mr. Willis. I think you are right, because he seems anxious for his 
name to be interjected so that I think the privilege is waived. 

Mr. CoGLET. He did substantially describe it this way. In fact, I 
have checked the notes written at the time of the interview and I find 
that it is almost word for word. 

Mr. Arens. Did Mr. Forster tell you, in eft'ect, that he had to get 
affidavits from key people as a prerequisite to clearances ? 

Mr. CoorjEY. Sir, I should make it clear Mr. Forster was not inter- 
viewed by me. He was interviewed by one of my staff. 

Mr. Arens. We have that understanding ; you or your agents. 

Mr. CoGLEY. You will note that the word "affidavit" is used in quotes. 
It was being used colloquially as is evident in the context where one 
of the persons who gave this affidavit says : 

I won't put anything In writing but if anyone is interested, have him call me. 

When I went over the notes that the reporter put down, I noticed he 
had the word "affidavit" with quotes around it, which was written at 
the time that the interview was given. 

Mr. Arens. Then, in view of this additional testimony we have been 
developing in the course of the last few minutes, Arnold Forster is the 
public-relations expert alluded to on page 89 ; is he not ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. I ask you if you can tell us if Mr. Forster revealed to 
you or to your associates and colleagues the dozen or more than a dozen 
once-blacklisted persons whom he guided through this maze of clear- 
ance which you subsequently describe in this vol ume ? 

Mr. Cogley. I think, sir, that this particular section of the report 
has been distorted in the press. There was nothing considered by Mr. 
Forster as he explained in his letter to us, to be wrong about this situa- 
tion that he had gone into. He was merely in the position of trying 
to help people that he considered had been unjustly accused. 

Mr. Ajjens. Just tell us whether or not he told you the names of the 
dozen or more people. 

Mr. Cogley. He didn't. 

Mr. Arens. More than a dozen people he had guided through. 

Mr. Cogley. He did not give the names of all the dozen or more 
than a dozen. 

Mr. Arens. Did he give you some names ? 

Mr. Cogley. I understand that Mr. Forster will be here tomorrow 
and I wish you would ask him. 

Mr. Arens. Yes ; he will be here tomorrow. 

Did you confer with Mr. Forster between the time you received your 
subpena to appear before this committee ? 

M^r.^CoGLEY. You mean after I received my subpena was I in contact 
'With Mr. Forster? 

Mr. Arens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CoGiJJY. I have not. No, sir; I have not. I have not talked 
to Mr. Forster since that time, since the time that I received the sub- 


pena. The only time, in fact, in my life that I ever talked to Mr. 
Forster was when Mr. Forster decided to write this letter after an 
editorial appeared in the World-Telegram demanding that I name 
the faceless informer, as it was called, and Mr. Forster let me know that 
he was sending such a letter. 

Mr. Arens. Do you know that George Sokolsky, Fred "Woltman,. 
Jack Wren, all deny 

Mr.CoGLEY. All deny? 

Mr. Arens. All deny that they ever constituted any kind of a clear- 
ance board ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. I didn't know the nature of their denial. I would 
like to know what kind of denial has been made. If you distort and 
exaggerate what has been said and say this is a vicious clearance ring 
which it does not say, naturally you can deny the charge which wasn? 
true in the first place. 

Mr. Arens. Did you any time after you received your subpena con- 
tact anyone on Forster's staff ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. I did not contact anyone on Forster's staff. 

Mr. Moulder. We will stand in recess until 2 o'clock. 

(Whereupon, at 12 : 20 p. m., the committee recessed, to reconvene 
at 2 p. m., the same day, those present at time of recess being : Kep- 
resentatives Moulder, Doyle, Frazier, Willis, and Jackson.) 


(Committee members present: Representatives Walter, Doyle, 
Moulder, and Jackson.) 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order. 

Call your witness. 

Mr. Arens. Would you kindly resume the stand, Mr. Cogley. 


Before we proceed in the chronology I would like to pick up one or 
two loose ends, Mr. Cogley. This morning I was unable to find the 
citation quickly to a particular section in the early part of volume 
II to which I wanted to invite your attention. I should like to read 
you a paragraph from page 30 of that volume : 

The people who made the phone call resulting in the Muir firing were typical 
of the individuals and pressure groups that are still the baclsbone of blacklisting. 
For the most part they are vocal supporters of the far rightwing of American 
politics. Several of them later emerged as vociferous partisans of Senator 
McCarthy. Though few in number, they represented the threat of a potential 
boycott and a controversy that could only be anathema to any corporation intent 
on pleasing everybody. 

That is a true and correct quotation ; is it not? 

Mr. Cogley. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Did you make any kind of poll to ascertain whether or 
not the individuals who have been engaged in trying to disassociate 
Communists and Communist- fronters from the entertainment indus- 
try were of the far rightwing of American politics? 

Mr. Cogley. I invite your attention, sir, to the fact that I am 
speaking here of a specific incident. 

Mr. Arens. Yes. Well, in that particular incident did you make 
a poll? How did you ascertain that the people who were protesting 


the employment of this particular artist were of the far rightwing of 
American politics ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. It is difficult for me to remember the source of each 
statement in here, but I believe that these people were few in number 
and are discussed in detail in Merle Miller's book The Judges and the 

Mr. Arens. Is that the source of your information ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. On that particular point ; yes. 

Mr. Arens. Now I invite your attention to page 42, volume 11, 
when you are speaking of blacklisting in 1952 : 

Worst of all, the operation was carried out. for the most part, by people who 
were personally and privately opposed to it. 

Is that a correct quotation ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. That alludes, does it not, to the disassociation from the 
entertainment industry of people who, in the judgment of the enter- 
tainment industry, were Communists or pro-Communists or fellow 
travelers ; isn't that true ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. I don't quite understand your question. Could you 
frame it for me again ? 

Mr. Arens. This operation, of which you speak here that is being 
carried out, is the operation of what you have described through your 
book as blacklisting ; isn't that correct ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. And that blacklisting encompasses the discharge or 
failure to employ, as the case may be, of persons who are Communists 
or pro-Communists or fellow travelers ; does it not ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. Let us say persons who are described in certain organs 
as Communists, pro-Communists, or fellow travelers. 

Mr. Arens. Yes. Is the industry, and has the industry been per- 
sonally and privately opposed to discharging people who are Com- 
munists ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. This is on the basis of interviews with persons in the 
industry. I would suspect on the basis of interviews that people in 
the industiy by and large are not opposed to eliminating Communists 
or people they are satisfied are Communists, but they have many grave 
doubts about eliminating people who have been charged with pro- 
communism in private organs. 

Mr. Arens. These private organs about Avhich you speak are organs 
which are quoting testimony and findings of congressional committees ; 
isn't that correct ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. In part. Part of their sources are congressional com- 
mittees. Maybe not even the main burden of their sources is congres- 
sional committees. They also quote the Daily Worker. They quote 
each other. There are many sources. Congressional committtees 
are only one. 

Mr. Arens. You will recall that just prior to the morning recess 
we were considering the subject of clearance as described in your 
treatise. I invite your attention now to page 91 of volume II. 

Mr. CoGLEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. You had quoted a New York public relations man on 
the activities in which he was obliged to engage in order to secure 
clearance for certain people. That is correct ; is it not ? 


Mr. CoGLEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. On page 91 we read this language : 

Without access to the chief "clearance men" (who are often the same persons 
who make the damning indictment), the blacklisted artist can get nowhere. 
These particular men are all-important. They have the power to wound and the 
power to heal the wound. They can hold off rightwing criticism, which in turn 
cuts off pressure on sponsors or networks when a "controversial" artist is put 
back to work — 

and so forth. 

(Representative Willis entered the hearing room.) 

Mr. Arens. Tell the committee who are these chief clearance men 
with the power to wound and the power to heal and who are all-im- 
portant. Could you enumerate them for us ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. May I have just a moment ? 

Mr. Arens. Certainly. 

(The witness examining documents.) 

Mr. CoGLEY. I have here a letter written to Mr. Daniel T. O'Shea of 
the Columbia Broadcasting System by Mr. Martin Gang of the firm 
of Gang, Kopp & Tyre, dated October 1, 1953. 

Mr. Arens. Just a moment. How did you come in possession of that 
letter ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. This particular letter ? 

Mr. Arens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CoGLEY. I am not quite sure but I think the man to whom it 
refers gave me a copy. 

Mr. Arens. Is Mr. Gang's letter in the same category as the informa- 
tion which was supplied to you by this public relations expert alluded 
to on page 89 or don't you feel any impediment to the disclosure of the 
information as you did with reference to the public relations expert 
alluded to on page 89 of your report ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. I made no agreement with the man who gave me the 

Mr. Arens. Did you make an agreement with the man who was the 
public relations expert alluded to on page 89 ? 

Mr. Cogley. I made an agreement that I would not in my book 
attribute the quote to him. 

Mr. Arens. Did you make any agreement with that man alluded to 
on page 89 of your book that you would not in a congressional investi- 
gation reveal his name ? 

Mr. Cogley. I did not anticipate congressional investigation of the 
book I was about to write. 

Mr. Arens. Then tell us now precisely, in your own language, what 
is the distinction in your position with reference to your failure to 
respond to the query as to the name of the public relations man alluded 
to on page 89 and the information and the name of the person whom 
you are now about to discuss. 

Mr. Cogley. Simply a question of agreement. I did not make any 
such agreement with the man who is referred to in this letter. I would, 
sir, like to answer your last question with a quote from this letter. 

Mr. Arens. You go right ahead. I just wanted the record to be 
clear as to why you wouldn't tell us who this public relations expert was 
until we had to back up and start over and you gave us a little collateral 
information and why you were so willing to disclose who this man is. 

Mr. Cogley. I had made no such agreement on this question. 


Mr. Arens. Then it is a question of agreement and not a question of 
professional ethics, is that it ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. It is a qiiestion of agreement that I would keep certain 
sources confidential. On other sources there was no such agreement. 

Mr. Arens. If you did not have an agreement that you would keep 
a source confidential, then are you at liberty and Avill you divulge the 
information to the committee ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Is that applicable to these numerous cases identified such 
as "L," "M," "N," "O," and "P" in your report ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. In some cases there was an agreement and in some 
cases there wasn't. 

Mr. Arens. In those cases in which you did not have an agreement 
with the supplier of tlie information you will make it available to the 
committee ; is that correct ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. The names of the persons ? 

Mr. Arens. Yes. 

Mr. CoGLEY. Yes, sir. 

]\Ir. Arens. Now proceed with the information that you wanted to 
lay before the committee. 

Mr. Co(JLEY. You asked me if I could name some of these people 
and I would simply quote one paragraph here : 

Deak Dan — 
This is to Mr. O'Shea of the Columbia Broadcasting System- 
Bill Robinson, whom I have known since the days I represented — 
I think this is — 

Rateliffe & Ryan, has come in to see me about a problem which he feels is now 
a personal one with you. He has passed every test, including the test of a 
recommendation from Mr. Vincent Hartnett, who is one of the authors of Red 
Channels, the original listing which brought about his first problem in this field. 

Mr. Arens. Is this Earl Robinson you are talking about ? 
Mr. CoGLEY. William N. Robinson, sir. 

He has passed the Larry Johnson of Syracuse test because of the assurance 
given him by Ward Bond and the Motion Picture Alliance. He has been certified 
by Roy Brewer and I gather because of that by George Sokolsky. 

I think that paragraph answers your question to some degree. 

Mr. Arens. Tell us who these clearance men are. Is George So- 
kolsky one of these clearance men who is all-powerful and who has 
the ])ower to MOund and the power to heal ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. I would say yes ; sir. 

Mr. Arens. Is Fred Woltman one of these clearance men ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. I Mould say no; sir. I would say that Mr. Woltman 
has been consulted from time to time but he certainly does not occupy 
the status that Mr. Sokolsky occupies. 

Mr. Arens. Is James F. O'Neil, of the American Legion, one of 
these clearance men ? 

Mr. (Joglp:y. I would say that he is a very important figure; yes, sir. 

Mr. Arexs. Is he a person who has the power to wound and the 
power to heal ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. I would say yes; sir. Pardon me. I would say that 
in his official ca]jacity that the American Legion as such has the 
power to. 


Mr. Arexs. Is it necessary that one have access to James O'Neil 
before he can be cleared if he has been identified as a Communist ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. Not necessarily, Mr. Arens. If the American Legion 
has made charges and the man is innocent of the charges, it may be 
necessary to get in touch with Mr. O'Neil to convince the American 
Legion to lay off. 

Mr. Arens. When you say here "Without access to the chief clear- 
ance men," do you mean all the chief clearance men or any one of the 
chief clearance men ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. I would say it would depend on the individual case 
involved as to which of the clearance men, as the phrase is used here 
in quotes, it is necessary to have access to. 

Mr. Arens. Is Jack Wren of B. B. D. & O. one of these clearance 
men to whorn it is necessary to have access before you can, you might 
call it, rehabilitate a person who has been identified as a Communist? 

Mr. CoGLEY. I would say if one wants to work at the B. B. D. & O., 

Mr. Arens. Do you have any instances in mind in which James 
O'Neil of the American Legion brought a damning indictment against 
a person and got him in the category which you have described as 
blacklisted and thereafter healed the wound ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. May I have a moment, sir ? 

Mr. Arens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CoGLEY. First of all I would like to make a distinction between 
Mr. O'Neil as a person and Mr. O'Neil in his official capacity. 

Mr. Arens. I think you have done so. 

Mr. CoGLEY. Yes, sir, thank you. I would say, if I may give one 
example, there is the case of an actor named Luther Adler who had 
been charged by the American Legion. I have before me a statement 

?ut out by the JDistrict of Columbia American Legion in Washington, 
). C, May 5, 1952. Quote: 

Adler has been a member of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade, a Communist 
organization that fought in the Spanish Civil War in the 1930's and functioning 
as a veterans group on the American scene today. 

It took Mr. Adler 4 years to convince a number of people that this 
statement was untrue. He did this by accounting for all his where- 
abouts throughout the period of the civil war in Spain. He was never 
in Spain during this period. This required convincing Mr. O'Neil, 
among others, in the American Legion of the situation. That is one 
example I can think of. Do you want me to give another one, sir? 

Mr. Arens. I say these are often done. Do you have another illus- 
tration with respect to Mr. O'Neil where he brought a damning indict- 
ment against a person and then healed the wound ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. There was a case. It is difficult for me to remember 
these offhand, but there was a rather well-known case of a television 
director named Sidney Linnet who went to a great deal of trouble and 
his sponsor went to a great deal of trouble with various of these organ- 
izations before he was acquitted of the charges which were originally 
brought against him 

Mr. Arens. No ; I am asking specifically about Jim O'Neil and then 
we will get to somebody else. You made the assertion in this tax- 
exempt publication that often these clearance men bring damning in- 
dictments against people and then they go out and heal the wound. 


You have given an illustration with reference to Mr. O'Neil and the 
Legion. Do you have another with reference to Mr. O'Neil and the 
Legion in which Mr. O'Neil brought a damning indictment against 
someone and then had to come out and heal the wound ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. Again I would like to make the distinction between 
]\rr. O'Neil as a person and Mr. O'Neil as an official of the American 

Mr. Arens. You didn't make that distinction in your publication, 
though, did you? 

Mr. CoGLEY. No, as far as the danming indictment goes. 

Mr. Arens. Then let us drop Mr. O'Neil for the moment and take 
one of the other top clearance men where you won't have to make any 
distinction even on this record. 

Mr. Moulder. The witness started to answer the question and said 
he would like to make a distinction and I would like to hear it. 

Mr. CoGLEY. I said the damning indictment is not brought by Mi*. 
O'Neil personally. It is brought by the American Legion. 

Mr. Moulder. That is the distinction you wish to make ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. That is the distinction, that Mr. O'Neil doesn't accuse 
anybody as Mr. O'Neil but as part of the American Legion. 

Mr. Arens. This language in the report that the people or the 
person who brings the damning indictment is often the same person 
who does all the healing isn't quite accurate, is it, at least so far as 
applicable to Mr. O'Neil and the American Legion ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. If the person operates as an individual, as Mr. Vincent 
Hartnett does, this is quite accurate. If the person is an official of an 
organization like the American Legion, the indictment is brought by 
the organization. 

Mr. Arens. Tell us of any instances in your mind in which Mr. 
George Sokolsky brought a danming indictment against someone and 
caused him to be blacklisted and then healed the wound. 

Mr. Cogley. I can't give you an example of Mr. Sokolsky bring- 
ing a damning indictment. I would call your attention to the fact that 
I say here "Who are often the same persons," not always the same 
persons, who make the damning indictment. 

Mr. Arens. Just give us an illustration there. You have given us 
two illustrations. Now give us another one in which any of these 
clearance men, as you call them, or their organizations, have brought 
damning indictments against people and then heal the wound. 

Mr. CoGLEY. I would have to refer to the publications that they put 
out to give you an example. I can discuss the case 

Mr. Arens. Perhaps I can invite your attention to one on page 214, 
volume II. 

Mr. CoGLP^'. I can discuss the case of Mr. Lumet in some detail 
if you would like me to. 

Mr. Arens. I^t us try the case on page 214 of Mr. Jack Gilford. 
In the first paragraph you recite the sad case of Jack Gilford, a 
comedian, saying that a protest had been imleashed against Jack 
Gilford. Isn't that correct? That is the essence of what you say 

Mr. Moulder. Mr. Chairman, I see no reference to a sad case on 
that page. Is there such a quotation, a sad case ? 

Mr. CooLEY. I don't think, sir: I used the words "first case." 


Mr. Arens. Was it a sad case ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. No, sir. 

Mr. Moulder. Counsel has been referring to all of them that way. 

Mr. Arens. You say on page 214 that — 

Gilford had been "listed" in Red Channels and the Legionnaires demanded that 
the Metropolitan fire him. 

Mr. Coglet. Tliat is right. 

Mr. Arens. Isn't that what you say ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. That is a matter of fact ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Did you tell your readers that listing in Red Channels 
was of a man who had Communist-front afiiliation of dozens of activ- 
ities on behalf of the Communist conspiracy? 

Mr. CoGLEY. I presumed that if you mentioned he was listed in Red 
Channels and they wanted to find out what was on the list, they would 
refer back to Red Channels. 

Mr. Arens. Isn't it a fair implication of your observation that Jack 
Gilford was the victim of a protest which was unleashed simply be- 
cause of a listing in Red Channels? 

Mr. CoGLEY. I would put it this way, sir : Jack Gilford would not 
be known to the people who unleashed the protest if it were not Red 
Channels. His record was not that well known. 

Mr. Abens. Did you check with the Onondaga County Post of the 
American Legion to ascertain whether or not that protest of the ap- 
pearance of Jack Gilford was based upon the appearance of Jack 
Gilford's name in Red Channels or whether or not it was based upon 
a long and notorious record of service to the Communist cause through 
many, many Communist fronts and activities ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. All efforts to contact any of the groups in Syracuse 
on our part were rejected by those groups. They did not want to dis- 
cuss with us. 

Mr. Arens. Did you check with the House Committee on Un-Amer- 
ican Activities or any other governmental agency to ascertain whether 
or not Jack Gilford had been identified as a member of the Communist 
conspiracy ? 

Mr. Cogley. I did not check with the — first of all, if I were discuss- 
ing Jack Gilford's Communist record I would have done this. I am 
discussing here a case of — you will notice the first words in this para- 
graph are "The first case," so it refers back to cases. It says here that 
there were two cases that I can refer to outside New York where con- 
siderable pressure was brought to bear outside the New York theater. 
I am not essentially discussing Mr. Gilford here. It is again the 
problem, sir 

Mr. Arens. You are discussing, are you not, a process and a proce- 
dure and a system and an attack against people who have been identi- 
fied publicly as part and parcel of the Communist operation? 

Mr. Cogley. It is very difficult for me to put all this in context in 
the brief time I am given, but I will try it here. What I am discussing 
here is how important the New York element is in explaining the 
absence of blacklisting in the theater, which can be seen from the 
experiences plays have had on the road. This is the essence here. It 
does not seem to me this is the time to go into Jack Gilford's record 
except to say that he is listed in Red Channels. 

Mr. Arens. Did you not think it was important to go further and 
say that that listing in Red Channels, which precipitated this so-called 


violent protest against his appearance, was a listing embracing a series 
of many years of services to the Communist conspiracy? 

Mr. CoGiJiY. I think I am again at the same situation I was in earlier. 
I Avrote the book as I saw fit to write the book. I did not know how 
you wanted me to write the book nor anyone else did. I wrote it as 
1 saw fit to write it. 

Mr. Arens. On page 173 of volume II of your report you begin a 
series of blacklisting experiences. 

Mr. CoGLEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. The first one is about a leading actress, a "Miss H" ; isn't 
that correct. 

Mr. CoGLEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Is that Miss H, Ufa Hagen ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. Miss H, Uta "Hoggen,"' I believe she pronounces her 
name, had no objections to our using her name, so I will agree; yes, 
it is Miss Hagen, 

Mr. Akens. On pages 173 and 174 you tell that — 

Miss H was listed in Red Channels, and protests began to come in from Syracuse 
immediately after it was announced she would star on this program. 

Isn't that correct? 

Mr. Cogley. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arexs. The fair implication of that language is that the pro- 
tests stemmed from a listing in Red Channels; isn't that correct? 

Mr. Cogley. The knowledge upon which the protest was based was 
due to the fact that the listing was published in Red Channels about 
Miss Hagen. 

Mr. Arens. Did you not think it essential to point out to your 
readers that the listing in Red Channels of Uta Hagen included a 
designation or recitation of one of the longest Communist-front records 
of any person in the United States ? 

Mr. Cogley. I saw fit to point out to my readers that Miss H wrote 
the executive producer of the program : 

"I understand that some question has been raised as to my loyalty to the United 
States, and I desire to inform you categorically that I am not now nor have I ever 
been a member of the Communist Party, nor am I now in sympathy with 
Communist objectives." 

I also saw fit to tell my readers that — 

it was annoimced that Miss H was going to be called before the House Committee 
on Un-American Activities. She was subpenaed but her testimony was delayed 
and she never did appear. The committee offered no explanation. Variety 
referred to the incident as a "current Capitol Hill mystery." 

Mr. Arens. You state that Miss H was listed in Red Channels and 
protests began to come in from Syracuse immediately. Do you mean to 
imply that the protests were stimulated solely and exclusively from the 
listing in Red Channels, or is there a possibility that the protest may 
have been stimulated by a knowledge derived from some other source ? 

Mr. Cogley. It is quite unlikely, it seems to me, at this particular 
time that the facts, if they were facts, about Miss Hagen wliich Avere 
published in Red Channels would be available to these people except 
for Red Channels. It is very possible that some otlier similar })ublica- 
tion had published these listings, I don't know, but there is a definite 
relationship in time between the publication of Red Channels and the 
pressure agai nst Miss Hagen . 


Mr. Arens. Now I invite your attention, if you please, sir, to page 
215, volume II. You open the paragraph by saying : 

One result of blacklisting was the growth of the off-Broadway theater. Top 
talent became available at off-Broadway prices. In recent years, it has been 
possible to see well-known performers like Morris Carnovsky, Sono Osato, Jack 
Gilford, and Will Geer. * * * 

Mr. CoGLEY. In the little theaters, sir. 

Mr. Arens. In the little theaters. Then on down you speak of 
"Sandhog," w'hich is apparently a play produced by Waldo Salt and 
Earl Robinson. Do you know that Morris Carnovsky and Jack 
Gilford and Will Geer and Waldo Salt and Earl Robinson have all 
been identified before the House Committee on Un-American Activi- 
ties as members of the Communist conspiracy ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. Yes, sir. I don't know in each case. I know in some 
cases. I recognize certain names. 

Mr. Arens. Is it fair to appraise the situation that you are de- 
scribing of blacklisting that it apparently isn't 100 percent effective 
on Broadway ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. Sir, if you would read the paragraph again, I am dis- 
cussing the fact that the growth of the off-Broadway theater has had 
a relationship to blacklisting. I say in a part that you did not read : 

More often than not, their shows have been nonpolitical, although some "social" 
drama has been produced. 

I add that a writer in the Commmiist Masses and Mainstream — 

was quite critical of some aspects of this off-Broadway development, particularly 
of the failure of "social drama" to dominate. 

He wrote : 

In the off-Broadway movement the potentially large progressive audience is 
yet to do its part. 

I am discussing here not the records of these particular people but 
the relationship between the off-Broadway theater and the blacklistmg 
phenomenon. Again I must say that I had to write the book as I saw 
fit to write it and to discuss the subjects as I saw fit. 

Mr. Arens. But the fact that these people who have been identified 
as members of the Communist conspiracy are presently engaged on 
Broadway or were engaged on Broadway at the time you wrote the 
book compels the conclusion, does it not, that blacklisting as you 
describe it on Broadway is not 100 percent effective ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. Sir, first of all I would like to point out that I was 
talking about off-Broadway, which does not mean Broadway. 

Mr. Arens. I mean in New York City, in the legitimate theater. 

Mr. CoGLEY. Then I would refer you to page 210, volume II, the 
first sentence of the chapter called Blacklisting and Broadway: 

There is no organized blacklisting on Broadway. * * * But there are no 
"lists" which have universal force on Broadway. There are no "security oflBcers." 
There are no "clearance" systems. 

This is a matter of fact. 

Mr. Arens. Then let us continue with that theme from page 211 : 

In August 195.5, the House Committee on Un-American Activities held hear- 
ings on communism in the Broadway theater. Twenty-three witnesses were 
called, and 22 of them turned out to be "unfriendly," invoking the 1st, 4th, 5th. 
6th, 8th, 9th, 10th, and 14th amendments to the Constitution. In Hollywood or 
on Mnrlisnn Avprnie. nrtors thnt .irp "unfriendly" oonld expert not to work again 


until such time as they "cleared" themselves. But the Broadway performers 
who refused to c(joperate with the Walter committee simply went back to work. 
In one case, an actor who had invoked the fifth amendment had his contract 
torn up, and was given a new one at higher pay and for a longer period of time. 
The actor was not being rewarded for his "unfriendliness," he was being rewarded 
for his professional ability. And it is ability that still counts on Broadway. 

Do you mean to say that on Broadway the question of whether or 
not a particular individual is part and parcel of a conspiracy designed 
to overthrow this Government by force and violence does not count? 

Mr. CoGLET. All I know is that the actors who took the fifth amend- 
ment and did not cooperate with this committee did not lose their jobs. 

Mr. Arens. Then what do you mean here when you say, "And it is 
ability that still counts on Broadway" ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. I gather if they did not lose their jobs, they must be 
being judged by some other standard than the standard of whether 
or not they took the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Arens. Let's see whether or not they were being judged by the 
standard of identification of those people as members of the conspiracy. 

Mr. Cogley. Sir, I am stating a fact. I have nothing to do with 
how Broadway acts or doesn't act. This is just simply the fact that 
I found. So please do not ask me to explain Broadway's actions. 

Mr. Arens. When you say that it is talent or ability that still counts 
on Broadway, do you mean to exclude the possibility that Broadway 
is concerned with the loyalty or patriotism of people who are on 
Broadway ? 

Mr. Cogley. Let me put it this way : I know only that people who 
have not cooperated with this committee have gone back to work on 
Broadway. I take it the reasoning behind it is that they are being 
judged solely on their ability as actors and not on their cooperation or 
noncooperation with this connnittee. 

Mr. Arens. Are they being judged to any degree upon the extent 
to which they may be part and parcel of a treasonable apparatus ? 

Mr. Cogley. If they were being judged on that basis I take it they 
would not go back to work. 

Mr. Arens. Are you cognizant of the findings of the House Com- 
mittee on Un-American Activities as a result of the hearings in the 
entertainment field which were held in August 1955 ? 

Mr. Cogley. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Are you cognizant of the findings which read as follows : 

Communists have been successful in finding employment in the New York enter- 
tainment field. The Communist-supported propaganda campaign against black- 
listing has completely falsified the true hiring policies applying to entertainers. 

Did your study and investigation lead you to the same findings as 
the House committee on this subject ? 

Mr. Cogley. I wish you could spell out that finding in more precise 
terms than stated there. Maybe I could answer it better. 

Mr. Arens. Did your study and investigation lead you to ascertain 
and did you ascertain whether or not Communists are active in propa- 
gandizing on behalf of the Communist conspiracy on Broadway in the 
entertainment industry ? 

Mr. Cogley. You mean through plays? 

Mr. Arens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Cogley. No; I did not find any Communist j^ropaganda in 
plays on Broadway. 

SL'<:!;; r.i: ^pt. i t 


Mr. Arens. Did you find that radio and television networks con- 
tinue to use the talents of Communist Party members because of in- 
adequate information and investigative facilities ? 

Mr. CoGLET. I found that radio and television networks make eveiy 
effort not to use Communists, and I know of no Communist, at least 
persons who have been identified before this and other committees as 
Communists, who are working in radio and television who have not 
come before the committee and cooperated. 

Mr. Arens. Have you found that the major networks do have a pol- 
icy of not hiring entertainers who have> been identified under oath as 
Communist Party members or who have themselves appeared under 
oath and refused to answer questions regarding party membership? 

Mr. CoGLEY. I think that is what I just said. 

The Chairman. If these 22 Communists who invoked various 
amendments to the Constitution at our hearings didn't lose their posi- 
tions and had contracts renewed, some at higher prices, what does the 
blacklist mean ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. Sir, I am discussing here blacklisting and Broadway 
and conclude that there is no organized blacklisting on Broadway, 
which is the first sentence of the chapter. 

Mr. Arens. In other words, is it your finding that on Broadway 
people who have been identified as members of the Communist con- 
spiracy, under oath before the House Conmiittee on T^n-Anierican Ac- 
tivities or some other Government agency, are nevertheless employed 
in the industry irrespective of that identification ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. I think, sir, when we began this exchange you read 
from the section here which says that the people who appeared here 
last summer before the committee simply went back to work. 

Mr. Arens. Yes. 

Mr. CoGLEY. This is a matter of fact, I think. 

Mr. Arens. I am just asking you on the basis of your study and in- 
vestigation whether or not it is a fair statement that people who have 
been identified as Communists, as members of the conspiracy, are 
nevertheless freely engaging in professional activities in the entertain- 
ment industry on Broadway ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. I can't recall the circumstancas, but if you say that 
the 22 witnesses who were called last summer were identified as Coni- 
mun ists, they were. Is that correct ? 

Mr. Arens. And are they continuing in their employment ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. At least 1 or 2 of them were in Broadway plays and if 
you will note, there was no notice in the newspapers that they had been 
fired or anything else. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Chairman, that will conclude the staff interroga- 
tion of this witness. 

The Chairman. Any questions ? 

Mr. Moulder. I have just one question. 

I have forgotten whether or not you have been accorded the oppor- 
tuntiy or have made any explanation as to any preliminary discussion 
you had with your employers in connection with the writing of this 
report on blacklisting. 

Mr. Cogley. I think earlier this morning we discussed this. I will 
be glad to answer any specific questions that you might want to ask. 

Mr. Areins. Specifically on that, did you know or did you discuss 
with your employer the employment of Elizabeth Poe? 


Mr. CoGLEY. I did not discuss the people I cliose for the project with 
my employers until they were hired, so I could make arrangements for 
them to get paid through the office. Even then I did not discuss it with 
the officers, but merely with the people who handled the financial 
arrangements for the Fund. 

Mr. Arens. Did you know prior to the time that Elizabeth 
Poe began to work with you, as did your other colleagues, Miss Jahoda 
and others — did you know that Elizabeth Poe had been the author of 
articles vigorously attacking what she called the purge of people in 
the motion-picture industry because of political affiliation or asso- 
ciation ? 

Mr. CoGLET. I knew that she had written the article that you have 
before you. I didn't know of any others. 

jyir. Arens. Is the tenor of this article which appeared in the Fron- 
tier one of strong aspersion cast uiJon the techniques of discharging 
people who have been identified as members of the Communist con- 
spiracy ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. I haven't read that article for some 18 months. I don't 
remember exactly what it said. 

Mr. Arens. It certainly isn't complimentary to the device of dis- 
charging people who have been members of the Communist conspiracy, 
is it? 

Mr. CoGLEY. As I remember, it is not. Again I say I haven't read it 
for 18 months. 

Mr. Moulder. Pursuing the point I was making, do you have any 
knowledge or information as to what inspired the Fund for the Re- 
public or caused it to proceed in employing you and others to write a 
report on blacklisting ? Do you have any knowledge or information on 
that subject or on that question ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. I cannot speak officially for the Fund. I can only 
speak for my own knowledge of the Fund. But I believe that when 
the Fund was organized blacklisting by private groups was put down as 
one of the subjects in which the Fund would be interested. I also since 
this have checked the project as it was approved by the board of direc- 
tors of the Fund, which was before I came into the picture, as I ex- 
plained this morning. The project was approved by the board of 
directors of the Fund for the Republic without a director (sic) on Sep- 
tember 15, 1954, as part of the original charter, among other things, to 
investigate blacklisting by private groups. 

Ml'. Moulder. With what official of the Fund for the Republic did 
you confer in connection wit^ the work which you were to perforin? 

Mr. CoGLEY. I conferred with the president and the vice president 
of the Fund for the Republic, who got in touch with me and asked 
me if I would be interested in doing this job. 

Mr. MoiTT^DER. Did they discuss with you in detail what your work 
would be and what the objectives would be of the work; that is, the 
purpose of it, and so on ? That is the point I am trying to get at. 

Mr. CoGLEY. I was told this at this time, as I can recall the con- 
versation which was a year and a half ago: That this was a subject 
which little was known about as far as the public went, that it should 
be debated in public, that a great deal of mystery surrounded it, that 
there were charges and counterchaiges, that I should do nothing but 
get the facts on the situation as I saw it; in getting the facts, that I 
^.ould pick a staff and the Fund would see that this staff was paid, that 


the Fund would not interfere in any way with Avhat I found and if 
the Fund decided to publish the findings there would be no changes 
made whatsoever except such changes as might be technically nec- 
essary because of size or something, but even I could make those 

Mr. Moulder. As I understand it, the object of the project was to 
ascertain and re])ort the facts. 

Mr. CoGLEY. T]iat is right. 

Mr. MouLDEK. Xot taking a position of condemnation or defense in 
either respect ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. That is right ; yes, sir. In the original approval I noted 
that the board of directors said they hoped the thing would inform 
rather than inflame. 

Mr. Moulder. Was that the way you were so instructed ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. That is right ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Moulder. I have no further questions. 

The Chairman. Mr. Doyle. 

Mr, DoYLE. I would suggest this, Mr. Chairman: The witness this 
morning, without counsel, underwent a very thorough and able exami- 
nation by our distinguished counsel for 2 hours and now for 45 minutes 
this afternoon. I noticed from time to time this morning — and I made 
16 pages of notes for my own guidance — the witness seemed to me to 
start to make some further answer or to add something and through 
lack of time I am under the impression that the witness may have 
not fully answered or explained a few points. 

I think the witness ought to be given this opportunity. I want to 
ask him a question : Do you have any statement or any explanation 
of any sort that you wish to make of any of your answers by way of 
elaboration? Do you have a statement you wish to make about this 
report, or about any of your answers to our counsel ? 

I think, Mr. Chairman, if he does he ought to be given that 

The Chairman. Every witness is given that opportunity. 

Mr. Doyle. I am making it an express point that I think this witness 
ought to be given that opportunity now and he ought to be given alT 
the time necessary to make it. 

The Chairman. Of course, before the inquiry closes I will afford 
him that opportunity just as other witnesses appearing before this 
committee have been given that opportunity. 

Mr. Doyle. Of course, you were necessarily busy with other com- 
mittees most of the time during this hearing and didn't have the 
benefit of hearing all of his testimony. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further vou wish to say, Mr. 

Mr. CooLEY. I can think of nothing further. Perhaps at the time 
I thought of something but right now I have lost sight of some of the 
questions I was asked. I can think of nothing that I want to add 
right now. I would like to know, if I may, why I was called. 

The Chairman. Because we have been very much interested in this 
particular question and when your report was Hied we were disap- 
pointed, at least I was, that you didn't discuss the failure of people 
who cooperated with congressional committees to obtain employment. 

Mr. CoGLEY. I am sorry, sir 


The Chairman. We have a great deal of information, you can 
well imagine, from people indicating that such a practice exists. Im- 
mediately after the hearings this morning I received maybe over 20 
letters from people protesting that because they or their friends or 
someone they knew who had cooperated had lost their jobs or were 
imable to obtain employment. This is a question in which our com- 
mittee has been deeply interested for a long while. We called you 
for the purpose of ascertaining what your sources were in order to 
determine whether or not your conclusions w'ere the conclusions that 
we would have reached had we embarked on this sort of project. 

We were hoping that you would tell us who these people were in 
order to determine whether or not they were denied employment be- 
cause tliey were Conmmnists or were denied employment because 
somebody said they w^ere Communists? 

]Mr. CoGLEY. Sir, if I may answer, I think I did touch at some length 
on this wdiole question of cooperative witnesses losing employment 
possibilities, especially in the movie version of this two-volume report. 
It is not something that I neglected. In answer to your second ques- 
tion, I think that undoubtedly some of the persons who have faced dif- 
ficulties in emploj-ment have been, I should say, at least been named 
as Communists before the committee and have purged their record. 
I think it is also true that in many cases people who have not been 
named as Communists but merely have had listings of front groups 
and so forth, some of them extending back many years, have had 
many grave difficulties in finding employment. Sometimes they have 
been cleared. Some of them have lost years of w^ork and have been 
set back in their careers, and so on. I would not attempt to repeat 
the whole two volumes all over again. 

The Chairman. In assembling your staif, how did you expect to 
get an objective viewpoint when the views of all of the employees on 
the staft' are fairlv w^ell known and are all in one direction, I might 

Mr. CoGLEv. I wonder if I might expand just slightly on some of 
the people and the difference between the people involved on the staff. 

One lady interviewer was recommended to me by the movie columnist 
of the New York Times. Another girl was a girl who had worked for 
Time, Inc., for some 7 years and had taken a short stay in a convent 
to become a nun and had decided that this was not her vocation and 
she came direct from a cloistered convent to the staff. 

A third person was a labor journalist. One was an editor of For- 
tune. I think there w^as quite a variety in that staff. 

Mr. Moulder. I have 1 or 2 more questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Is it true that you employed some of those persons, 1 or 2 who were 
mentioned, as having maybe been associated with Commnnist-front 
organizations ? 

Afr. CoGLEY. Pardon, sir. 

Mr. Moulder. I believe our interrogation through counsel has 
brought out that some of those on your staff may have been associated 
with Communist-front organizations. 

Mr. CoGLEY. I think Mr. Arens will agree that he didn't mention 
any Communist-front organizations, did you, sir, in reference to any- 
body on our staff ? 

Mr. Arens. The Labor Youth League is not only a Communist- 
fi'ont organization, it is controlled by tlie Communist Party. 


Mr. CoGLEY. The Labor Youth League, sir ? Who did you say be- 
longs to that ? 

Mr. Arens. You told us in an opening statement with reference to 
Mr. Paul Jacobs, a former member of the Labor Youth League; 
Michael Harrington, a Socialist ; Marie Jahoda, a Socialist ; Elizabeth 
Poe, who had vigorously attacked 

Mr. CoGLEY. The Congressman asked me about Communist fronts. 
First of all, I think Mr. Jacobs, who is a rather famous anti-Commu- 
nist, had not belonged to any of these organizations for some twenty- 
odd years. You are going back 20 years on Mr. Jacobs, is that not 
true, sir ? 

Mr. Arens. You are the one who said he was a member of the Labor 
Youth League. 

Mr. CoGLEY. I added 20 years earlier. In the second case — Mr. 
Harrington you referred to as a Socialist. I don't think you can refer 
to it as a Communist front because the group that you refer to is vig- 
orously anti-Communist. 

Mr. Arens. You, of course, are aware of the fact that Lenin, the 
key philosopher of communism, has said socialism is only one transi- 
tion toward communism. 

Mr. Cogley. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. And Socialists are only people who are conducting the 
transition from democracy to communism. 

Mr. Moulder. To develop the point, such persons probably had ex- 
tensive knowledge on the subject on which you were trying to make 
a report, is that so ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. Some of the persons had different kinds of specialties. 
Some were trained researchers, those who had worked for the Luce 
organization. The particular one who was suggested by the critic of 
the Times was familiar with the theatrical world. I can't explain 
why each person, but there were a certain number of qualifications for 
each person. 

Mr. MouiJ)Eu. Sometimes a congressional committee may employ 
some person who may have knowledge and information, who may not 
agree with us in philosophy. Did they have the opportunity to ex- 
press their viewpoint in this report, that is, to slant it along lines in 
harmony with their feeling ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. I assigned each of these persons an area. They 
checked against each other. Each of them submitted a report to me 
and out of the reports they submitted to me I wrote this report on the 
basis of my own judgment. 

Mr. Moulder. There is one subject in your report and also in your 
testimony which is a sort of revelation to me. Did you find in your 
investigation and in this work that there are people who specialize in 
what you refer to as "clearances" and receive fees for their work, who 
receive compensation for clearing someone for employment? 

Mr. CoGLEY. This word "clearance" is always a very difficult word. 
There are at least, I would say, two organizations which supply 

Mr. Moulder. They supply the information ? 


Mr. CoGLEY. They are formally in the business of supplying back- 
ground information on potential clients and potential employees. 

Mr. Moulder. Let us take, for example, the people who are respon- 
sible for the publication of Red Channels. Did you find out whether 
or not they ever received any fees or compensation for clearing some- 
one after they had been referred to in their publication ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. No. I heard very often rumors that clearances were 
sold. I found no evidence that clearances were sold or that one could 
buy a clearance. I did find a few cases where a public-relations man 
would use his influence to clear up a situation and he was sometimes 
paid a public-relations man's fee. But I found no evidence at all that 
any group was selling clearances, as the phrase goes. 

Mr. MotiLDER. The wa}^ I received the information was that some- 
one would be responsible for the condemnation or the blacklisting and 
then later on would attempt to clear them by receiving fees and com- 
pensation for doing it, which would amount to blackmail or indirectly 
could be in the field of blackmail. 

Mr. CoGLEY. I know that there have been cases of people who — I 
have heard of cases of people Avho have sold their services as speech 
writers, for instance, to write a speech or help a man write a speech 
which would express his anti-Communist feelings so that he could 
now get it on the public record that he was anti-Communist, but no 
direct clearance operation. 

Mr. Doyle. Do I understand the import of your answer to Mr. 
Moulder to mean that public-relations experts were paid fees for, 
what you say, clearing up situations where citizens had been named 
before this committee as Communists or members of Communist 
fronts ? Did it go to that extent ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. Sir, I would like to add, just because of the use of the 
words "public-relations expert," since that is the term that was used 
to refer to the gentleman quoted here, I am not speaking of him or 
anything like him. But I have learned that sometimes an elaborate 
kind of explanation is required and that people have been paid for 
writing speeches or for some other kind of public-relations services to 
artists who have had to clarify their records or to clear up their rec- 
ords. There have been cases where a man would come in and use his 
good offices to help a firm that was in difficulty and then the firm might 
pay him a sum as a token of its gratitude. 

Mr. DoYLE. A firm in what difficulty ? On tlie question of commu- 
nism affiliation ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. Take a case where a firm was sponsoring a television 
show and someone on the shoAv was accused of being pro-Commmiist. 
The person, let us say, was not pro- Communist. This required a cer- 
tain amount of clearing up and convincing the people who were pub- 
lishing the charges that he was pro- Communist, that he was not pro- 

In a case like this after someone came in who had access to the people 
who were publishing the charges, it has been known for the firm to 
give a sum as a token of its gratitude for the work that was done. 

Mr. DoYLE. You mentioned in answer to counsel that you had 
made a mimeographed report which you submitted to the officers of 
the Fund? 

Mr. CoGLEY. Yes, sir. 


Mr. Doyle. What changes, if any, were made between that copy and 
the published copy ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. The only changes that were made were made by me, 
first on my own judgment, changes in words and choice of new words. 
Second, it was to try to cut it down somewhat. The third change was, 
after consultation with a libel lawyer, other changes were made. 

Mr. Doyle. One more question : Did you say that the time of the 
study and the preparation of this report entailed about 18 months ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. No, sir. I said it is 18 months since I read that article. 
It took only about a year in all. 

Mr. Doyle. During that time I think the personnel of your staff was 
generally known, was it not, and publicized ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. It was publicized ; yes, sir. 

Mr, Doyle. From the time you selected the staff until you corrected 
this report did you receive complaints of any kind from any organiza- 
tion or publication on account of your having chosen any person for 
your staff on the ground that they were Communists or pro- Com- 
munists ? 

Mr. CoGLEY. None that I can recall. Certainly personally I re- 
ceived none. There might have been some that I don't know anything 
about, but I don't recall any. 

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

The Chairman. Mr. Jackson. 

Mr. Jackson. I think supplementing what the chairman said, of 
course we are attempting to determine here several things. First of 
all, does a blacklist exist and, secondly, to what extent are private 
individuals as distinguished from official Government agencies devel- 
oping information in this particular area. I must confess I have not 
had an opportunity to read the two volumes of this report. However, 
from what I have read and from what I have gathered during the inter- 
rogation it certainly would not qualify with me as being an objective 

I would like to go back just a moment to the matter of what consti- 
tutes a blacklist and pose a couple of hypothetical questions and see 
if indeed we are talking about the same thing by blacklist. 

Let us assume that an individual who is very badly disfigured goes 
in to a prominent restaurant and asks for employment as a waiter. 
Does refusal to grant employment to this individual on purely eco- 
nomic grounds constitute a blacklist in your opinion ? 

Mr. Cogley. Of that person ? 

Mr. Jackson. Of that person. 

Mr. Cogley. We get into semantic difficulties here, but I would say 
that the person cannot work in this restaurant and the only word I 
know to describe that situation is that he is "blacklisted" at that 

Mr. Jackson. I think that is where we have some difference of 
opinion. After all, entertainment, Mr. Chairman, is a commodity. 
It is a commodity that depends on several things — first, the quality 
of the entertainment; secondly, the public acceptance of the enter- 
tainment. It has long been my opinion that if there is any blacklist 
involved here it is in large part a blacklist which has been imposed by 
the American public, to whom communism and Communists are 
anathema and repugnant. That is especially true following the action 
of the Congress of the United States in passing the Communist Con- 


tiol Aer ol" 1051, plnciii<4- tlic stnictiive of the Coimimnist Party outside 
the law. There is a blacklist which neither this committee nor any 
private organization can do anything about. That is a blacklist 
imposed by the American people itself. I don't think that that aspect 
of the blacklist has been investigated to the extent that it would appear 

For instance, I cannot see, speaking as an individual, Mr. Chairman, 
why any producer in the entertainment field should be required to 
employ or reemploy any individual who has come before a committee 
of the Congress or a duly constituted agency of the United States 
Government and failed to state Avithout equivocation that he is or 
is not a member of the Communist Party. It follows from that 
refusal to state that the American people are simply not going to 
accept the services of that individual in the entertainment field. 

Mr. Moulder. I think he covered that in his report. I read some 
statements along that line. 

Mr. Jackson. If a man is seen leaving the scene of a fire carrying a 
kerosene can and the arson squad leader finds the fire was set by 
kerosene and then the man refuses to disclose any of his activities 
with reference to where he was or what he was doing at the time the 
fire started, he is certainly under an onus. I think that onus extends to 
those who are in entertainment or in labor or in any other walk of 
American life. 

I realize we have just scratched the surface of this question of black- 
listing. I think it is a thing that the committee should go into. I 
think from the standpoint of the Fund, from the standpoint of the com- 
mittee, from the standpoint of everybody involved in this, we should 
have a thorough airing of the matter of blacklisting. 

The Chairmax. The committee stands adjourned, to meet tomorrow 
morning at 10 o'clock. 

(Whereupon, at 3 : 20 p. m., Tuesday, July 10, the committee was 
recessed, to reconvene at 10 a. m.. Wednesday, July 11, 1956.) 



United States House or Representatives, 

Committee on Un-American Activities, 

WasMfigton, D. C. 


The Committee on Un-American Activities convened, pursuant to 
-adjournment, at 10 : 35 a. m., in the caucus room, Old House Office 
Building, Hon. Francis E. Walter (chairman) presiding. 

Committee members present : Representatives Francis E. Walter, of 
Pennsylvania; Clyde Doyle, of California; James B. Frazier, Jr., of 
Tennessee; Edwin E. Willis, of Louisiana ; Harold H. Velde, of Hli- 
nois; Bernard W. Kearney, of New York; Donald L. Jackson, of 
(California; and Gordon H. Scherer, of Ohio. 

Staff members present : Richard Arens, director ; and K. Baarslag. 

The ChxUrman. The committee will come to order. 

Call your first witness, please, Mr. Arens. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Arnold Forster, please come forward. 

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

Mr. Forster. I do, sir. 

The Chairman. I do not want you to think that we have been dis- 
courteous this morning, but you know the mutual-aid bill is up on 
the floor of the House. 

Mr. Forster. I know that, si r. 


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

Mr. Forster. My name is Arnold Forster, and I reside at 79 Wyka- 
gyl, in New Rochelle, N. Y., and I am the general counsel for the Anti- 
Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, and I have been in the emplov of 
that agency for more than 16 years. 

Mr. iVRENs. Are you appearing today, Mr. Forster, in response to 
a subpena which was served upon you by the House Committee on Un- 
American Activities? 

Mr. Forster. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Are you represented by counsel ? 

Mr. Forster. Alongside of me sits Henry Edward Schultz, the na- 
tiona^l chairman of ih^. Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, and 
for the purpovses of this session, my counsel. 



Mr. Arens. Mr. Schultz, would you further identif^^ yourself a 
little clearer for this record ? 

Mr. Schultz. I will be glad to. I am a lawyer, and as Mr. For- 
ster has indicated, national chairman of the league, and today I am 
here in the capacity of his counsel. My offices are at 205 East .42d 
Street, New York City. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Forster. I invite your attention, if you please, 
sir, to the publication. Report on Blacklisting, volume II, Radio-Tele- 
vision, page 89, in which appears, among other things, this language. 
It begins in this third paragraph : 

A New York public-relations expert, who has guided more than a dozen once- 
blacklisted performers to the "right people," explained his role this way. 

I ask you now if you are the public-relations expert alluded to on 
page 89 of this volume ? 

Mr. Forster. Well, I will be glad to try to answer that question, Mr. 
Arens. A year or so ago, I was visited by an interviewer for the 
Cogley project, probably one of several hundred persons so inter- 
viewed. We met on several occasions, and we talked informally for 
a number of hours. 

Mr. Arens. Could I interpose this question : Could you tell us who 
that person was ? 

Mr. Forster. His name was Engberg. 

Mr. Arens. Do you know his first name ? ' 

Mr. Forster. Edwin or Edward. 

Mr. Arens. Edward, was it not? I see "Edward" listed in this. 

Mr. Forster. Then I would assume that is his first name. 

Mr. Arens. Would you kindly proceed. 

Mr. Forster. I said we met on several occasions, and we talked in- 
formally. I made no notes of our conversations. I did not consider 
that I was making any statements for the record. Rather, I was trying 
in a general way to furnish the interviewer with a picture of the efforts 
of the Anti-Defaination League, to help artists and others in the enter- 
tainment industry who had come to us for assistance in going back to 

In none of my conversations with the interviewer did I authorize 
him to use any of my off-the-cuff answers as direct quotations. 

I never saw this Cogley report or any part of it in any form whatso- 
ever until a day or two after the printed text was released, a week or so 
ago. From the day the research project began until the day the result- 
ing report was released to the press, I never met Mr. Cogley, and I 
never talked to Mr. Cogley, and I did not know Mr. Cogley. When the 
quoted material on pages 89, 90, and 91 to which you referred was first 
read to me a week or so ago on the telephone, it was my first contact 
with it. I was under the impression that these were not my words. 

Mr. Arens. Who read these words to you ? 

Mr. Forster. Mr. Jack Wren, of B. B. D. & O., an advertising 
agency in New York City. 

Mr. Arens. Proceed, please. 

Mr. Forster, The man allegedly being quoted on these pages was 
described as a public-relations expert, which is not a description that 
I would choose as accurate for my work. It was my opinion at the 
time that the quoted material was a composite of the views and state- 
ments of a number of people who had had some experience in this 


Mr. Arexs. How did you arrive at the conclusion or entertain the 
thought that the public-relations expert alluded to on page 89 of this 
report was a composite, how did you surmise that? 

Mr. FoRSTER. I am going on to say that, sir. 

Mr. Arexs. Go right ahead, if you have prepared material. Then 
I will interrogate you. 

Mr. FoRSTP^R. I must say this: Having learned tluit Mr. Cogley's 
testimony yesterday resulted in my being directly quoted on extem- 
poraneous statements, I got kind of tired of that idea, and I thought 
since I could anticipate at least this question that I would have 
prepared a precise and brief answer. For that reason, I have written 

Mr. Arens. I suggest that since your answer is precise and brief, 
you read it. 

Mr. FoRSTER. I believe the quoted material to be a device by the 
author of the report to symbolize the views of men who have become 
involved in helping to clear or rehabilitate people who had suffered 
unwarranted economic reprisal. Yesterday John Cogley, the author 
of the report, testified that the quoted material is not a composite 
but are my words to one of his assistants. He may well be right. 

I talked with the interviewer for a very long time. All of the things 
stated in quotes could easily have been said by me in substance. My 
concern with the quoted material, however, is that it is far from 

Mr. Arexs. Does that complete your observations as of the moment ? 

Mr. Forster. Yes. 

Mr. Arens. May I then ask you please, sir, a number of precise ques- 
tions with reference to it? How are you designated within the organ- 
ization which you serve? 

Mr. Forster. My official title is general counsel to the Anti-Defa- 
mation League and the director of civil rights. 

Mr. Arexs. Is there a person in the Anti-Defamation T^eague who 
bears the title or description of public-relations expert? 

Mr. Forster. I do not think so, sir, and we may have a depart- 
juent. We liave many depai'tments and one is known as the public 
relations department, but I do not know that an^'^one is designated as 
ti public-relations expert. 

Mr. Arens. To your knowledge, was anyone else in the Anti- 
Defamation League interviewed by representatives of Mr. Cogley to 
solicit information svich as the information which they solicited from 

Mr. Forster. I do not think so, sir. 

Mr. Arens. In other words, it is your opinion, is it, that you are 
the only person in the Anti-Defamation League organization who 
could possibly have been interviewed to procure information recited 
here in this report? 

Mr. Forster. Mr. Arens, I could not be sure of that. I may have 
introduced Mr. Engberg to someone on the staff who came in, and he 
may have asked him his position with respect to so-called blacklisting, 
as he had asked me my position with respect to blacklisting. 

Mr. Arens. Did you, or have you guided more than a dozen once 
blacklisted persons or performers to the right people? 

Mr. Forster. I have searched my memory for days now and I may 
be incorrect, but I could recall probably eight people who had come 


to the Anti-Defamation League to help rehabilitate themselves whom 
we tried to help. 

Mr. Arens. Do you have a recollection of the names of those eight 
people whom you helped ? 

Mr. FoRSTER. Yes ; the 7 or 8 who come to my mind, I have a recol- 
lection of who they are. 

Mr. Arens. Had those persons been identified under oath as mem- 
bers of the Coniiuunist Party ? 

Mr. FoRSTER. Well, I would have to explain that at length, sir, if I 
may. The Anti-Defamation League helped no person who at any 
time pleaded the fifth amendment. The Anti-Defamation League at 
no time agreed to assist anyone wlio refused our primary suggestion^, 
which was that if there was some comments or some testimony before 
this connnittee or some other place with respect to the bona fides of that 
person, that he voluntarily immediately communicate with the FBI 
and ask for an appointment and offer to answer any and all questions 
about himself that the Government might be interested in. 

In some cases, where a person himself came to us and said that they 
thought their problem was a listing in the records of this committee,, 
our immediate proposal was, and tlie solution to their problem is, to 
communicate with this committee and offer themselves forthwith to 
testify with respect to any questions tliat this committee might have. 

I might add, sir, that in none of those cases in which the Anti- 
Defamation League sought to help these people, did they refuse to 
do that. 

Mr. Arens. Did you make the statement to Mr. Cogley, or to liis 
interviewer, that you had guided more than a dozen once blacklisted 
performers to it, and I emphasize now these next two words, to the 
"right people"? 

Mr. Forster. I have searched and searched my memory, and these 
conversations occurred more than a 3'ear ago. I recognize some of the 
things in here as things that I said. Whether or not I used the number 
"a dozen or so," I have no recollection. I can only be confronted with 
Mr. Cogley's testimony that the man who interviewed me made notes, 
and if these were his notes, I am willing to give him the benefit of the 
doubt. But I would like lo repeat and I M^ould like to stress if I may, 
that this quotation if it is accurately attributed to me is incomplete. 
And, may I exj^lain that ? 

Mr. Arens. I was going to ask you right at that point if there is some 
additional information which you w^anted now to supply to our com- 
mittee which would make your observations complete. 

Mr. FoRSTER. Yes. If this was to be attributed to me, and if Mr. 
Cogley or his reseaicher had asked me permission to quote me as such, 
and I went over these 214 pages, I would have said to him that the 
Anti-Defamation League would like to make an expression of grati- 
tude, as 1 would to men like George Sokolsky. men like Victor Riesel, 
and men like Jack W^ren, and men like Fred Woltman, to whom we 
had gone innumerable times to solicit their opinions. 

And get their views, and in many cases get their help in having the 
artists who had come to us for help, have a hearing before someone 
in the motion-picture industry who was concerned about it, or with 
someone in the television industry. I would have preferred to see, if 
I was being quoted and this was being attributed to me, that some of 
the comments that I made in a letter which I wrote on June 26 to Fred 


Woltman be incorporated in there as an expression of the attitude of 
the Anti-Defamation League to these men whose judgment we relied 
on with respect to the bona fides of people who had come to us. 

Mr. Abens. At that point, may I just read you one statement from 
this report which immediately follows the quotations apparently at- 
tributed to yourself : 

Without access to the chief "clearance men" (who are often the same persona 
who make the damning indictment) , the blacklisted artist can get nowhere. These 
particular men are all-important. They have the power to wound and the power 
to heal the wound. They can hold off rightwing criticism, which in turn cuts off 
pressure on sponsors — 

and the like. 

I will not read the entire quotation. 

Mr. ScHULTZ. I take it that this is not mat-erial quoted, and this is 
unquoted material that you are now reading. 

Mr. Arens. I have just read, sir, an excerpt from page 91, volume II, 
which immediately follows quotations identified yesterday as the quo- 
tations or statements of Mr. Forster. Your observations are absolutely 
correct. Namely, that what I have just read is not in this volume 
attributed to Mr. Forster. 

Mr. Forster. Would you repeat the question, Mr. Arens ? 

Mr. Arens. I have just read you this quotation which immediately 
follows the quotes attributed to yourself. 

Does this not, to your mind, convey the impression that there is a 
kind of a board of clearance men who can wound and who often bring 
indictments against people and then clear them ? 

Mr. Forster. I do not know, Mr. Arens, whether or not I would 
phrase it that way. I would certainly say some of the men referred 
to in this statement attributed to me are and have been in a position 
to help troubled artists in the entertainment world get a fair hearing. 
I would say it is substantially true that if a knowledgeable expert in 
the field of communism wrote an expose about an artist and charged 
him with subversive associations, that there is a likelihood that the 
motion-picture industry or the radio industry would look twice before 
it would use the services of such a talent. 

But I do not know that I would accept or adopt this as a precise 
formula of the situation. 

Mr. Arens. Does not this situation, as revealed here in the quota- 
tion which I just gave to you, describe a reprehensible attitude and a 
reprehensible conduct on the part of people who are alleged to be clear- 
ance men ? 

Mr. Forster. From where I sat, the men who are alleged to be clear- 
ance men in this context were doing good and not evil. 

Mr. Arens. They were undertaking to assist in a humanitarian 
enterprise to rehabilitate people who had been for some reason or other 
enmeshed in the Communist conspiracy ; is that not correct ? 

Mr. Forster. From where I sat in my contacts with these people, 
we came to them for help, and they gave us help. 

Mr. Arens. But do you not construe the quotations of yourself and 
the language which I have just read in the report, volume II, as por- 
traying a situation in which Mr. Woltman, Mr. Sokolsky, and Mr. 
Wren, and Mr. Riesel are engaged in a reprehensible line of work? 

Mr. Forster. I could imagine, Mr. Arens, that the man to whom 
T talked listened to me that way. He may have had a complete sense 


of repugnance about what I explained the Anti -Defamation League 
was doing. He may have resented the procedures that I was describ- 
ing as being followed by the Anti-Defamation League. 

Mr. Arens. Did you intend in your observations to this person who 
interviewed you, to relay to the 'Fund for the Republic's people the 
concept that the work of Mr. Woltman, Mr. Riesel, Mr. Sokolsky, Mr. 
Wren, and the other so-called clearance men, was reprehensible ? 

Mr. FoRSTER. First, with respect to Mr. Woltman, let me say this : 
If this had been complete, I would have preferred that it show that on 
fin occasion or two, I may have communicated with Mr. Woltman to 
get his opinion about an artist in the entertainment world who had 
come to us for help. I would have preferred it to be explicit, and 
show that I never asked Mr. Woltman for any help. 

I solicited Mr. Woltman's opinion, and Mr. Woltman gave me his 
opinion, and offered me no help. So that whatever implications there 
are in that statement which you read, Mr. Arens, they would not apply 
insofar as Mr. Woltman is concerned. 

Mr. Arens. Did you at any time intend, in your observations to the 
investigator, to convey the impression that there were in New York 
City a clique of so-called clearance men who were engaged in a rep- 
rehensible line of business of damning people unjustly and of then in 
certain instances wielding their power to clear them ? 

Mr, FoRSTER. I do not know, ISfr. Arens, whether or not the sum 
of what I said added up to that in the mind of the interviewer, whether 
or not he considered that I was trying to make out such a situation. 
I cannot say that. I frankly do not remember what I said specifi- 
cally. We talked informally. 

Mr. Arens. Did you intend to convey that impression ? 
Mr. FoRSTER. You see, I am trying to be precise for you. I might 
well have said that, which would give him the impression that that 
was my intention. 

Mr. Arens, Is it a fact that there are or that there were at the time 
of your interview so-called clearance men in New York City who would 
bring damning indictments unjustifiably against individuals and then 
after they have been approached properly in a right way, help those 

ISIr. FoRSTER. Certainly, I could not have thought that about the 
men there named. 

Mr. ScHTTLTZ. I take it that you are confining your questions to 
New York City for some purpose. You keep repeating New York 

City, and I 

Mr. Arens. The reason why I am alluding to New York City is 
because I think it is obvious, is it not, Mr. Forster, that all of the ma- 
terial attributed to you pertains to New York City ; is that not correct ? 
Mr. Forster. I do no understand the question. I think not, if T 
understand your question. 

Mr. ScHULTz. I was wondering why, and now I understand the 
reason for it. 
Mr. Arens. Are you satisfied, Counsel ? 
Mr. ScHULTZ, Yes, sir, 

Mr. Arens. The clearance men alluded to in this whole chapter are 
the men in New York City, Mr. Woltman, Mr. Sokolsky, and inci- 
dentally, we have in this interrogation thus far, and I am sorry I have 
done so, omitted to make reference to Mr. O'Neil, of the American 


Legion. Mr. James F. O'Neil. Is he in your judgment in the same 
category as Mr. Sokolsky and Mr. Woltman and Mr. Riesel, and Mr. 
Wren ? 

Mr. FoRSTKR. I do not know what you mean by in the same category. 
I regard Jim O'Xeil 

Mr. Arens. Is he one of these viUainous clearance men or is he a 
man Avho in his operations is trying and has been trying on a humani- 
tarian basis to rehabilitate people? 

Mr. Forster. Mr. Arens, I never characterized these men in the 
words you just put, villainous men. 

Mr. Arens. I am not suggesting that you did. 

Mr. Forster. Excuse me, I thought that you were asking me 
whether I regarded them as a group of villainous men. 

Mr. Arexs. I am sorry if the record indicates so. 

Mr. Forster. I am sorry, sir. 

Mr. Arens. The chapter here on clearance alludes, as you know, 
to a number of these clearance men, including a Legion official. 

Mr. Forster. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. We are sure from other parts of the context, that it 
refers to jNIr. James O'Neil. 

Mr. Forster. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Do you have any experience which leads you to believe 
that jNIr. James O'Neil, of the American Legion, is engaged or has 
been engaged in a damning operation, or what they call a damning 
indictment of people unjustifiably, and then come along and wield his 
power to heal the wounds ? 

Mr. Forster. No ; but from my knowledge, I can say that Jim O'Neil 
has tried to help me help people who have come to us for help. 

(Committee members present: Representatives W^alter, Doyle, 
Frazier, Velde, and Jackson.) 

Mr. Arens. Has he been in this category that you have been pre- 
viously discussing in your testimony of a humanitarian trying to re- 
habilitate people ? 

Mr. Forster. From where I sat in the experience or two that I had 
with him ; yes. 

The Chairman. Actually, the Committee on Un-American x^ctivi- 
ties has in its files a great many letters of explanation v/ritten by 
people to whom you suggested this was the way to get the record 
straight. W^e have been doing that right along even when Mr. Velde 
was chairman. Just a minute ago we remarked about the number of 
people you had suggested get in touch with the committee in order to 
explain something that might have put them in a bad light. 

Mr. Forster. Yes, sir. I also felt and the Anti-Defamation League 
felt if a man had a hearing he had no complaint. 

The Chairman. That is right. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Forster, after the Fund for the Republic report 
was made public you issued a statement, did you not? 

Mr. Forster. No, sir. 

Mr, Arens. Did you write a letter, which was subsequently made 

Mr. Forster. Yes, sir. I wrote a letter to Fred Woltman under 
date of June 26, 1956. 

Mr, Arens. In that letter, alluded to yesterday, you indicated that 
some of this material in the report would indicate that you might have 

82833— 56— pt. 1 5 


been the person who was referred to as the public relations expert, 
did you not? 

Mr. FoRSTER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Did you at any time subsequent to the publication of 
this report by the Fund for the Republic have any conversation with 
Mr. Cogley or members of his staff? 

Mr. FoRSTER. I never asked Mr. Cogley directly the question as to 
whether or not he referred to me or intended to quote me in these 
statements. What I did with Mr, Cogley, sir, was this: After I 
drafted a letter to Mr. Fred Woltman I called Mr. Cogley and asked 
him directly whetlier or not he regarded anything in my letter to Fred 
Woltman as inconsistent with any of the notes that his interviewer 
had made in his conversations with me. Mr. Cogley said there was 
nothing inconsistent in my letter with the notes that he had, and I 
sent the letter to Fred Woltman, and, as I indicated on tlie copy, I sent 
a copy of it to Mr. Cogley and I sent a copy of it to Mr. Hutchins. 

Mr. DoYE. May I ask the date of the letter that you mailed to 
Mr. Cogley, please? 

Mr. FoRSTER. The letter was not mailed, sir. The letter was deliv- 
ered by messenger, first to Mr. Woltman, and I think the messenger 
had 2 envelopes or 3 envelopes. When he finished delivering the first 
letter to Mr. Woltman he then delivered to the Fund for the Republic, 
I assume. 

Mr. SciiuLTz. W\mt date ? 

Mr. FoRSTER. On June 26, if that is the date of the letter. I assume 
that is the day. 

Mr. Doyle. Do you know if Mr. Cogley got the letter that was de- 
livered to that address? 

Mr. FoRSTER. Oh, yes; I know Mr. Cogley got the letter, because it 
is my understanding that Mr. Cogley released this letter to the press. 

Mr. Arens. I have just one question, Mr. Forster, and then that will 
conclude the staff interrogation, if you please, sir. 

With reference to this particular letter, what time of day on the 
26th was a copy of your letter to Mr. Woltman delivered to the Fund 
for the Republic or to Mr. Cogley ? 

Mr. Forster. I can only say this, that I signed those letters, to the 
best of my recollection, oh, around 10 or 10 : 30 in the morning, and 
then I gave the letters to my secretary and asked her to have a mes- 
senger boy deliver them. 

Mr. Arens. Promptly, is that correct? 

Mr. Forster. Yes, sir. I don't know whether they were delivered 
within an hour or 5 hours. 

Mr. Arens. May I ask you this: Do you know that on the 27th 
Mr. Cogley or the Fund for the Republic issued a press release to 
which was appended a copy of your letter to Mr. Woltman ? 

Mr. Forster. Yes ; I know that. 

Mr. Arens. Did you have any discussion with Mr. Cogley subse- 
quent to the release of this letter as to why he did not identify you 
more specifically in his press release as the individual to whom he 
was alluding as the public-relations expert who had given him the 
information respecting this clearance board ? 

Mr. Forster. I never saw or talked to Mr. Cogley after that. 

Mr. Arens. Did you talk with any of his representatives on this 


Mr. FoRSTER. No, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Chairman, tliat concludes the staff interrogation 
of this witness. 

The Chairman. Mr. Forster, you have confirmed the suspicion that 
this committee has had right along, namely, that this report isn't 
worth the paper it is printed on. We are both dealing in a very diffi- 
cult field. Mr. Herman Edelsberg, of the Washington office of your 
organization, has frequently conferred with me concerning delicate 
questions with which we are dealing and we try to arrive at a proper 
solution. We have been making an inquiry for a long while into these 
charges of blacklisting. I do not think there is a blacklist. I cannot 
find evidence of it. 

Mr. FoRSTER. I think there is, sir. 

The Chairman. There is probably available to people a list of those 
who perhaps were Communists. 

Mr. FoRSTER. No, sir 

The Chairman. I do not think there is a list, as such. 

Mr. Forster. I don't know w^hether or not, Mr. Chairman, it is in 
the form of a list, but I think there is such a thing as blacklisting 
and, if you will permit me, I would like to describe what I mean by 

The Chairiman. I think that would be very helpful because we had 
a definition of blacklisting yesterday. 

Mr. Forster. I mean by blacklisting the denial of employment to 
a man on grounds other than merit without first giving him an oppor- 
tmiity to be heard. I know that in the cases that we attempted to help 
actors, actresses, and others had been unable to get work and, according 
to them, had been told quietly, privately, and sometimes bluntly, that 
they just could not get work because of past records; actors and 
actresses who had never had a hearing by a radio company or a tele- 
vision company or a motion-picture industry. I don't regard a man 
as being blacklisted if he has been heard by a radio or television net- 
work, if he has been heard by the motion-picture industry if that is 
his profession. After he has been heard, it seems to mc that an em- 
ployer has a perfect right to decide whether he wants to engage or 
hire the talents of that person, but so long as he has not given him an 
opportunity to be heard on the considerations which impelled him 
against employing the man, then that man, I think, has been black- 

The Chairman. Assuming that that was the sole consideration. 

Mr. Forster. That is what I said, sir, and I would say this, sir: 
To my knowledge there are men on the staffs of the networks and 
on the staffs of radio companies and of the Hollywood motion-picture 
industries whose purpose it is to screen possible talent, to decide 
whether or no these networks and these radio companies want to use 
these people for considerations other than merit. 

The Chairman. I have on my desk a letter from a very prominent 
resident of the city of New York giving me the names of a number 
of persons who have been denied employment because they testified 
before the Committee on Un-American Activities. 

Mr. Forster. That may well be, sir. I am not suggesting that 
after a hearing before this honorable committee a television pro- 
ducer or a motion-picture producer will thereupon decide that he can 


use the talent. I know that men like Fred Woltman, that men like 
George Sokolsky and Victor Kiesel have tried to say, where they have 
been asked, to these entertainment industries, "In our judgment as 
knowledgeable experts we can see no reason why this man's talent 
should not be used if he is qualified to perform theatrically in all 
other respects." 

In this sense, Mr. Chairman, I urge on you that there is a serious 
problem of blacklisting. Frankly, I don't have the answer to it. I 
know this : That with the sense of compassion of the Anti-Defamation 
League, in the Jewish tradition, when a person has a chosen profes- 
sion and cannot get a job in that profession and does not have an 
opportunity to explain what he has done and what he thinks and 
what he believes, this is a dreadful thing, this is a problem that has 
plagued the industry, this is a problem which has plagued knowledge- 
able newspapermen, it is a problem which has plagued the Anti- 
Defamation League. We avouIcI like frankly to see a solution to it. 

If this committee can come to solutions, can come to methods for 
correcting this kind of problem, I think it would be a tremendous 

Let me add this, if I may: If the Fund for the Republic report 
results in this kind of public hearing and results in public discussion 
across this country about the problem to which I have pointed, if it 
does nothing else regardless of its accuracy or inaccuracy on anything 
on its pages, I think it will have performed a great public service — 
wittingly or otherwise, deliberately or otherwise. 

The Chairman. I think you are absolutely correct. I was amused 
when you talked about your letter being published before you knew 
it had been delivered. I just received a letter a moment ago signed 
by Robert M. Hutchins which I understand was published and I have 
just looked at it. In the letter is the very clear innuendo that this 
committee is not going to permit witnesses for the Fund for the Re- 
public to be heard. When we are considering the Fund for the Re- 
public — and we are not now — we are going to permit witnesses to be 
heard, but more than that, I personally assured a director of the Fund 
who came to me from Dr. Hutchins' office that witnesses would be 
permitted to be heard. So what Dr. Hutchins says in this letter is 
simply not true. 

Mr, FoRSTER. I wouldn't know a thing about it, sir. 

The Chairman. Mr. Doyle? 

Mr. Bethuel Webster (counsel, Fund for the Republic). Mr. 

Mr, Doyle. As I understand it 

Mr. Webster. May I interrupt for a moment ? 

The Chairman. No, 

Mr. Webster. I want to ask you 

The Chairman. You are not in order. 

Mr. Webster. I want simply to ask that that letter be put on the 

The Chairman, It is in every record but the record of this com- 
mittee. Everyone I know of has received a copy of it before I was 
given the courtesy of receiAdng it. 

Mr, Doyle. May I ask the witness a couple of questions : 

As I understand, then, the substance of your testimony is that in 
your knowledge — you used those words "your knowledge" — there may 


not be a written list, but a list by practice. There is a practice of black- 
listing ; is that right ? 

Mr. FoRSTER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Doyle. It exists today to your knowledge? 

Mr. FoRSTER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DoTLE. In the industry. 

Mr. FoRSTER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DoYLE. By the industry you refer to the radio 

Mr. FoRSTER. Television and motion-picture industry. 

Mr. Doyle. Do I understand your position to be that substantially 
the extent of your activity in connection with the blacklisting practice 
in industry has been that B'nai B'rith through your offices has en- 
deavored to obtain hearings for artists in the industiy who have to 
your knowledge apparently been blacklisted? 

Mr. Forster. That is right, sir. 

Mr. DoYi>E. So they might obtain hearings within the industry. 

Mr. Forster. That is right, sir. 

]Mr. Doyle. In order that they might make an honest living. 

Mr. Forster. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Doyle. May I ask this question : Have you called Fred Wolt- 
man, Mr. Sokolsky, Mr. O'Neil, and Mr. Wren— have you asked their 
cooperation to obtain that sort of hearing for any of these individuals? 

Mr. Forster. I can't recall at this point any specific instances. It 
may well be where I went to one of them they volunteered to present 
the situation to a network or the motion pictures. 

Mr. Doyle, In other words, you believed you had knowledge at the 
time you called them for advice that they had access to the industry 
in one way or another, which if they used it, might succeed in getting 
these individuals in the industry a hearing within the industry? 

Mr. Forster. I know that their opinions and their judgments are 
highly respected by the industry on this problem and I would assume 
that if they didn't have personally contacts they could simply pick 
up the telephone and identify themselves. 

Mr. Doyle. I understood you to say the policy of B'nai B'rith was 
never to try to rehabilitate a person who came to you for help who 
previously had pleaded the fifth amendment before a congressional 
committee; is that correct? 

Mr. Forster. Yes ; and I would say it comes out this way : We were 
trying essentially to get these people a hearing. If people pleaded the 
fifth amendment obviously in our judgment they were not interested 
in being heard because they didn't want to talk. So in those instances 
we could suggest nothing to them by way of help from us. 

Mr. Doyle. The other point which you mentioned about the policy 
of B'nai B'rith, as I understood it, was that you advised them to come 
to the committee, referring to a congressional committee, this one or 
the corresponding committee in the Senate, and answer all questions 
by the committee without pleading the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Forster. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Doyle. Don't you feel that they are entitled to plead the fifth 
amendment under any circumstances ? 

Mr. Forster. Yes, sir ; they are but we were concerned with getting 
these people a hearing. 

(Representative Kearney entered the hearing room.) 


Mr. Doyle. The reason I asked that question of you, sir, is that 
now and then I have heard the statement made that B'nai B'rith had 
no such policy in connection with advising people to come and not 
plead the fifth amendment. I merely wanted to get directly from you 
what your policy was. 

Mr. FoRSTER. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Mr. Frazier, any questions ? 

Mr. Frazier. No questions, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Mr. Velde ? 

Mr. Velde. I have no questions. I just want to congratulate Mr. 
Forster on his very fine testimony here. I agree that your definition 
of blacklisting is a lot better than the one we heard yesterday from 
Mr. Cogley. 

Mr. Jackson. Mr. Forster, I join with Mr. Velde in extending con- 
gratulations on the work which has been done. I have several questions 
I would like to ask. 

First, if you were going to prepare a study of blacklisting what 
sources would you consider ? Where would you go to obtain informa- 

Mr. Forster. My first and direct and primary source would be the 
industries themselves, sir. 

Mr. Jackson. Would it occur to you, perhaps — and I say this out 
of the experience of having received the great compliment of having 
been sued for $22 million as being a party to a conspiracy blacklist, 
so I think I can speak with some authority on it — would it occur 
to you to check with the Committee on Un-American Activities or 
any other Government agency to determine what facts might be in 
their possession ? 

Mr. Forster. Of course, sir. 

Mr. Jackson. It would seem to me that that would follow. 

I think in this entire matter of blacklisting there should be made 
a distinction. I should like to have your opinion on this. The argu- 
ment appears to break down into two parts: Group No. 1, which is 
private groups or organizations which operate for profit which may 
or may not furnish lists, to be further developed during the course of 
this testimony, to private employers. That is the one group. That 
is the group with which our primary concern should be, rather than 
with the groups or the individuals such as yourself and Mr. Woltman, 
Mr. Sokolsky and a like number of individuals on the west coast whose 
primary demonstrated concern has been to advise former members 
of the Communist Party to come before the Federal Bureau of In- 
vestigation or some congressional committee for the purpose of putting 
the record straight. Am I right in breaking that down into two 
classifications rather than lumping all of you together as one factor 
in this blacklisting ? 

Mr. Forster. Yes, sir. I would not regard newspapermen or the 
Anti -Defamation League in the same capacity or occupation as those 
professionally engaged in this problem who are not in the industry. 

Mr. Jackson. In other words, the individuals who are concerned 
with bringing before the committee such men as Martin Berkeley, 
Edward Dmytryk, Larry Parks, and so forth, are in my opinion doing 
a service to the country and doing a service to the individuals con- 


That brings up a point, Mr. Chairman, to which I think the com- 
mittee should give some consideration : The cases of individuals who 
are unable to obtain employment because of the fact that they have 
been listed in one or another publication as being members of the 
Communist Party or having Communist sympathies, the possibility 
of extending to those individuals an invitation to appear before the 
committee for the purpose of putting the facts on the record under 
oath, as we now extend an invitation to every person mentioned in 
the course of one of our hearings in a derogatory manner to come 
before the committee and place the facts on the record under oath. 

It seems to me that if a person has been maligned, if there is no 
substance to the charges, we might well take the time to hear the 
true facts of the matter and spread them on the record under oath, 
not to the end that we either clear or convict, because we do not have 
that authority, but rather in order that on some official record a 
denial as to certain charges may be entered. 

The Chairman. I would like to remind you that we have re- 
peatedly extended invitations to people who feel that there is some- 
thing of a derogatory nature in the file about them. Not too long ago 
we heard a very famous New York artist in executive session. She 
had been mentioned in connection with some sort of a benefit for 
Ben Davis and it had injured her because he happened to have been 
a Communist. You know the story. That is being done right along. 

Mr. Jackson. It is always being done where it is the outgrowth of 
a committee hearing, but my idea would be, Mr. Chairman, to extend 
that in order to give an opportunity to someone to come in and deny 
or affirm, not to come in and take the fifth amendment. I don't mean 
that. Obviously that would serve no useful purpose. 

One final question, if I may, Mr. Forster. I believe you have an- 
swered this previously, but I would like to have it very definitely in the 
record. Is it your opinion and the opinion of the ADL, that an em- 
ployer should, in any case, be coerced or forced to employ or reemploy 
an individual in the entertainment field who has refused under oath 
to state whether or not he is or was a member of the Communist 

Mr. FoRSTER. I think employers have a perfect right to decide on 
all the facts that they have before them whether or not they want to 
hire someone, and I don't think anyone has a right to say that they 
must or must not do something. 

Mr. Jackson. Thank you very much. 

The Chairman. General Kearney. 

Mr. Kearney. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the thoughts of my col- 
league, Mr. Jackson. As a matter of fact, I remember several occa- 
sions when the committee has written letters concerning the testimony 
of certain individuals, and they came before the committee and told 
their story. I remember a release of the committee several years ago 
asking that sympathetic consideration be given to individuals who 
have appeared before the committee. I think that has been the policy 
of the committee. 

The Chairman. I might say that this year 41 invitations were ex- 
tended to people to appear before this committee whose names had 
been mentioned as being members of a Communist organization. Of 
the 41 it is significant to note that not 1 single person indicated a de- 
sire either to appear or to submit an affidavit. 


Mr. Velde. As a matter of fact, in the history of this committee 
there has been no one who has appeared to deny or ajffirm charges 
made against him. 

The CiiAiRMAN. Mr. Forster, we appreciate your help, and keep to 
this job. We all have to lend whatever talents we have to try to bring 
a solution to it. 

Mr. Forster. Thank you, sir. 

The Chairman. The committee will stand in recess for 5 minutes. 

(Brief recess.) 

(Committee members present at reconvening after recess: Repre- 
sentatives Walter, Doyle, Frazier, Velde, Kearney, Jackson, and 

The Chairman. The committee will be in order. 

Call your witness. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Fred Woltman, please. 

Please remain standing while the chairman administers an oath to 
you, Mr. Woltman. 

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

Mr, Woltman. I do. 


Mr. Arens, Please identify yourself by name, residence, and occu- 

Mr. Woltman. Frederick E. Woltman, W-o-l-t-m-a-n, 72 Barrow 
Street, New York City, I am a staff writer with the New York 
World-Telegram and Sun. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Woltman, give us in just a word, please, sir, a brief 
sketch of your background, your education, and experience, 

Mr, Woltman. I got a bachelor of arts and master of arts at the 
University of Pittsburgh and taught philosophy briefly there and then 
joined the New York Telegram in 1929. I have been with it since. 

Mr. Arens. Have you had a specialty in your work with the New 
York World Telegram ? 

Mr. Woltman. I got involved in writing about communism and 
Communist infiltration. 

Mr. Arens. Have you over the course of many years written a num- 
ber of articles exposing Communist infiltration in certain phases of 
American life ? 

Mr. Woltman, Yes ; several thousand, 

Mr. Arens. Have you received a recognition for that service ? 

Mr. Woltman. I got the Pulitzer prize in 1947 for a series expos- 
ing Communist infiltration. 

Mr. Arens. In what segment of work ? 

Mr, Woltman. For my series of articles in 1946, "Exposing Com- 
munist Infiltration." That is the way it was worded. 

Mr. Arens. Were you at any time in the course of the last few 
years ever interviewed by a representative of the Fund for the Re- 
public ? 

Mr. Woltman. Never. I interviewed them, as a matter of fact, 
last July when I was getting up material for a series of my own on 


so-called blacklisting and spent several hours with Mr. Harrington 
and a number of other people. I took notes. 

ISIr. Arens. JMr. Harrington is a representative of the Fund for the 
Republic ; is that true ? 

Mr. WoLTMAN. Yes. 

Mr. AuENS. Is that Michael Harrington ? 

Mr. WoLTMAN. Yes. 

Mr. Arexs. Tell us, if you please, in a word, the circumstances sur- 
rounding j^our interview of Mr. Harrington. 

Mr. WoLTMAN. I was looking into the field. I had had practically 
no contact with radio or television whatsoever before that. I wrote 
a couple of articles involving people in the industry but I was assigned 
to do a series on the so-called blacklisting problem. I called Fund 
people and thought I might get some leads from them and I went up 
there and talked to tliem. They talked at some length. This was in 
July of last year. One thing that impressed me was that they said 
they had found no case that they themselves would regard as real 
blacklisting up to that time. 

Mr. Arens. What year or month was that ? 

Mr. WoLTMAN". This was about July 1955. My series appeared in 

Mr. Areks. Did they in the course of the interview undertake to 
elicit information from you ? 

Mr. WoLTMAN. No. They talked about the subject, but they at no 
time asked me any questions, and certainly never any questions relat- 
ing to the report and what the report says about the clearance board 
and so on. 

Mr. Arens. Was there developed in the course of the conversation 
that you had with Mr. Harrington and representatives of the Fund, the 
subject matter of clearance? 

Mr. WoLTMAisr. We probably discussed procedures that were fol- 
lowed to assist people in getting jobs back if they had gotten them- 
selves involved with the Communist movement. 

Mr. Arens. "Wlien did you first learn about the report of the Fund 
for the Republic on blacklisting? 

Mr. WoLTMAN. On June 8, Avhich was about 2 weeks before it was 
published or 3 weeks, Jack Wren called me and said, "You are men- 
tioned in the report." He read the quotation which concerned Henry 
Morgan. I was quite surprised and indignant when I heard that. 
The thing I took exception to particularly was the report said : 

Wren helped comedian Henry Morgan out of a jam in 1952. Morgan was 
having trouble .cetting work because of his Red Channels listing and gave a speech 
before a television artists union meeting which helped exonerate him. Wren 
wrote the speech. He also arranged for the World-Telegram and Sun's Fred 
Woltman to write a feature story on the speech commending Morgan for his 

When I heard that I started to burn. 

Mr. Arens. What did you do then, when you heard about that? 

Mr. Woltman. I burned up a while and then I called the Fund for 
the Republic and got Joe Lyford on the phone. He is a press infor- 
mation man. I asked him if he had read the report, if he knew about 
the reference to me. He did not. I read it. I told him I regarded 
that as libelous because an arrangement for a newspaperman to write 
a story implies a certain consideration, if not money at least it implies 


that a deal between the report and the advertising agency executive or 
the publicity man to plant a favorable story. 

I told Lyford that there was about as much of an arrangement in 
this as if Lyford had called me and said the Fund had a feature 
story that I would be intei ested in and told me about it, and I said 
"Sure." That is all that happened in Wien's case. He said, "Morgan 
is going to make a speech and perhaps you are interested in it," and 
I was. 

I wrote not a feature story extolling Morgan, but a straight news 
story about a union meeting in which the headline reads, "Reds Rout 
Henry Morgan for Panning Them." 

Mr. Arens. Is this document a photostatic copy of the article which 
you wrote on this incident? 

Mr. WoLTMAN. Yes. 

Mr. Arens. I suggest to the chairman that this document be marked 
"Woltman Exhibit No. 1" and incorporated by reference in this 

The Chairman. Let it be so incorporated. 

Mr. Arens. Would you proceed to tell of your conversations with 
representatives of the Fund for the Republic after you had had your 
attention directed to your name in the report of the Fund ? 

Mr. Woltman. On this particular thing Lyford was quite upset. 
I told him I thought that Cogley had gone out on a limb and misused 
words and that they probably would want to correct it. He agreed 
with me. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Lyford agreed with you ? 

Mr. Woltman. Sure. He said, "Fred, I am going to get Cogley 
right away and have him talk to you." Lyford called back and said 
"Cogley is out of town but will call you the first of the week because 
we want to correct this.'' That is the last I heard. 

At that time I didn't know I was also one of the clearance men in the 
clearance chapter. If I had known that I probably would have pressed 
the thing a little harder. They let it slide, and Cogley never called 
me. So I am in the position of having an outside arrangement with 
an advertising agency to plant news stories. 

Mr. Arens. Now I invite your attention to page 89 and the suc- 
ceeding 2 or 3 pages of volume II of the report on blacklisting of 
the Fund for the Republic and I ask you, first of all, whether or not 
you ever gave "clearance" to any individual seeking employment in 
the radio or television industry, 

(Representative Kearney left the hearing room.) 

Mr. Woltman. Apart from the reference, the article I gave you 
about Henry Morgan, I have no recollection of being involved with 
anyone in that industry or being consulted by anyone about anyone 
in that industry. It so happens that I hadn't been writing about 
radio and television. I had been w^riting about other subjects. The 
guy who had been writing was Howard Rushmore of the Journal, 
who was completely omitted from the report. He is the one who has 
been exposing Communists in the industry. I was completely out of 
the picture. 

Mr. Arens. As you know from the previous testimony in the course 
of the last day or so here, the public-relations expert who is alluded to 
on page 89 of this volume and to whom considerable quotations are 
attributed on the next page or two has been identified as Mr. Arnold 


Forster, the witness who preceded you in the witness chair. Did you 
ever at any time talk with Mr. Forster about a blacklist of radio or 
TV people? 

Mr. WoLTMAN. I have talked with him about many aspects of com- 
munism and persons involved in the Communist movement. I have 
no recollection whatsoever of having talked with him about any radio 
or TV entertainment, director, producer, and when I spoke with him 
the other day he could recall none. We have talked about many other 
people in other industries, but as I say, I don't know why I was dragged 
in by the heels on this but I was, although the Morgan story is the 
only thing that I can recall. I don't know any people in the industry. 

Mr. Arens. Have you ever met Mr. John Cogley, the director of the 
Fund for the Republic Report on Blacklisting ? 

Mr. WoLTMAN. Yes, I ran into him at a press conference which 
Robert JSI. Hutchins had in New York, at which time I said to 
Hutchins, "Would you approve of one of your projects hiriiig a person 
who is sympathetic to the Communist movement as a researcher, and 
about whom there is some question ?'' 

Mr. Hutchins deliberated at some length and then somehow ducked 
the subject. I forget how he did it. 

Mr. Arens. To whom were you alluding ? 

Mr. WoLTMAN. I was alluding to Elizabeth Poe, I think that is her 
name. Yes. As a matter of fact, I learned this when I was talking 
with the boys from the Harrington staff. They said they had two 
people in Hollywood who were doing this research there and one of 
them was named Jacobs, whom I had heard of incidentally as a pretty 
sound anti-Communist. I know you have made reference to him yester- 
day, but I think he is regarded as probably the one person on the proj- 
ect staff who has knowledgeable information about the Communist 

The Chairman. You think there is one person who knows some- 
thing about it ? 

Mr. WoLTMAN. This guy is regarded as knowledgeable. He was a 
Communist years ago. There may be others, too. 

Mr. Arens. He didn't write the report, though, did he ? 

Mr. WoLTMAN. No. Cogley and Harrington I think know a lot 
about the thing and they are not Communists. I wouldn't call them 
Communists or sympathizers. I think, like Mr. Hutchins, they are 
very mixed up. Elizabeth Poe, on the other hand, wrote this article 
which you presented the other day, the Hollywood Story, in the Fron- 
tier magazine, which is about as loaded with Communist's slants as 
anything I ever read about a so-called blacklist. 

Mr. Arens. That was written before the study began ? 

Mr. Woltman. This was written in May 1954. I was astounded to 
find that they would have a person like this as a reporter. They call 
them reporters. Mr. Harrington said — I am not sure whether her 
name came up but he did say, "No matter who we have as reporters, 
their stuff is very carefully screened by us." At any rate, this story, 
as I say, if any one would look through it he could tell right away that 
the person who wrote it was very sympathetic to the Communist move- 
ment. As a matter of fact, that individual was a member of the Com- 
munist faction of the Newspaper Guild at Time magazine and was for 
some years. 

Mr. Arens. Who was? 


Mr. WoLTMAN. Miss Poe. She was working on Time magazine. 
She was very active in the Communist group. There was a split in 
most of the guild units and she was very active in that. After the 
Hutchins press interview broke up, I was nailed by Mr. Cogley, who 
introduced himself, and was very much excited. He said, "You are 
all wrong on the name. She just got married, so she is using one name 
at one time and another name at another time." I said, "O. K., I am 
wrong about that, but what about your Communist sympathies?" 

His explanation was, "We have a good anti-Communist to handle 
that end of it, Mr. Jacobs, but we have to have somebody who is sym- 
pathetic to the Communists, who is friendly with them, or whom 
would we have to interview people like Gale Sondergaard?" 

That rather bowled me over because I had never heard of that theory 
of investigation. At any rate, that is what he said, that she had access 
to the Communists out there and there were quite a few that of course 
the Fund had to interview. 

I think that that is the basis for some of the faults in the report. 
It is just not the way a newspaper would operate or any other investi- 
gating agency would operate. 

Mr. Arens. I understood you to say a few moments ago that over 
the course of a considerable period of time you made a study of this 
question of so-called blacklisting in the entertainment industry. 

Mr. WoLTMAN. I did in the last year; yes. 

Mr. Arens. Do you have with you copies of any of the articles you 
wrote ? 

(Representative Kearney entered the hearing room.) 

Mr. WoLTMAN. Yes. 

Mr. Arens. I respectfully suggest, Mr. Chairman, that these news 
articles which appeared in the New York World-Telegram and Sun, 
marked "Woltman Exhibit No. 2," be incorporated by reference in 
this record. 

The Chairman. I think we ought to go further than that. They 
are so well written that I think they ought to be made a part of the 
record and not incorporated merely by reference, but printed as a 
part of the record of the hearing. 

(The material referred to marked "Woltman Exhibit No. 2" 

Woltman Exhibit No. 2 

[From the New York World-Telegram and Sun, August 9, 1955] 

Is There a TV Blacklist? Networks Try To Keep "Pink" Files Fair 

(By Frederick Woltman, staff writer) 

The House Un-American Activities Committee opens public hearings here next 
Monday on Communist infiltration of television and the stage. Evidence will 
be introduced that artists, whose names are still featured on the air and stage, 
have been secret members of the Communist Party. 

Left unsolved will be a broader issue, one that has been TV's major headache 
since it emerged into a national industry 7 years ago — ^blacklisting. 


Does TV maintain a blacklist of suspect actors, writers, and directors that 
bars them from employment in the industry? Are innocent artists victimized 
out of jobs and so terrorized by "secret police" that they're even afraid to speak 
up at union meetings? 


This newspaper has exploi-ed the blacklisting charges and arrived at these 
conclusions : 

TV has no formal, widespread, or airtight blacklist for Communist activity, 
much les.s for political opinion. 

The Communists in the 30's and 40's heavily infiltrated entertainment. 
There was always a small, hard core of Communists. In addition, a sizable 
segment of show people (estimated as high as 30 percent) had wittingly or 
innocently been drawn into the Communist conspiracy by lending their names to 
Communist fronts. 

The TV networks and advertising agencies do keep separate, individual infor- 
mation files on past Red-front records of prospective artists ; and have special 
departments to handle them. Some files are hit or miss; others carefully 
systematized. There is virtually no collaboration among networks and agenries^ 

This system has serious weaknesses. No uniform standards exist for deciding 
whether an artist might be a "controversial risk." And the artists themselves 
might never know of derogatory data they could refute or explain. 

The TV industry generally tries hard to be fair. Networks and agencies spend 
considerable time and effort helping people clear their records and making their 
disavowal of past Red connections effective. 

At the same time, a few sponsors maintain a hard-and-fast rule against hiring 
anyone for their TV shows with any kind of a record, no matter how flimsy or 


TV is especially sensitive to public opinion and pressures. It scrupulously 
avoids giving affront to racial or religious minorities over the air. The industry 
also wants no truck with anyone who had significant Communist connections in. 
the past and has taken no steps to clear himself. 

One artist who had a direct, personal encounter with so-called blacklisting — 
and is willing to talk about it publicly — is Hume Cronyn, versatile actor-director- 
producer of Broadway and Hollywood and husband of Jessica Tandy. 

He calls it "a profoundly shocking experience." 

It was by accident Mr. Cronyn discovered he was not "clearable" as a TV actor 
by a number of agencies. Then he recalled several offers of TV shows which 
suddenly, he said, "went dead on me with no explanation." Not that it mattered 
much, for he was too busy otherwise to have accepted. 


"But it was a revelation that my political credo had been challenged," he told 
this writer. 

Mr. Cronyn made the rounds of top executives of the networks and agencies. 
One network official came up with eight items in the network's dossier on him. 
Three purported to link him with three obvious fronts : The Hollywood Committee 
of the Arts, Sciences, and Professions, a "Thought Control Conference" in 1947, 
and an organized protest against any investigation of Communist influence in 

"I got into a terrible sweat," the actor says. "Then I went to work." He 
hoofed it to the public library and other sources, dug out the outfits' literature, 
made photostats and was able to disprove the alleged connections. 

He prepared an elaborate brief refuting the network's file. This included 
contributions to such anti-Red groups as the International Rescue Committee, 
which helps escapees from the Iron Curtain. A Canadian, he showed he'd tried 
twice, without success, to enlist in Canada's Air Force. 


"This was in 1939 and 1940," he says, "during the Hitler-Stalin pact, when no 
Communist sympathizer would be caught dead volunteering for service." 

Most of the TV executives, says Mr. Cronyn, "bent over backward to help me."^ 

This cleared him with most of the industry and some of the doubting agencies 
have since come through with offers. At the san^e time, Mr. Cronyn has been, 
tipped off several sponsors still would automatically keep him out of their TV 

(Tomorrow — How a housewife, shopping in a supermarket, set off the spark. 
that exploded into one of TV's biggest headaches — blacklistins.) 


[From the New York World-Telegram and Sun, August 10, 1955] 
TV Blacklisting? GI's Mom Began Video Red Hunt 

(By Frederick Woltman, staff writer) 

A housewife, shopping in a supermarket, set off the spark which eventually 
exploded into television's big headache — blacklisting. 

The congressional hearings into Communist infiltration of TV, which begin 
here next Monday, can be expected to reopen the blacklisting controversy. A 
string of TV artists a re to be identified as secret Communists. But even though 
names will come out in the open, the headache itself will continue. 

It started after the Korean war was underway. A housewife with a gleam 
in her eye stalked up to a national brand of cigarettes. She swept the packages 
from the shelf and stomped on them. 

"My boy's fighting Communists in Korea," she shouted, "and you're putting 
Reds on television." 


The commotion she aroused started a chain reaction and had far-reaching 
effects on the booming TV industry. 

In the lush days (before TV and the cold war), life in show business was rela- 
tively simple. All a producer had to do was find a smash hit, round up box- 
office stars, and keep the audience entertained. 

But, by 1950, the chips were down because of Korea. The CIO had scuttled 
its Red-dominated unions. The Communist Control Act was on the books. 
Public opinion had hardened on public figures with records of past Commu- 
nist associations. 

The entire TV industry — networks, sponsors and their advertising agencies — 
found itself smack in the middle of a bang-uD hassle over communism. 


Both radio and the movies had gone through the mill. TV, however, was 
especially vulnerable. For TV brought the artist directly into the home. More 
letters came from a single TV show in a week than a radio show in 6 months. 

Letters of protest against allegedly Red actors began to pour into the home 
offices of TV sponsors. The familiar ultimatum was "Your product will never 
be seen in my home again." 

Proctor & Gamble, one of the earliest advertisers hit, even found it necessary 
to mimeograph replies to a flood of complaints to its top executives. Retail out- 
lets were picketed and products boycotted. 

The industry's first reaction was panic. One network estimates it spent several 
hundred thousand dollars to get off the hook. General Foods canceled an entire 
Henry Aldrich broadcast over an incident involving Actress Jean Muir and took 
up the actress' 13-month contract, all at a reported loss of $65,000. 

The competitive firms were hardest hit. Among them were Borden, Kraft, 
Du Pont, and the large soap and cigarette manufacturers. 

The heat was even on the institutional advertisers, like U. S. Steel and Alcoa, 
who sold no products to the public direct but were spending millions to win 
friends and influence people. 


With TV expanding enormously until today there are 34.5 million sets, NBC, 
CBS, and ABC saw trouble ahead. The mounting pressure on the advertisers 
got to be an acute problem to Batten. Barton, Durstine & Osborn, J. Walter 
Thompson, Young & Rubicam, and the scores of lesser advertising agencies that 
put on TV shows for the sponsors. 

The industry found itself hamstrung. 

Its lawyers ruled positively against any cooperative, industrywide approach. 
Hollywood already had spent an estimated $3 million on its own Communist 
headache. On top of that, the movie companies were socked with $63 million 
in damage suits brought by discharged fifth-amendment witnesses who charged 

The question basically was : How to determine which artists have Communist 
records which could be offensive to the vast TV audience; and how to protect 
the innocent. TV had no agency to turn to — Government or otherwise. 


As one sponsor put it : "We're in the milk business. We don't know beans about 
show business and less about subversion. We're not competent to handle this. 
And when we try to, we get smacked by both sides. 

"We have our stockholders to think of, as well as our customers. As a cor- 
poration we can't afford to antagonize either. We can't even afford to come 
out with a clear-cut public policy." 


The networks, sponsors, and agencies went about handling the problem in their 
separate ways, often hit and miss, always without coordination. 

TV unmistakably was in the business of policing the air for subversion, an 
undertaking that needs the resources of the FBI. However you look at it, TV 
had itself a grand headache it was ill equipped to cure. 

( Tomorrow : How a Syracuse supermarket owner started the pressure-group 
harassment of TV officials.) 

[From the New York World-Telegram and Sun, August 11, 1955] 

Video Blacklisting? Businessman Saw Red Over TV 

(By Frederick Woltman, staff writer) 

A Syracuse supermarket operator, more than any other single person, brought 
on television's blacklisting headache — a condition that has plagued the industry 
for 5 years. 

He was behind the relentless pressure groups that turned the fieriest heat on 
the industry for allegedly bringing Commimist-tainted performers into the living 
rooms of the Nation's TV viewers. 

There's scarcely a TV network, sponsor, or advertising agency that hasn't had 
firsthand contact with Lawrence A. Johnson, president of the Johnson Super- 
markets in Syracuse. 

The public hearings on Red penetration of TV which the House Un-American 
Activities Committee starts here next Monday, can be expected to aggravate the 
headache. There's little the committee can do to alleviate it, for the problem is 
the video industry's own baby. 

spent $50,000 

Syracuse's Mr. Johnson, it has been estimated spent upward of $50,000 on his 

He functions through the Veterans' Action Committee of Syracuse Super- 
markets, working closely with the Onondaga County American Legion. 

TV got enormous pressure elsewhere, too, from the Catholic War Veterans, 
Veterans of Foreign Wars, and the American Legion — which kept its State 
departments and 17,000 posts alerted via a newsletter, the Firing Line, and the 
American Legion Monthly. 

Mr. Johnson, however, had the strongest weapon of all — supermarkets, Amer- 
ica's leading retail outlets today. He maintained close liaison with markets all 
over the country. And many supermarket operators simply refused to push 
TV-advertised products under fire. 


TV executives were flooded with individual letters, mimeographed briefs, 
pamphlets, and photostats from Syracuse aimed at specific artists. Thus, in 
March 1952, American Tobacco's directors were notified : 

"Gentlemen : What happens to a GI who lets a Communist through his lines? 
What happens to an American businessman who employs Commie fronters? Did 
your executive officers tell you that on * * * you people gave employment to the 
Communist fronter, * * *, writer of the script of your show, and Commimist 
fronter, * * *, producer of the show, * * *?" 

Communications like this packed a wallop and put the advertising aicencies 
in a tough spot. 

One milk firm executive wrote Mr. Johnson : 

"Dear T>arrt: I want to tell you how grateful I am for the time and help 
you gave me. * * * It is no exaggeration to say that my eyes have been 
opened * * *." 


A soap firm oflBcial wrote him : "If you have auy further suggestions to make 
about our radio and TV talent, I'd consider it a personal favor to hear from 
you directly." 

The pressure technique generally vpas the same : listing talent with past Red- 
front connections, based mostly on Government citations, such as participation 
in the Communists' May Day parades, sponsorship of the National Council of 
American Soviet Friendship, and endorsement of the Soviet purge trials. 

Often, however, the citations were considerably more nebulous and of doubtful 
value in proving Red sympathies. 

CBS circulated a loyalty questionnaire, similar to the standard U. S. civil- 
service form, among prospective TV employees. It set up its own machinery, 
under a vice president, for evaluating the records and retained a former FBI 
agent as adviser. Artists often were given a chance to tell their side of the story. 

The advertising agencies began to build up files of their own, so they could 
know what to expect in hiring TV talent. 

Each worked out its own standards of evaluation. There were loopholes, 
but there was a widespread attempt to be fair. Nevertheless, the rumors spread 
of a TV industry blacklist for political opinion. 

The latest pressure organization to emerge, 18 months ago, is AWARE, Inc. 
Its stated purpose is to "combat communism in entertainment." Its president, 
Godfrey P. Schmidt, is an attorney and associate professor of constitutional law 
at Fordham. AWARE has been accused of blacklisting "by interference and 

Actually, AWARE is a minor pressure factor in TV, more of an educational 
or propaganda outfit that holds cocktail parties against communism, brings in 
lecturei's, reports on "Red trends" to its members and instructs them on how to 
write letters to the newspapers. 

AWARE did manage to alienate many members of the anti-Communist Ameri- 
can Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFL). A recent union referen- 
dum condemned its tactics by a vote of 982 to 514. Actors' Equity and Chorus 
Equity Council adopted similar resolutions. 

The principal target of AWARE's critics is Vincent W. Hartnett, technical 
adviser and member of the board of directors. Mr. Hartnett calls himself "the 
Nation's top authority on communism and communications." 

In 1951 he got out what he called "Confidential Notebook No. 13,'' which listed 
Maxwell Anderson, Gertrude Berg, and Eddie Cantor as Communist fellow 

As a private business on the side, Mr. Hartnett advises sponsors, agencies, 
and, occasionally, networks on Red affiliations of anyone connected with TV. 
He charges $5 for an initial report on an actor, $2 for a followup, and $20 for 
complete dossier. 

Mr. Hartnett insists his reports are documented. He denies the charge that he 
can veto names on the hiring lists of TV sponsors simply by striking them out. 

"I am a talent consultant working on a fee basis," he says, "the same as Dun & 
Bradstreet. If I find derogatory information, I send it to the sponsor and he 
decides. Some are tight, some very lenient. 

"Only if a sponsor requests it do I give my own evaluation." 

AWARE officials maintain that Mr. Hartnett divorces his work with AWARE 
from his talent consultant business. 

(Tomorrow : Confusion and rancor surround even the mention of a TV black- 

[From the New York World-Telegram and Sun, August 12, 1955] 

TV Blacklisting? House Probers Can't Sol^'e Red Riddle in Video 

By Frederick Woltman, staff writer 

The blacklisting controversy, television's big headache, is overridden with 
confusion. The word blacklist itself is a loaded expression, one that only adds 
chaos to an already mixed-up state of affairs. 

On Monday, the House Un-American Activities Committee will begin to unveil 
concealed Communists on TV and the stage at public hearings here. Worth- 
while as that may be, it can do little to resolve the blacklisting dispute in the 


Historically, blacklisting meant firing for imion activity. By that definition, 
blacklisting is outlawed by statute and largely abandoned by industry. There 
is no evidence of this sort of blacklisting in TV. 

Many of those who raise the cry of blacklisting in TV^ — including the Com- 
munists themselves — give it this definition : "A viciously un-American practice 
of keeping people out of TV for political opinions." There's no evidence of this 


Their opponents call the word blacklist a subterfuge. What's really objected 
to, they say, is "public comment on persons with significant and unrepudiated 
records of aid to the Communist-front apparatus." 

"Unfortunately," one leader in the industry said, "most Communists don't wear 
the brand. That's been our worst headache." 

As a result, in the same network, performers were hired for one show, kept 
off another. Some sponsors knocked out every suspect at first ; others followed 
more realistic standards for appraising "controversial risks," even setting dead- 
lines before which Red-front connections were discounted. 

Still others, at the start, ignored any records except actual party membership 
which was rare indeed. 


The industi-y's early jitters were borne out by a consumers' poll taken by the 
Ford Foundation's Fund for the Republic. 

Asked if they'd fire a Communist radio singer, 63 percent of the public re- 
plied, "Yes." 

Asked if they'd boycott a brand of soap advertised by a Communist singer, 
36 answered in the affirmative— a large enough percentage to scuttle any product. 

For a period in the 1930's and early 1940's vocal anti-Reds were discriminated 
against in radio. There was no organized, set policy; but rather a patronage 
system by which Red-inclined directors or just plain innocents threw jobs toward 
artists who hadn't spoken up against communism. 


Tlie business of hiring artists for TV or radio is full of imponderables. Actors 
are blacklisted every day for varieties of reasons. 

"He's not just right for the part" is one. His hair parts wrong for the TV 
screen. The leading lady's too argumentative. One TV director has a reputation 
for favoring girls amenable to his advances. 

"My agent told me I'm on the blacklist" may be the talent agent's excuse for 
failing to get his client a job. 

An official of the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFL) 
summed up the blacklist controversy this way : 

"No one can say why a director hires actor A and not B. You just can't prove 
those things. The agencies and advertisers have a great deal of sympathy for 
people who lose jobs for insignificant acts. 

"Yet, they're all in cutthroat competition. The field is overcrowded and 
highly competitive. Actors are scrambling for parts. The unemployability of 
actors was never so bad as it is today in TV. That's the basis of the trouble." 


Another source of confusion is the failure — by the small core of Communists 
as well as a section of non-Communist artists — to distinguish between political 
opinion and Communist activities. 

The Nation today holds communism to be a conspiracy, not a political party. 
TV, it would seem, need be under no moral obligation to employ and put before 
the public any artists who once aided the conspiracy and have made no efforts 
to clear their records. 

The test must be the evidence on each individual : Is it flimsy or does it stand 

I up ; is it applied fairly or without caution by the networks and agencies that 
pass on employability ? 
82833— 56— pt. 1 6 



One argument has been raised : TV is saddled with security requirements 
intended f(jr sensitive Government jobs. 

One answer is that communications are sensitive, too; and people proved 
vulnerable to Communist propaganda in the past should not be put in key spots 
of casting director, program manager, script writer, or star. 

The small core of Red artists and their sympathizers in AFTRA help keep 
the blacklist issue alive. If they faded from the union scene, the reaction against 
them would soon die. 


At the same time, the anti-Red pressure groups are confronted with the law 
of diminishing returns. As they succeed, they drive themselves out of business. 
The question remains : Will they stretch a point here and there in order to keep 

TV's big headache has abated considerably, the industry seems to feel, with 
the retreat of Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, of Wisconsin, from the 
public scene. For this the industry is not unhappy. 

"We've always abominated this situation," one TV agency head told this 
newspaper. "It was a nasty business, cloak-and-dagger stuff. Look how hard 
it is for the Government, with all its resources, to convict a Communist." 

Mr, Arens. Would you kindly give us, Mr. Woltman, your defini- 
tion or concept of what blacklisting is ? 

Mr. Woltman. When I use the word I always say "so-called black- 
listing." I don't know what the definition is. I heard Cogley's defi- 
nition and I heard Mr. Forster's. They are diametrically opposed 
to each other. According to Forster's definition I have a terrific black- 
listing file. The ADL has a terrific blacklisting file. They have one 
of the best there is. That is a very efficient organization. It deals 
with Communists. It deals with Fascists particularly, anti-Semites. 
I am sure that that is the sort of thing that Cogley would regard 
as a blacklist according to his definition. I would accept Mr, For- 
ster's, of course, which I have. I don't have to repeat it. That is 
as near as you can come to it. The trouble is when you use the word 
you confuse everybody. I think the fraudulent nature of this report, 
the thing that you must object to, is that they use the word "black- 
listing," Cogley says there is no other word in the English language. 
Of course there is. They can call it "discrimination in employment 
practices." They don't want to do it that way because if they do they 
can't toss everything into the barrel as they have. Cogley yesterday 
said blacklisting includes everything, including the failure of or re- 
fusal of a bank to rehire a gambler. He also says that we are not 
casting any aspersions or reaching any conclusions or taking any posi- 
tions in this matter of blacklisting. Anybody who reads this book 
and thinks that the situation is nice is just out of his mind. The 
whole purport of the book of course is that blacklisting is universal 
and that it is a lousy setup. He includes the refusal of a producer 
to hire a member of the Communist conspiracy. 

Mr, Arens. By your concept of this discrimination in employment 
practice, as your prefer to call it, is it reprehensible and unjustified 
in your judgment for an employer in the entertainment industry to 
refuse to hire a person who has been identified before a congressional 
committee by responsible witnesses aS a member of the Communist 
conspiracy ? 

Mr. Woltman. No, except that that is an easy way out. That is not 
the problem, 

Mr. Arens. Wlien you say no, you mean no, it is not unjustified ? 


Mr. WoLTMAN. No, of course not. 

Mr. Arens. You think it is justified 

Mr. WoLTMAN. Certainly. 

Mr. Arens. For an employer not to employ a person who has been 
identified as a member of the Communist conspiracy who seeks an op- 
portunity to work in the entertainment media ? 

Mr. WoLTMAN. Yes. I disagree with Mr. Hutchins. I think this 
is the key to the whole business, that Hutchins' theory of life is that 
Communists deserve the same kind of consideration as anybody else, 
because, after all, they are just members of a political party. That 
is his philosophy. 

The Chairman. Their report practically says that. 

Mr. Arens. Do you believe it is political discrimination for em- 
ployers to take the list of names of people who have been identified 
as members of the Communist conspiracy before the House Committee 
on Un-American Activities and refuse to employ in the entertainment 
industiy those people who have been so identified ? 

Do you think that is political discrimination ? 

Mr. WoLTMAN. Of course not. I go along with Mr. Forster on that. 
I think Mr. Forster confused the issue a little bit because to do that 
you have to have records. You have to have records to do it properly. 
Those records might very well be termed "a blacklist" by Cogley. As 
a matter of fact, they are. That is the blacklist he is talking about. 
The records in my files, in Forster's files, in Sokolsky's files, and your 
files, and everybody else's. 

Mr. Arens. Do you think it is political discrimination for an em- 
ployer to refuse to engage in the entertainment industry a person who 
has a long record of sympathy and pro-Communist activity in Com- 
munist fronts ? 

Mr. WoLTMAN. I say it is up to the employer to decide, but I also 
say there is a responsibility on the part of the employer to weigh the 
situation and to go into it. For instance, there are some firms in New 
York which have had the policy of eliminating anybody who was on a 
certain list which was supplied to them without any check, I think 
that is very reprehensible. On the other hand, the clearance board 
which they are talking about — Jack Wren, of B. B. D. & O., spends a 
great deal of his time trying to evaluate charges which are made, accu- 
sations which are brought up, and spends as much time clearing, if you 
want to call it that, as he does establishing the fact that these indi- 
viduals were Communists. 

Mr. Arens. This word "clearance" means, does it not, rehabili- 
tation ? 

Mr. WoLTMAN. Yes. 

Mr. Arens. Are Mr. Wren, Mr. Sokolsky, Mr. Riesel, and yourself 
engaged primarily in processes of rehabilitation of people who have 
broken with the conspiracy and are now seeking the good graces of the 
entertainment industry ? 

Mr. WoLTMAN. I think they are, but I want to point out that I have 
been eliminated from their standing. Mr. Forster says that I am 
separate, that I haven't really been in the clearance business. Mr. 
Cogley said yesterday that I am not of the status of Mr. Sokolsky. 
Actually the thing that burns me up about this report is taat tliey 
dragged me in by the heels. I have had nothing to do with this sort of 
thing. I think this chapter, without any question, reflects seriously on 


the persons who are named in there, and I am sorry that the Anti- 
Defamation League did not see fit to disavow the conchisions which 
Cogley drew fiom the quotes that were attributed to the unnanned pub- 
lic-relations expert a few paragraphs later. I think they could have 
disavowed that, because I think, personally, tliat Cogley misused the 
Anti-Defamation League and misused Forster, and he certainly mis- 
used the letter that Mr. Forster sent to me. They probably gave him 
a peg to hang liis hat on, and he ducked right out of the whole thing. 
Mr. Arens. You have the reputation for being an authority in the 
field of anti-Communist activity and, as the record shows, have been 
the recipient of outstanding honors because of your contributions in 
this field. Therefore, I should like to read you a paragraph of the con- 
clusion wdiich appears in volume II of the report of the Fund for the 
Republic on so-called blacklisting and ask you whether or not this is 
a fair and truthful and accurate representation of the facts. From 
page 91 of volume II : 

Without access to the chief "clearance men" (who are often the same persons 
who make the damning indictment), the blaclclisted artist can get nowhere. 
These particular men are all-important. They have the power to wound and the 
power to heal the wound. They can hold off right-wing criticism, which in turn 
cuts off pressure on sponsors — 

and so forth. 

Is that a fair and truthful and accurate representation of the facts? 

Mr. WoLTMAN. No, of course not. Certainly not with respect to 
me and so far as Sokolsky and the others are concerned, not with 
respect to them at all. 

As I say, the reference to those people was intended in this report 
to smash them. It was based entirely upon the quotes of an anony- 
mous person. We pressed Hutchins for over a week to disclose the 
name of that person. I am very sorry to see the committee here go 
out on a limb, as I think it did, in not going further into the question 
of whether Mr. Cogley sliould be relieved of the responsibility of dis- 
closing his source. He based his refusal to identify this person on 
journalistic tradition. Actually any newspaper that proceeded the 
way Cogley did would be subject to grave criticism. Any newspaper 
that gets an anonymous tip, an anonymous letter, proceeds to investi- 
gate and once in a while they find they get an expose out of it, but 
they don't sit back and say, "This is an anonymous letter and we have 
to depend on it." They get collateral proof. Any newspaper that 
has a confidential source of information gets collateral proof to con- 
front the person accused and also goes to tlie person accused to ask for 
their version of it. This was a completely phony appeal that Cogley 
made to this committee to excuse him for releasing the only proof he 
had whatsoever of this. He finally did it because he had a letter to 
do it on, but I think that you cannot compare that situation with that 
of a newspaper which published a confidential source but also makes 
further checks. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Chairman, we have covered with this witness all 
of the points on which we wanted to interrogate him. He has, I am 
sure, considerable other information on the general subject matter, 
much of which is included in the articles, and perhaps the committee 
itself might have some questions. 

That will conclude the staff interrogation of this witness. 


The Chairman. Any questions at this time? 

]Mr. Doyle. I made notes, Mr. Woltman, just a moment ago. You 
said "Records in my files, Sokolsky's file, and Jack Wren's file." Do 
I understand that you have a file of names of people whom you believe 
were Communists or are Communists? 

Mr. WoLTMAN. Yes. 

Mr. Doyle. You refer to the record in the file ? 

Mr. WoLTMAx. Since 1937 or 1938 I have been writing about the 
Communist movement and particularly about Communist fronts and 
people who get involved. Naturally I keep a file on that. That is 
very important. I wouldn't be writing if I didn't, which I think is a 
very laudable thing to do. If I wrote without having a file I would 
be writing off the top of my hea.d. 

My files include many of your products, too. 

Mr. Doyle. Of course. I wanted to get it clearly in my own mind. 
Mr. Forster testified, as I wrote it down and I think it is the exact 
language, "I solicited Woltman's advice and did not ask him for 
help. He offered none." 

Did you hear him testify to that? 

Mr. WoLT3iAN. Yes. 

Mr. Doyle. Then you said just a minute ago, "We discussed pro- 
cedures to get people back into the industry." 

Mr. Woltman. No, I discussed with Harrington and some mem- 
bers of the Fund staff what was happening in the industry in that re- 
spect. I have never discussed with Forster the question of any indi- 
vidual in radio or television who wanted to get back in the industry 
that I can recall. He agrees with me on that. 

Mr. DoYi^E. I may have misunderstood. 

Mr. WoLTMxVN. This was all very informal. He called me. We 
tried to check on people. 

Mr. Doyle. But you did discuss with Harrington the matter of get- 
ting people back into the industry ? 

Mr. Woltman. The overall problem of people who were Commu- 
nists and who were involved in the Communist movement and then 
wanted to be rehabilitated. We discussed that at some length, but 
there was no discussion of any clearance ring or anything of the sort. 

Mr. DoYT.E. No; but it was a matter of rehabilitation and getting 
them back into the industry whether you call it clearance or what you 
call it, isn't that true ? 

Mr. Woltman. Certainly. I would like to see that. Anybody 
who breaks with the Communists ought to get a job, I think. 

The Chairman. We recognize that, I think, in the writing of the 
new Immigration and Nationality Code. Under the old law if a 
person was a Communist he was deported. Under the provisions of 
the "iniquitous" Walter-McCarran Act if, for 5 years he has opposed 
communism, that period of redemption is considered and his deporta- 
tion stayed. The same thing is true with respect to the admissibility. 
Under the old law if a person was a Communist at any time at all he 
was inadmissible, but under the provisions of the present law if for 
5 years he has opposed communism openly in his own country, then 
he automatically becomes admissible. So it seems to me that there 
ought to be a way to take into consideration a period of redemption. 
I think that is basic in our Anglo-Saxon concept. Don't you think 
that that could be worked out somehow ? 


Mr, WoLTMAN, Certainly it should and I think it can. 

The Chairman. Not by invoking the fifth amendment or refusing 
to testify but if a person comes forward and says "Yes." But then 
we see a strange thing happen. We had Professor Fuchs, of Ameri- 
can University, testify here, and, despite positive assurances by the 
president — the chairman of the board of that university — that the man 
would not be hurt if he cooperated with this committee, he lost his 
job and has not been reemployed and unfortunately he is on some sort 
of a blacklist because he can't get a job as a college professor. That 
man is being penalized because he aided his Government in this cold 

Mr. WoLTMAN. May I follow up with a thought. As a result of 
this report I am sure the guys who are mentioned in there are going 
to spend less time helping to rehabilitate people — I am talking about 
Sokolsky and Wren and Riesel and the others — because they were put 
in a reprehensible light for something which a person like Hutchins 
should applaud. If it has any effect at all, I am sure it will be to taper 
off their interest in this sort of business. 

The Chairman. I couldn't agree with you more, Mr. Woltman. 

Mr. ScHERER. Mr. Chairman, on many occasions the chairman has 
written letters to business firms saying that we feel no recrimination 
should be had against a person who cooperates with this committee 
and who has broken with the Communist Party. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions ? 

Mr. Frazier. No questions. 

Mr. Velde. Mr. Woltman, I may have misunderstood you when 
counsel asked about your opinion as to whether George Sokolsky and 
Mr. Wren and others were primarily engaged in rehabilitating co- 
operative witnesses before this committee. I think you answered that 
they were. 

Mr. Woltman. Of course, absolutely. There is no question about 
that. The report studiously avoids using an expression like that. 
"Eehabilitate" sounds a little bit nicer than "clearance." 

Mr. Velde. Do you say they are primarily engaged in that ? 

Mr. Woltman. Oh, no. I am sorry. 

Mr. Velde. I don't know much about the newspaper business 

Mr. Woltman. With respect to the incidents that are alluded to 
here their object is to rehabilitate people, I think. This is not part 
of their business or anything like that. Maybe they are sentimental. 
Maybe they feel sorry for them. I don't know. 

Mr. Velde. Won't you agree with me that their prime objective is 
to bring the facts concerning communism and other subversive in- 
formation to the attention of tlie public, just as you have so ably 

Mr. Woltman. Yes ; but also when cases of this sort come up I spend 
an awful lot of time answering phone calls. "Is Mrs. Roosevelt a 
Communist?" Then I have to go to a lot of trouble and explain. 
We get a lot of crackpot calls, and I try to straighten people out so 
they don't go off on a limb. My paper has given me a standing order 
if anybody calls to find out if an organization is Commmiist I should 
tell them if I think it is and if we are going to print it, and if it is 
not I should tell them and establish that, too. That is clearance, but 
this is just a sideline for all of us. 


Mr. Velde. I am very happy to get that point straightened out in 
my mind. I congratulate you and all the other newspapermen and 
columnists who have done a noteworthy job of fighting communism 
in this country. 

The Chairman. Mr. Jackson? 

Mr. Jackson. Mr. Woltman, in connection with your professional 
files which you have acquired over this long period of time, have you 
ever utilized the information in those files to the extent of calling a 
poducer and saying, "You should not hire this individual"? 

Mr. Woltman. No. I think my file on radio and television is about 
that thick, and I have about 10 or 15 drawers. 

Mr. Arens. When you say "about that thick," does that indicate a 
half-inch or so. 

Mr. Woltman. Yes. 

Of course not, never. I have warned people. I wrote a letter to 
Raymond Massey and asked if he know what the Council for Ameri- 
can-Soviet Friendship was doing, of which he was sponsor along 
with a lot of other prominent people, and he immediately resigned. 

Mr. Jackson. That is a matter of calling the individual concerned as 
distinguished from calling an employer. 

Mr. Woltman. Certainly. I wouldn't do anything like that. 

Mr. Jackson. I am a little concerned about your statement that 
this report is apt to have an adverse effect upon those who have been 
making a substantial effort to rehabilitate former members of the 
Communist Party. I certainly hope that that will not come to pass. 
This committee is under a great debt of gratitude, and I think the 
country is, Mr. Chairman, for the work that has been done by a 
great many individuals in trying to get former Communists to come 
forward and testify. I think some of the finest testimony we ever 
had was the day we had Dmytryk before us, a man who went to 
jail for contempt of Congress and broke with the party. Due largely 
to impetus that was given by interested individuals in the moving- 
picture industry, he came forward to testify. There are many of 
them — Dick Collins, Martin Berkeley — people whose testimony would 
never have been received by the Government had it not been for 
interested people in their own profession. It would be a very serious 
matter from the standpoint of investigation, from the standpoint of 
development of information on the Communist Party, if those who 
have been active in trying to develop testimony from former Com- 
munists were in any way swayed by the contents of this report on 

I think a great service has been rendered and I want to add my 
personal word of congratulations to you on the work that you have 
done in this connection. 

Mr. Woltman. May I say something here. I know it is a fact that 
this report has put advertising agencies on the spot, where they are 
going to be much more careful in handling individuals who are 
accused of being Communists, because they were made the goats 
in this report. I think most of them have been trying very seriously 
to be just and fair about it. They made a lot of mistakes at the start, 
there is no question about that, but this report has put them on a 
spot for doing something that they ought to do. 

The Chairman. As further evidence of that I was informed today 
that the requests of the committee for information concerning per- 


formers had increased about 25 percent over last month. That is an 
unusual thing at this time of the year. Some of the people who have 
studied the sources of these requests attribute it entirely to this report. 

Any further questions ? 

Mr. Woltman, I want to take this opportunity to tell you publicly 
that you have made a great contribution in this fight for freedom 
and liberty. I hope that you will continue to bring to the attention 
of the American people things that people think cannot happen here, 
but are happening every day. 

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

(Whereupon, at 12 : 20 p. m., Wednesday, July 11, 1956, the com- 
mittee was recessed, to reconvene at 2 p. m. the same dav. ) 


(Committee members present upon reconvening after the noon 
recess: Representatives Walter, Doyle, Willis, Jackson, and Scherer.) 
The Chairman. The committee will be in order. 
Call your witness, Mr. Arens. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. James O'Neil, will you please come forward ? 
The Chairman. Do you swear that the testimony you are about to 

five will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so 
elp you God ? 
Mr. O'Neil. I do. 


Mr. Aren8. Kindly identify yourself by name, residence, and oc- 

Mr. O'Neil. My name is James F. O'Neil, O'N-e-i-1. I live in 
Forest Hills, N. Y. I am the publisher of the American Legion 

Mr. Akens. How long have you been so engaged ? 

Mr. O'Neil. Since July 1, 1950. 

Mr. Arens. Tell us, if you will, please, Mr. O'Neil, just a word about 
your own personal background, with particular reference to your 
associations with the American Legion, 

Mr. O'Neil. Of course I am a charter member of the American 
Legion. In 1947 I was privileged and honored to be elected as na- 
tional commander. For some 11 years I was a member of the National 
Americanism Commission prior to that time and its chairman 3 years, 
and its vice chairman 5 years. 

Mr. Arens. Tell us in just a word, please, Mr. O'Neil, something of 
the phj^sical setup of the American Legion from the standpoint of its 
work in combating and exposing subversion in this Nation. 

Mr. O'Neil. Basically this operation at the national level would 
be supervised and directed by the National Americanism Commission. 
Its headquarters is in Indianapolis, where a director and a paid staff 
are employed. We also have a subsidiary office here in Washington. 
At the local level of course the posts are very much interested in 
this problem. Most of all, if not all, have Americanism officers and 
committees within their posts. This would also move up to the other 
levels, the county, district, and department level, which would corre- 
spond to the State. 


Mr. Arens. "Wliat publications does the American Legion issue? 
I understand you to say you are the publications director of the 

Mr. O'Neil. No. I am the publisher of the American Legion maga- 
zine. That is the national publication, basically the voice of the 
national commander and the national organization. There are other 
publications, however, but these do not come under the jurisdiction 
of the publisher or the publications commission, for whom I work 

]Mr. Arens. "Wliat publications does the Legion issue which transmit 
to the membership or to the key officers of the Legion information 
respecting communism and subversion ? 

Mr. O'Neil. In addition to the pages of the American Legion maga- 
zine, of course, the Americanism Commission publishes and distributes 
to key people what is known as the Firing Line, which concerns itself 
basically with this problem of subversion and infiltration. 

Mr. Arens. Does the American Legion at its Indianapolis headquar- 
ters and its "Washington headquarters keep abreast of the hearings of 
the House Committee on Un-American Activities and the Senate In- 
ternal Security Subcommittee and of other congressional bodies deal- 
ing with the question of communism and subversion ? 

Mr. O'Neil. Yes, sir. I would say that most of the work of the 
Americanism division in this area is in implementing and supplement- 
ing the reports in the area of distribution of the House Un-American 
Activities Committee and the other committees of Congress and State 
organizations directly concerned with this problem. 

Mr. Arens. How many local posts are there of the American 
Legion ? 

Mr. O'Neil. 17,362, 1 believe, as of today. 

Mr. Arens. Approximately what is the membership of the Legion? 

Mr. O'Neil. 2,800,000 as of this morning. 

Mr. Arens. And of the auxiliary ? 

Mr. O'Neil. There are 1 million members of the American Legion 

Mr. Arens. These posts to which you allude are scattered all over 
the United States and Hawaii and other possessions of the United 
States, is that not correct ? 

Mr. O'Neil. That is correct, and we have some posts in foreign 
countries as well. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. O'Neil, did the American Legion take cognizance of 
the hearings of the House Committee on Un-American Activities held 
in the Hollywood, Calif., area in 1951, respecting subversion and Com- 
munist penetration of the motion-picture industry ? 

Mr. O'Neil. Yes, sir. The American Legion nationally and through 
the pages of its magazine commented upon these reports, and they were 
distributed widely through the American Legion. The American 
Legion, at many, many meetings had discussed this problem. There 
have been many resolutions emanating from the national conventions 
dealing directly with the subject. 

Mr. Arens. In essence what was and what is the position of the 
American Legion respecting the activity of Communists in the enter- 
tainment industry ? 


Mr. O'Neil. If I may be permitted, I think it might be well to intro- 
duce in the record at this time the resolution adopted by the Legion 
at its national convention October 15, 16, 17, 18, 1951. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully suggest that these resolu- 
tions be marked "O'Neil Exhibit No. 1" and incorporated by reference 
in the record. 

The Chairman. So ordered. 

Mr. Arens. I should like to ask Mr. O'Neil at this time if he would 
in a word summarize the essence of these various resolutions to which 
he has alluded. 

Mr. O'Neil. This particular resolution deals with the subject of 
the entertainment industry and I will only refer to the resolving 

That the American Legion urge all posts, in the interest of national security, 
to refuse to support such individuals and the productions in which they have a 
part, and that the officers of such posts shall vise all available documental means 
to properly inform the membership of the activities of such individuals ; and be 
it further 

Resolved, That the posts make public the intention of the American Legion 
to condemn, expose, and combat such individuals vpherever and vphenever pos- 
sible * * *. 

Mr. Arens. Wlio are these "such individuals," please? 

Mr. O'Neil. These would be Communists and Communist sympa- 
thizers in the entertainment industry. 

Mr. Arens. I take it that in answer to the principal question which 
1 posed a moment ago, the American Legion position is and has been 
opposed to the engagement in the entertainment industry of people 
who are in the Communist conspiracy or who serve the Communist 
cause; is that correct? 

Mr. O'Neil. Definitely;, yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. O'Neil, subsequent to the hearings of the House 
Committee on Un-American Activities in the Hollywood area respect- 
ing Communist penetration of the entertainment industry, did you as 
an official of the American Legion have occasion to consult and confer 
with representatives of the motion-picture industry on this question 
of Communist penetration of the industry ? 

Mr. O'Neil. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Tell us in your own words where and when these con- 
sultations transpired and what took place ? 

Mr. O'Neil. Initially, as national commander of the American 
Legion in 1947, 1 conferred with Mr. Eric Johnston, president of the 
Motion Picture Producers Association, regarding this problem. At 
that time he informed me of the great concern which they had and 
reminded me of the so-called Waldorf declaration and the intention 
of the motion-picture industry to rid itself of all of those identified 
with the conspiracy. Subsequently, and as a result of the resolution 
which I read in part, but not completely, an article appeared in the 
American Legion magazine of December 1951, a copy of which I have 
here and which I would like, with your permission, Mr. Chairman and 
gentlemen of the committee, to have inserted in the record. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Chairman, in view of Mr. O'Neil's request I re- 
spectfully suggest that the article appearing in the American Legion 
Magazine of December 1951, entitled "Did the Movies Really Clean 
House?" by J. B. Matthews be marked "O'Neil Exhibit No. 2" and be 
incorporated either in the body or by reference in this record. 


Mr. ScHERER. I think we should admit it in the body of the record. 
The Chairman. Yes. Include it in the body of the record. 
(The article marked "O'Neil Exhibit No. 2" follows:) 

O'Neil Exhibit No. 2 

Did the Movies Really Cleian House? 

(By J. B.Matthews) 

In the summer of 1939, Martin Dies, as chairman of the Special Committee 
on Un-American Activities, began the investigation and exposure of the Com- 
munist infiltration of the motion-picture industry. His efforts were greeted with 
the customary catcalls from the Communists and other radicals, but time has 
brought startling confirmation of the testimony of Dies' witnesses. 

Eight years later, in October and November of 1947, the Congressional Com- 
mittee on Un-American Activities again tackled the problem of subversion in 
the country's major entertainment field, with the result that the so-called 
Hollywood Ten were eventually jailed for contempt of Congress. Nine others 
who were subpenaed did not testify because the hearings were abruptly closed. 

In 1951 this same congressional watchdog of the Nation's safety against the 
Kremlin's criminal conspiracy has moved still farther on the way toward a full 
exposure of the conspirator's foothold in filmdom. 

Without detracting in the slightest degree from whatever credit may be due 
the congressional investigators, it should be noted that they have revealed 
little which the motion-picture industry could not have found out for itself years 
ago — given the will to do so. 

In view of all the exposures which have been widely publicized these many 
years, a lot of Americans would like to know if Hollywood has really cleaned 
house. To come speedily to the point : The answer is "No." 

When the Communists sent V. J. Jerome, John Howard Lawson, and Jeff Kibre 
into the capital of filmdom, what did they want? To put the matter with all 
possible brevity, the Communists aimed at four things in their penetration of 
Hollywood : 

(1) to tap the fantastically high salaries of filmdom in order to fill the 
treasury of treason ; 

(2) to put the touch of glamor upon the ugly face of Communist sedition ; 

(3) to smuggle the Communist Party line here and there into the scripts 
of motion pictures ; and 

(4) to capture the labor union and guild organizations of those employed 
in the industry. 

In stating the primary Communist objectives for Hollywood, two things have 
been deliberately omitted, namely, the enrollment of party members and the 
recruiting of espionage agents. It is a grave mistake to assume that Hollywood's 
importance to the Communist conspirators ever encompassed any wholesale 
enrollment of motion-picture stars either as party members or as espionage 
agents. It is equally silly to suppose that guys like Albert Maltz or dolls like 
Anne Revere were ever meant to do the dirty manual work of throwing up 
barricades in the streets. 

So far as Communist Party card-carrying membership is concerned, it prob- 
ably never exceeded 300 in Hollywood. Richard Collins, one of the few HoUy- 
woodites who has had the moral courage to renounce communism and tell a 
forthright story about it, estimates that party membership in the film industry 
is still at 75 percent of its peak strength. 

In the 1951 congressional hearings on Communist infiltration of Hollywood, 
the names of some 200 party members have been disclosed. By far the greater 
number of these are names which are little known to the movie-going public. 

If, to the already exposed and to the still unrevealed Communist Party members, 
we add the longer list of Hollywood "big names" who have collaborated with Com- 
munist Party organizations and enterprises without ever formally joining the 
party, we have a story of Communist penetration of the film industry which 
is truly shocking. 

Without these "big-name" nonmember collaborators, the vast sums of money 
could not have been raised to finance the Commimist conspiracy, and the seditious 
activities of the Communist-front organizations could not have been glamorized. 

In his courageous mea culpa, published in the Saturday Evening Post, Edward 
Dmytryk phrased a thought which is important in assaying the damage which 
hundreds of Hollywoodites have done by their profligate aid to Communist fronts. 


"I know now," Dmytryk said, "that you can't aid a Communist front in any way 
without hurting your own country." 

What one segment of Hollywood has done for communism cannot be measured 
solely by the disclosure in sworn testimony before a congressional committee 
that some 200 persons in the film industry have been members of the Communist 
Party. That's only a fraction of the damage. 

Year after year, hundreds of Hollywood celebrities bestowed their enormous 
prestige upon Communist front after Communist front, to the hurt, as Dmytryk 
bitterly observes, of their own country. It is not enough for them to say now 
that they were simply "devoted to good causes," and not more than a half dozen 
have come forward with even that much of an alibi. 

Let us consider a few out of the hundreds of Communist fronts and enterprises 
with which Hollywood "big names" have been afliliated in recent years, dis- 
cussing them briefly in the following order : ( 1 ) Cultural and Scientic Con- 
ference for World Peace; (2) Voice of Freedom Committee ; (3) a Variety 
advertisement attacking the Committee on Un-American Activities; (4) the 
Brief Amici Curiae submitted to the Supreme Court; (5) Progressive Citizens 
of America; and (6) Hollywood Council of the Arts, Sciences, and Professions. 

(1 ) In March 1949, when the cold war was full upon us, the Communists staged 
what they called the Cultural and Scientific Conference for World Peace at 
the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York City. Among the sponsors of this 
affair, as plainly labeled subversive as anything could have beeen, were at least 
43 Hollywoodites, 23 of whom have been identified as members of the Communist 
Party in the 1951 congressional hearings. All of the remaining 20 have records 
of collaboration with Communist enterprises, and are still in good standing 
in Hollywood. 

Among those whose names were listed as sponsors of the malodorous Waldorf- 
Astoria gathering were the names of the 1951 top winners of "Oscars" of the 
Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, namely, Jose Ferrer and Judy 

The academy, with some 2,000 members who are professionally employed in the 
film industry, is controlled by a solid bloc of 400. Despite the well-known exten- 
sive and substantial aid which both Jose Ferrer and Judy Holliday have rendered 
Communist-front organizations, they were awarded the academy's highest recog- 
nition. Obviously, the academy's controlling members are entirely indifferent to 
shocking Communist-front-aid records like those of Jose Ferrer and Judy Holliday 
when they select the recipients of the "Oscars." Let it be underlined that this 
happened in 1951, not 1941. 

(2) As of April 12, 1951, the Voice of Freedom Committee — a notorious Com- 
munist front which was thoroughly exposed a long time ago by Fulton Lewis, Jr., 
in his radio broadcasts — was passing out printed matter which contained the 
names of Jose Ferrer and Judy Holliday, even including one piece which bore 
what purported to be facsimiles of their signatures. Dorothy Parker, named as 
a Communist Party member in sworn testimony, is head of the Voice of Freedom 

Other Hollywood celebrities whose names appeared on the 1951 roster of the 
Voice of Freedom Committee were Stella Adler, E. Y. Harburg, Zero Mostel, 
Edward G. Robinson, and Sam Wanamaker. 

(3) In all the history of Congress, no other committee has ever been the target 
of such abuse as that which has been heaped upon the Committee on Un-American 
Activities. As a sample of this abuse let us review an advertisement in Variety, 
the bible of the entertainment world, in its issue of October 29, 1947. One hun- 
dred sixteen persons from the motion-picture and theatrical world declared in that 
advertisement that they were "disgusted and outraged" by the hearings which 
were then being conducted by the Committee on Un-American Activities on the 
subject of the Communist infiltration of Hollywood. They added : "We hold that 
these hearings are morally wrong because : Any investigation into the political 
beliefs of the individual is contrary to the basic principles of our democracy." 
Whatever their motives or whatever their degree of ignorance, there is no dodging 
the fact that the signers of the Variety advertisement were "fronting" for the 
Hollywood Communists. 

The true character of the Communist conspiracy with all its ugliness was well 
known long before these "big-name" entertainers made their attack on the Com- 
mittee on Un-American Activities. For them to attempt to conceal the nature 
of that conspiracy by describing it simply as a set of "political beliefs" indicated 
1 of 2 things : abysmal ignorance of communism or willful connivance with it. 


There were really "big names" from the motion-picture world aflaxed to the 
<leclaration of that Variety advertisement. Among them were Louis Calhern, 
Norman Corwin, Paul Draper, Jose Ferrer, Henry Fonda, Ava Gardner, John 
Gartield, Paulette Goddard, Moss Hart, Van Heflin, Lillian Hellmau, Paul Hen- 
reid, Katharine Hepburn, Judy Holliday, John Houseman, Marsha Hunt, John 
Huston, Garson Kanin, George S. Kaufman, Elia Kazan, Gene Kelly, Philip Loeb, 
Myrna Loy, Aline MacMahon, liurgess Meredith, Arthur Miller, William Mor- 
ris, Jr., Sono Osato, Herman Shiunlin, Donald Ogdeu Stewart, Deems Taylor, 
Cornel Wilde, and William Wyler. 

Hundreds of motion-picture celebrities have taken emphatic and public stands 
which were either out-and-out pro-Communist or which had the effect of aiding 
and abetting the Communist conspiracy. With very few exceptions, these same 
celebrities have not taken a similarly emphatic and public stand against the 
Communist menace, even to this very day in 1951. No large group of them has 
taken a full-page advertisement in Variety to tell the American people that com- 
munism is not simply a set of "political beliefs," that it is on the contrary a 
malignant force which menaces the very existence of this Nation, and that it is 
the solemn duty of the Congress of the United States to investigate and expose 
this menace. If these tilm celebrities want to reverse their 1947 stand and as- 
sure the American people that Hollywood has really cleaned house, they are, of 
course, at liberty to take another full-page advertisement in Variety in an 
attempt to undo their original mischief. 

(4) When the fate of the Hollywood Ten went before the Supreme Court of 
the United States in October 1949, a group which called itself Cultural Work- 
ers in Motion Pictures and Other Arts presented to the Court a brief amici ciiriae 
in the cases of John Howard Lawson and Dalton Trumbo. Two hundred and eight 
persons from the motion-picture industry signed this brief on behalf of the Holly- 
wood Ten. Among them were 6.") individuals who were named as Commimist 
Party members in sworn testimony before the congressional Committee on Un- 
American Activities this year. 

In addition there were film celebrities, such as Michael Blankfort, Vera Caspary, 
Charles Chaplin, John Garfield, E. Y. Harburg, Marsha Hunt, John Huston, 
Garson Kanin, Arthur Kober, Howard Koch, Burt Lancaster, Arthur Miller, Clif- 
ford Odets, Sam Wanamaker, and William Wyler. The sum and substance of 
the brief submitted by these Holly woodites was the contention that the congres- 
sional hearings were simply a crude effort at "thought control." 

(5) With resi>ect to communism in Hollywood, it is true that times have 
changed somewhat. To understand the character of this change, we have only 
to recall the mass rally of the Progressive Citizens of America which was held 
in the Shrine Auditorium in Los Angeles on October 15, 1947. This rally of the 
PCA was called to give moral and financial support to the unfriendly w' 
who were about to leave for Washington, D. C, in response to subpenas of the 
Coiiunittee on Un-Ameiican Activities. 

The PCA was demonstrably a Communist-front organization, and most of the 
Hollywoodites whom it rallied to its support were members of the Communist 
Party, some of them having been notorious as such for many years. Despite 
these facts, an audience of more than 5,000 turned out for this Hollywood pro- 
Communist event at the Shrine Auditorium 4 years ago. Conspicuous in the 
auditorium, according to press reports, were Edward G. Robinson, Paulette 
Goddar'l, Lionel Stander, Burgess Meredith, Marsha Hunt, Evelyn Keyes, and 
the "19 unfriendly witnesses," among whom were the subsequently famous Holly- 
wood 10. Gene Kelly was master of ceremonies and Norman Corwin delivered 
the principal speech. It is possible that no such sizable Communist-controlled 
rally could be held in Hollywood today, although after Howard DaSilva and 
Gale Sondergaard leturned from the 1951 Washington hearings a rally attended 
by 700 was held by the arts, sciences, and professions front in their honor. 

The Progressive Citizens of America, under whose auspices the 1947 rally was 
held in the Shrine Auditorium in Los Angeles, had been formed almost a year 
before by the merger of 2 other Communist-dominated organizations, namely, 
the National Citizens Political Action Committee and the Independent Citizens 
Committee of the Arts, Sciences, and Professions. To anyone who desired to 
know the political facts of life, the PCA was clearly a Communist enterprise. 
In the following year, 1948, it launched the presidential candidacy of Heni-y A. 

Throughout its relatively short life as a Communist front, the PCA wielded 
quite an influence among cinema luminaries. A few weeks before the PCA meet- 


ing in the Shrine Auditorium the California daily newspaper of the Communist 
Party ran the following significant Hollywood item : "The PCA has a recent 
leaflet out featuring John Garfield, Lena Home, Edward G. Robinson, Anne 
Revere, George Coulouris, Richard Conte, Gene Kelly, Paul Heureid, Larry Parks, 
and Betty Garrett — to say nothing of Katharine Hepbura, Paul Draper, Larry 
Adler, Howard DaSilva, Lee Cobb, Morris Carnovsky, and all the others who are 
in there pitching on the side of the common man." When the Communist Party's 
newspaper says you're "in there pitching on the side of the common man," it 
doesn't mean you're a rank-and-file member of the Democratic Party. It means 
something else. 

(6) Almost the only Communist front now active in Hollywood is the Holly- 
wood Council of the Arts, Sciences, and Professions — a branch of the National 
Council of the Arts, Sciences, and Professions. The Communist Party's Daily 
Worker of June 29, 1951, carried a list of "200 notables" who called for the dis- 
missal of the Federal indictment against W. E. B. DnBois, charged with failing 
to register as a "foreign agent." The signatures were reportedly obtained by 
the National Council of the Arts, Sciences, and Professions. Among the signers 
were the following persons from the motion-picture world (some of whom have 
now lost their Hollywood standing) ; Herbert Biberman, J. Edward Bromberg, 
Arnaud d'Usseau, Howard Fast, Jay Gorney, Dashiell Hammett, Millard 
Lampell, John Howard Lawson, Albert Maltz, Earl Robinson, Gale Sondergaard, 
and Dalton Trumbo. 

The personnel and size of the foregoing list clearly indicate that Communist 
influence in Hollywood is waning insofar as the sponsorship of Communist fronts 
is concerned. With the growing public awareness of the menace of communism, 
a lot of Hollywood celebrities and near celebrities, once mired in the slough 
of communism, are getting box-oflBce religion these days. A much smaller 
number, hitting the ideological sawdust trail, has experienced genuine repentance 
and conversion. Others, stubbornly refusing either to confess or repent, have 
maintained a defiant silence. Some of the latter are in high places in the indus- 
try. Although times have changed for the better, the complete house-cleaning 
job in Hollywood remains to be done. 

A review of current films will give us some idea of the extent to which recently 
exposed Communists and collaborators with Communist fronts are still con- 
nected with the production of motion pictures. As this article goes to press, 
some of these films are still in the shooting stage, others are or have been on 
the exhibitors' 1951 schedules. Let us consider these pictures by studios. 

There are at least nine film releases in these categories from the studios of 
the 20th Century-Fox Co., to wit: 

(1) Wait Till the Sun Shines, Nellie started shooting in Kansas on August 16 
with a cast which includes Allbert Dekker. Dekker, an actor who became a 
California State assemblyman, served as master of ceremonies for American 
Youth for Democracy, which was merely a coverup name for the Young Com- 
munist League, and has been affiliated with numerous other Communist pro.iects. 

(2) As Young As You Feel, released in June 1951, also included Albert Dekker 
in its cast. 

(3) I Can Get It For You Wholesale, released in July 1951, was written by 
Abraham Polonsky and directed by Michael Gordon, both of whom have been 
named as Communist Party members in sworn testimony. 

(4) Secret of Convict Lake, released in August 1951, was also directed by 
Michael Gordon. 

(5) Take Care of My Little Girl, released in July 1951, was produced by 
Julian Blaustein, a signer of the brief amici curiae submitted to the Supreme 
Court on behalf of the Hollywood Communists. 

(6) Half Angel, released in June 1951, was also produced by Julian Blaustein, 

(7) The Day the Earth Stood Still, released in September 1951, was pro- 
duced by Julian Blaustein with a cast which included Sam Jaffe who has been 
aflSliated with not less than 15 Communist fronts. 

(8) The Desert Fox, released in October 1951, has a cast which includes 
Luther Adler whose record of pro-Communist connections goes back 16 years 
to his associate editorship of New Theatre. Adler also signed the 1947 Variety 
advertisement which denounced the congressional investigation of communism 
in Hollywood. 

(9) On the Riviera, released in July 1951, costars Danny Kaye who was 
treasurer of the Communist front known as the Hollywood Independent Citizens 
Committee of the Arts, Sciences, and Professions. Kaye also defended the 


Hollywood Ten as a member of the Committee for the First Amendment and 
was aflBliated with American Youth for Democracy. 

Among the current pictures in these categories are at least 11 films from 
the studios of Columbia Pictures, to wit : 

(1) Death of a Salesman entered production on September 10, 1951, under 
the direction of Laslo Benedek who signed the brief amici curiae. Stanley 
Kramer, the producer, taught at the Los Angeles Communist training school 
in 1947. The author of the play, Arthur Miller, has a long record of supporting 
Communist fronts. 

(2) The Marrying Kind, whose shooting began on September 17, 1951, has 
Judy Holliday in the leading role. A regiment of former FBI men could not 
wipe out or explain away Miss Holliday's record of supporting Communist 
fronts, including the Waldorf-Astoria conference and the Variety advertisement. 

(3) Fourposter, whose shooting began on September 21, 1951, is directed by 
Irving Reis who signed the brief amici curiae ; and Stanley Kramer is the 

(4) Sirocco, released in July 1951, has a cast which includes Lee J. Cobb 
and Zero Mostel. Cobb has been afliliated with the American Peace Mobiliza- 
tion, the League of American Writers, and the International Labor Defense — 
all of which have been cited as subversive and Communist by the Attorney Gen- 
eral. He was also a sponsor of the infamous Waldorf-Astoria conference. Zero 
Mostel sponsored the Communist Party's May Day parade, according to the 
newspaper PM, and was affiliated with American Youth for Democracy, the 
Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee, and the Civil Rights Congress — all on 
the list of the Attorney General, 

(5) Santa Fe, released in July 1951, has Irving Pichel as director. Pichel 
was an instructor at the Communist Party's training school in Los Angeles, to 
mention only one of his pro-Communist affiliations. 

(6) Two of a Kind was released in July 1951, with a cast which includes 
Alexander Knox who was an instructor at the Los Angeles training school of the 
Communist Party. 

(7) The Brave Bulls was released in July of this year with Robert Rossen 
as producer and John Bright as author of the screenplay. Both Rossen and 
Bright have been named as Communist Party members in sworn testimony. 

(8) M, released in the early part of this year, stars Howard Da Silva and 
Luther Adler. Da Silva has been named as a member of the Communist Party 
in testimony before the Committee on Un-American Activities. His Communist 
activities include a lectureship at the Jefferson School of Social Science, party 
training school in New York City. 

(9) The Magic Face was released in September 1951, with Luther Adler in the 

(10) Saturday's Hero was released in September 1951, with Sidney Buchman 
as producer. This film is from Millard Lampell's novel The Hero. Buchman and 
Lampell are coauthors of the screenplay. In September, Buchman admitted 
to the congressional committee that he had been a member of the Communist 
Party for about 7 years, but he refused to reveal the names of fellow Commu- 
nists. Millard Lampell has a long record of collaboration with Communist enter- 

(11) The scenario of Emergency Wedding, a 1951 release, was written by 
Dalton Trumbo, one of the Hollywood Ten. The picture was released while 
Trumbo was actually incarcerated in a Federal prison under sentence for 
contempt of Congress. 

Emergency Wedding was a remake of an old picture entitled "You Belong to 
Me." Its release by Columbia Pictures at this particular time, with the name 
of Dalton Trumbo blazoned on the screen credits while he was serving a jail 
sentence for his defiance of Congress, raises an interesting question concerning 
the significance, if any, of the film industry's policy with respect to Communists, 
as announced at the close of the 2-day session of the Motion Picture Association 
of America by its president, Eric Johnston, in November 1947. Harry Cohn, head 
of Columbia Pictures, personally attended that session of the Motion Picture 
Association and reportedly endorsed its declaration of policy which included 
the following unequivocal statements : 

"We will not knowingly employ a Communist * * *. We will forthwith dis- 
charge or suspend without compensation those in our employ, and will not re- 
employ any of the Hollywood Ten until such time as he is acquitted or has purged 
himself of contempt and declared under oath that he is not a Communist." Har- 
rison's Reports, a thoroughly independent reporting service on motion pictures, 


says very much to the point, "One wonders whether Harry Cohn is fighting the 
Communists and their fellow travelers or merely tolerating them." Emergency 
Wedding starred Larry Parks who since, but not before, the release of the pic- 
ture has confessed his former membership in the Communist Party. 

Bight such films, now in production or currently showing, are from the 
studios of M-G-INI to wit : , 

(1) Singing in the Rain entered the production stages on June 18, 1951, with 
Gene Kelly in the stellar role. Kelly signed the Variety advertisement and was 
master of ceremonies at the rally of the Progressive Citizens of America which 
bitterly attacked the investigation of Communists in Hollywood. 

(2) Huckleberry Finn entered production in October 1951 with a cast which 
included Gene Kelly and Danny Kaye. 

(3) An American in Paris was released in September 1951 with Gene Kelly 
as its star. 

(4) Strictly Dishonorable was released in July 1951. This picture was pro- 
duced, directed, and written by Norman Panama and Melvin Frank, both of whom 
signed the brief Amici Curiae. 

(5) Kind Lady was released in July 1951, with a cast which included Betsy 
Blair, a signatory of the brief Amici Curiae. Edward Chodorov, one of the 
authors of the screen play, was named as a Communist in the 1951 congressional 

(6) The Red Badge of Courage was released in August of this year. It was 
directed by John Huston who also wrote the screen play. Huston signed the 
brief Amici Curiae and the Variety advertisement. 

(7) Show Boat was released in July 1951, with Ava Gardner, signer of the 
Variety advertisement, in a stellar role. The following significant item appeared 
in the Communist Party's Daily Worker of May 27, 1946: "Artie Shaw, noted 
Hollywood band leader, and Ava Gardner, his screen actress wife, will fly 
from Los Angeles to be present with Paul Robeson at the National Negro Congress 
convention." The National Negro Congress was oflicially cited as a subversive 
Communist front. 

(8) Go for Broke, released earlier this year, was directed by Robert Pirosli 
who signed the brief Amici Curiae. 

Nine films in these categories are from the studios of United Artists, to wit : 

(1) High Noon, starring Gary Cooper, an anti-Communist, entered production 
on September 5, 1951. The film also featured Mary Virginia Farmer, a named 
Communist, and Howland Chamberlain, both of whom refused to answer the 
$64 question before the House committee. The producer is Stanley Kramer ; the 
associate producer is Carl Foreman, a named Communist ; and the director is Fred 
Zinnemann, who signed the brief Amici Curiae. 

(2) He Ran All the Way was released during the past summer. The picture 
was produced by Bob Roberts and Paul Trivers. It was directed by John Berry ; 
and the scenario was written by Hugo Butler and Guy Endore. All five have 
been named as Communist Party members in sworn testimony. Shelley Winters, 
signatory of the brief Amici Curiae, is costarred with John Garfield. Despite 
his close association with Roberts, Trivers, Berry, Butler, and Endore, John Gar- 
field told the congressional committee that he had "never known any Commu- 
nists during his experience in Hollywood or elsewhere." If it were not so 
serious in its implications, Garfield's entire testimony before the committee would 
be one of the funniest "scenarios" of 1951. The photography of He Ran All the 
Way was the work of James Wong Howe, who has been afiiliated with at least 
two Communist fronts which were cited as subversive by the Attorney General. 

(3) The Second Woman was released in July 1951, with a cast which includes 
Morris Carnovsky who has been named in sworn testimony as a Communist 
Party member. 

(4) So Young, So Bad, a current release of United Artists, was directed by 
Bernard Vorhaus who also wrote the screenplay. Vorhaus has been named by 
three witnesses as a member of the Communist Party. 

(5) Pardon My French, released in August of this year, was also directed by 
Vorhaus. The screenplay is by Roland Kibbee, another of the 200 Hollywoodites 
named as Communist Party members in testimony under oath. 

(6) The Men, a current release, has a cast which includes Dorothy Tree (Mrs. 
Michael Uris) who with her husband has been named as a member of the Com- 
munist Party before the congressional committee. 

(7) The Prowler, released in May of this year, was directed by Joseph Losey, 
a signatory of the brief Amici Curiae. Its screenplay is by Hugo Butler, named 
as a Communist Party member. Its leading roles are taken by Van Heflin who 


signed the Variety advertisement and by Evelyn Keyes wlio participated in the 
rally of the Progressive Citizens of America. 

(8) The screenplay of Three Husbands was written by Vera Caspary and 
Edward Eliscu. The latter was named in sworn testimony as a Communist 
Party member. Both Vera Caspary and Edward Eliscu signed the "call" of the 
League of American Writers, a notorious Communist front during the period of 
the Stalin-Hitler I'act, and both signed the brief Amici Curiae. 

(It) The A( ademy prize-winning Cyrano de Bergerac was directed by named 
Communist I'urty member Micliael Cordon. Jose Ferrer's stellar role in the 
picture has already been mentioned. 

Universal-International contributed five such pictures to the I'oster. 

(1) Prince Who Was a Thief, released in July 19.~)1, was a vehicle for actor 
Jeff Corey. He was not only named as a Communist but was an uncooperative 
witness before the House committee. 

(2) Wyoming Mail of ]0."»1 release included Howard Da Silva in the cast. 

('4) Abbott and Costello Meet the Invisible Man was written in collaboration 
by Robert Lees and Frederic I. Rinaldo, both named as party members. On 
grounds of self-incrimination, Lees refused to answer questions concerning his 
party affiliation. 

(4) Comin' Round the Mountain, another Abbott and Costello release, was 
also written by Robert Lees and Frederic I. Rinaldo. 

(.^) The Lady From Texas, an October release, gave Connie Lee Bennett 
credit as cojiuthor of the screenplay and included Howard DufC in the cast. 
Both signed the brief Amici Curiae. 

Warner Bros, was apparently hoodwinked into the purchase of a film story, 
ostensibly written by one J. Redmond Pryor, but actually the product of Lester 
Cole, one of the convicted Hollywood Ten. Warner Bros, paid $20,000 for this 
story, These Many Years. In evidence placed before the congressional com- 
mittee, it was established that J. Redmond Pryor is the wife of Lester Cole. 
The agent who handled this transaction for Lester Cole and his wife was none 
other than George Willner, former managing editor of the Communist Party's 
New Masses. 

Warner Bros, pictures which are currently showing or in the production stage 
include the following : 

(1) The Crimson Pirate, whose production was begun in Italy on July 3, 
includes Burt Lancaster in its cast. Lancaster signed the brief Amici Curiae. 

(2) Streetcar Named Desire was released in July of this year. It was directed 
by Ella Kazan whose pro-Communist i-ecord goes back to the days of his teach- 
ing for the New Theatre League 15 years ago. The cast includes Marlon Brando 
who sponsored the Waldorf-Astoria Conference. 

(3) The Flame and the Arrow, another current Warner Bros, release, was 
written by Waldo Salt who has been placed in the membership of the Communist 
Party by competent testimony. 

(4) Come Fill the Cup, released in October of this year, was written by Ivan 
GofE and Ben Roberts, both signatories of the brief Amici Curiae. 

(5) Tomorrow Is Another Day, released in September, was written by Guy 
Endore who has been named as a Communist Party member. 

(6) Painting the Clouds With Sunshine is an October release whose coauthor 
is Roland Kibbee, named as a party member. 

It is only fair to call attention to the fact that Warner Bros, also produced the 
recent and deservedly successful anti-Communist film, I Was a Communist for the 
FBI, which effectively depicts the grueling 9-year assignment of Matt Cvetic 
as an imdercover FBI agent in the Communist Party. 

Paramount Pictures has three current or forthcoming releases of the kind we 
have been describing, to wit : 

(1) Somebody Loves Me, which started shooting on August 27, was directed 
by Irving Brecher who signed the brief Amici Curiae. 

(2) Detective Story, a November release, was produced by William Wyler 
who signed the 1947 Variety advertisement and the brief Amici Curiae on behalf 
of the Hollywood Ten and gave support to the Waldorf-Astoria Conference. 

(3) Shelley Winters, signer of the brief Amici Curiae, appeared in A Place in 
the Sun, released in September. Anne Revere, identified in testimony as a Com- 
munist Party member, plays the role of the mother. 

It is noteworthy that the self-same issue of the Communist Party newspaper 
which touted the Hollywood stooges of the Progressive Citizens of America, 
already mentioned, also performed a remarkable historical service, quite by 
82833— 5G—pt. 1 7 


inadvertence to be sure, in listing the names of Hollywood notables who were 
not "in there pitching for the common man," namely, Ginger Rogers, Robert 
Montgomery, Adolphe Menjou, George Murphy, Walt Disney, Charles Brackett, 
Morrie Rysliind, Leo McCarey, and Ida R. Koverman. It is hardly necessary 
to point out that this inadvertently compiled honor roll of Americans in Holly- 
wood was far from complete. To it we should add the names of hundreds of 
Hollywood celebrities who never at any time in their careers have had any 
truck with communism and have been actively in opposition to it when it was 
stylish to flirt with treason. At the risk of unwittingly omitting some of the 
best anti-Communist fighters in Hollywood, let us add to the Daily Worker's list 
the following names of good Americans in tilmdom : John Wayne, Charles Coburn, 
Roy Brewer, Ward Bond, Bob Arthur, John Ford, Clark Gable, the late lamented 
and irreplaceable James K. McGuinness, Fred Niblo, Jr., Pat O'Brien, Lela 
Rogers (mother of Ginger), Robert Taylor, and the late Sam Wood. 

The Communist cell in the celluloid capital has never outnumbered the Amer- 
ican contingent. The Hollywood Ten have never, except perhaps in news value, 
been as important as the Hollywood 10,000 loyal Americans in the motion- 
picture industry. These things must be said in any discussion of communism 
in Hollywood in order to make it clear that no one intends or wishes to indict 
a whole industry for the sins of a minority. 

On the other hand, no good is to be derived from minimizing the foothold which 
communism gained and still possesses among those who make our films. With 
varying degrees of success, all four of the major aims of the Communists in 
Hollywood were achieved : (1) Hollywood was "milked" for vast sums of money; 

(2) Communist causes and fronts were glamorized by Hollywood celebrities; 

(3) the extent to which the Communist Party line was smuggled into the scripts 
of films is debatable. Certainly, such pictures as Song of Russia, Mission to 
Moscow, and North Star were saturated with pro-Kremlin propaganda. (4) The 
Communists for years controlled the Screen Writers Guild, even during the in- 
cumbency of the self -proclaimed anti-Communist, Emmet Lavery. The failure of 
the Communists to capture the Hollywood unions took vigorous fighting on the 
part of loyal Americans like Roy Brewer in the labor movement. 

The congressional committee has made a beginning in exposing and investi- 
gating the Communists in Hollywood. And, through the Motion Picture Associa- 
tion, the large motion-picture companies have announced the policy of not 
employing known Communists. A few people named as Communists have lost 
their jobs. The weakness of the Motion Picture Association policy seems to be 
the reluctance of the producers to inform themselves about the apparatus and 
ways of communism in Hollywood. As one witness before the House committee 
declared, they are "allergic to finding out about it." The "allergy," of course, 
is partly economic. 

Only an aroused public opinion is likely to exert the necessary pressure to 
cleanse Hollywood of all Communist influence. 

Mr. O'Neil. This article is entitled "Did the Movies Eeally Clean 
House?" and was a direct result, as I stated before, of the resolution 
adopted at the Miami convention in 1951. This particular article, I 
believe, is referred to in the so-called Cogley report. 

Following the appearance of this article, the motion-picture studio 
representatives and officials invited the national commander of the 
American Legion — then Donald R. Wilson- — to meet with them. Such 
a meeting took place in this city, in Washington, on March 31, 1952. 
At that time they made reference to the article, and we discussed 

Mr. Arens. Mr. O'Neil, could I interrupt you a moment there, be- 
cause I think you are omitting an element that I would like to see 
developed here. Who represented the American Legion in that 
meeting ? 

Mr. O'Neil, Donald R. Wilson, who was then the national com- 
mander, and myself. 

Mr. Arens. Do you recall who represented the motion-picture 
industry ? 

Mr. O'Neil. I took some notes at that time, and I have them here. 
At that session were Nicholas M. Schenck, then president of Loew's^ 


Inc. ; Spyros Skouras as president of 20th Century -Fox ; Barney Bala- 
ban, president of Paramount Pictures ; Y. Frank Freeman, vice presi- 
dent of Paramount Pictures ; Samuel Schneider, vice president of War- 
ner Bros.; John O'Connor, vice president of Universal Pictures; Nate 
Spingold, vice president of Columbia Pictures; Theodore Black, o;en- 
eral counsel. Republic Pictures ; William II. Clark, treasurer of EKO, 
and Mr. Fric Johnston, presiding 

Mr. Akens. Had the motion-picture industry issued the so-called 
Waldorf declaration or statement prior to the time that this meeting 
took place ? 

Mr. O'Neil. Oh, yes. That occurred in 1947. 

Mr. Arens. Tell us just in summary form the essence of the Wal- 
dorf statement. 

Mr. O'Xeil. The Waldorf statement, of course, dealt with the Hol- 
lywood Ten primarily on the basis that they were being dismissed from 
the motion-picture industry as employees. 

Mr. Arens. Didn't the Waldorf statement also contain a pledge or 
a statement or a commitment by the industry that it would not know- 
ingly employ people who were in the Communist apparatus? 

Mr. O'Neil. That is correct. 

Mr. Arens. Will you kindly proceed, Mr. O'Neil, and tell us what 
transpired and the decisions which w^ere reached at the meeting of the 
representatives of the motion-picture industry and of the Legion, 
which took place in 1952 in Washington. 

Mr. O'Neil. At that time there was posed the problem of people 
within the industry who were finding themselves in difficulty because 
of their associations. Some of tliese people had appeared or could ap- 
pear before a congressional committee or a State agency and in es- 
sence clear themselves. May I state at this point that the American 
Legion has never recognized itself as being an organization which 
could engage in the activity of clearance. We have assumed that the 
only way in which a person could be cleared was for the person to 
clear himself or herself by a repudiation before a properly constituted 
body or the issuance of a statement. The problem which was posed 
to the American Legion and the representatives of the studio because 
they were not 

Mr. Arens. Excuse me, Mr. O'Neil, since you anticipated an area 
of interrogation, perhaps I had better ask you right now. Are you 
or have you ever been a self-styled clearance man within the industry ? 

Mr. O'Neil. Definitely not. 

Mr. Arens. Have you ever been one of these men alluded to on 
page 91 of volume II of the Fund for the Republic's blacklisting 
report who bring damning indictments and then exercise the power 
to heal the wound. 

Mr. O'Neil. I would have to give the flat lie to the statement of 
bringing damning indictments or trying to heal wounds on that basis. 
I would say, however, that the American Legion has made a major 
contribution in helping to reestablish a climate of employment for the 
innocent, the stupid, and the repentant guilty in the entertainment 
industry, principally in Hollywood. 

Mr. Arens. Perhaps we can come back to that subject a little later. 
If you will just proceed now, please, with the meeting in March of 1952. 

Mr. O'Neil. There was posed to us, as I was saying, the problem, 
in which the representatives of the studios sought our assistance, of 


those people who could not tind a forum. In other M'ords, it isn't 
everybody who can get himself before a regularly constituted body 
because of the time element to make a statement answering allegations 
relative to associations. During these meetings — my recollection is 
that Spyros Skouras was the man who raised the question — the so- 
called letterwriting operation was mentioned. Mr. Skouras said that 
there was an individual, whose name I do not recall, connected with 
Twentieth Century either as an employee or as a prospective employee 
who had been citecl and who in his estimation had written a letter which 
he considered to be a method of clearance. He asked the question 
if the American Legion would recognize such an activity as being in 
the ai'ea of clearing oneself. As I recall, the national commander 
stated that that certainly could be considered a method. Later the 
American Legion offered its facilities for the distribution of such 
letters if such a program was inaugurated or instituted by the studios. 

I know that there wei-e many people in the motion-picture industry 
who took advantage of this situation by volunteering to make the state- 
ment in the beginning and agreeing to its distribution. 

The American Legion placed itself at the disposal of the studios for 
the distribution of this material to the posts and to the Legion in gen- 
eral in an effort to rehabilitate these individuals. Of course "rehabili- 
tation" is probably the better word for what I said at the outset regard- 
ing this particular activity. 

Mr. Aeens. Did you regard the activities of the Legion in that 
respect as a political activity or a political clearance or a political 
screening ? 

Mr. O'Neil. Definitely not. 

Mr. xIrens. You know, of course, that is the phraseology which is 
used in the report Avith respect to the activities of such groups as the 
Legion in this regard. 

Mr. O'Neil. Unfortunately, I haven't had the benefit of reading 
this report in its entirety. We couldn't obtain a report. One was 
loaned to me, and I had to return it so quickly that I only had an 
opportunity to give it cursory examination. However, I would again 
repeat the fact that this certainly is a distortion, if not a deliberate 

Mr. Arens. T\^iat is a distortion if not a deliberate untruth ? 

Mr. O'Neil. The impression that we were engaged, first of all, in 
damning individuals and, secondly, participating in any clearance 

Mr. Arens. Did you feel that you were doing anything unjust, 
reprehensible, or un-American in undertaking to preclude from em- 
ployment in the American entertainment industry people who had been 
identified under oath before the House Committee on Un-American 
Activities as members of the Communist conspiracy ? 

Mr. O'Neil. Certainly not, because that had been the position estab- 
lished by the American Legion in national convention. 

Mr. Arens. Did you think that was deserving of the odious epithet 
"blacklisting" ? 

Mr. O'Neil. I don't know what you mean by blacklisting, No. 1, but 
the industry had determined that problem, Mr. Arens, by announcing 
not only to us in meeting assembled but in public statements that they 
would not employ Communists or they would not em])loy those who 
had taken refuse in the fifth amendment. 


Mr. Arens. Proceed, if you please. 

Mr. O'Neil. Returning to the meeting of Mardi 31, 1052, as I stated 
the so-called letterwriting campaign emanated from that and, as the 
publisher of the magazine, I became involved in the distribution of the 
letters to the American Legion nationally and at the local level. 

I think many of you recognize that the xVmerican Legion posts and 
departments are autonomous organizations. In other words, in most 
areas they have rights unto themselves. Certainly because of many 
of the statements which had been pi'oduced and the revelations of this 
committee, legionnaires at tlie local level were very much concerned 
with the problem of (Jommunist and Communist sym])athizers appear- 
ing in films or in entertainment as sucli, public entertainment. 

Many of them made inquiries of the national organizations as to the 
individuals involved. The letters, of course, became an important 
factor in their evaluation of the problem as it related to their own 
posts or to their own departments. We considered it to be a very vital 
factor in the rehabilitation of many people who became involved, as I 
say, innocently or even stupidly in the C^ommunist apparatus. 

Mr. Arexs. Mr. O'Neil, does that conclude your observations on your 
meeting ? 

Mr. O'Xeil. On the meeting of March 31, that is correct. There 
was a subsequent meeting held in New York attended by some of these 
men but not all of them, but I didn't participate in that except very 

Mr. Arens. "Were you approached at any time by representatives 
of the Fund for the Republic and interrogated respecting the subject 
matter of so-called blacklisting? 

Mr. O'Neil. The only time that anybody came to see me with pos- 
sible reference to this was a man named Engberg. I never met Mr. 
Cogley. I wouldn't know Mr. Cogley if he came into the room.. A 
Mr. Edward Engberg, who later identified himself as a research as- 
sociate connected with an entertainment project. Our meeting was 
very brief. 

Mr. Arexs. Did he at any time identify himself as a representa- 
tive of the Fund for the Republic I 

Mr. O'Neil. Oh, yes. Kis card indicated that, which he gave me 
as he was leaving. [Reading :] 

Fund for the Republic, Edward Engberg, research associate, entertaiuiuent 
project. New York City. 

I took this right off the card. 

Mr. Arexs. What transpired in your interview with Mr. Engberg? 

Mr. O'Neil. At that time he indicated that he wanted to discuss 
Holl.ywood with me. I said "Li what respect, Mr. Engberg?" He 
said "Do actors and actresses and others identified or associated with 
the industry come here and talk with you?'' There have been some. 
I said, "What would be the nature of your inquiry as it related to wliat 
transpired in this office?'' 

He didn't make himself quite clear in that respect. I told him that 
I considered this invasion of the privacy of my office in that he was 
not associated with any governmental body or any governmental or- 
ganization and that what transpired in the office as it related to any 
conversations which I might have had with anybody I considered a 
matter of privacy unless he could be more specific. " That ended the 


interview, and that is the only discussion which we had. That is 
all that I have ever discussed with anybody associated with the Fund 
for the Republic. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. O'Neil, on page 89 of volume II of the report of 
the Fund for the Republic, we tind the following : 

A New York public-relations expert who has guided more than a dozen once- 
blacklisted performers to the "right people" explained his role this way : 

It tells about what all he does. He says this : 

Somewhere along the line I may find George Sokolsky involved. I go to him 
and tell him that the Legion ofiicial — 

whom he has previously talked to about this thing — 

thinks this boy is all right. 

In the course of the hearings here the last day or so it has been 
developed that this New York public relations expert alluded to is a 
man by the name of Arnold Forster, who testified this morning, and 
who I might say parenthetically qualified considerably the language 
which appears in here attributed to him. Did Arnold Forster on any 
occasion ever come to you and solicit your cooperation in a clearance 
procedure ? 

Mr. O'Neil. Never in any clearance procedure, Mr. Arens. My 
recollection is that Mr. Arnold Forster called me on one occasion and 
the individual with w^hom he was concerned I just can't recall. At any 
rate, I did set out the yardstick established by the American Legion 
National Executive Committee on May 4, 1951, as it related to indi- 
viduals who might have become involved. 

On that occasion, as I recall it, my advice to him was along that line, 
that if he was interested in an individual who had become involved 
that that individual ought first to contact the FBI. Secondly, if it 
was possible he should be called by the House Un-American Activities 
Committee, particularly if he had been identified, where he would have 
an opportunity to explain his position. If he was employed or had a 
prospective employer and there were some allegations against him in 
the public record, then he should try to make an explanation of them 
to the prospective employer or the employer in keeping with the letter- 
writing campaign which had been pretty much accepted as an operation 
within the studios themselves. 

Mr. Arens. Has the American Legion made an official pronounce- 
ment in response to the allegations involving it the last few days which 
have appeared in the so-called Cogley report? 

Mr. O'Neil. Yes. On July 2, 1956, J. Addington Wagner, the na- 
tional commander of the American Legion, issued an open letter to the 
entertainment industry in which in essence is the ofiicial reaction of the 
American Legion to the Cogley report. I have that here. 

Mr. Arens. I respectfully suggest, Mr. Chairman, this document be 
marked "O'Neil Exhibit No. 3" and incorporated in the body of the 

The Chairman. Let it be so marked and made a part of the record. 

(The document referred to follows :) 


O'Neil Exhibit No. 3 

Open Letter to the Entertainment Industry, July 2, 195G, From J. Addington 
Wagner, National Commander of the American Legion, Battle Creek, Mich. 

The Fund for the Republic recently announced with much fanfare a report 
dealing with alleged "blacklisting" in the entertainment industry. Hundreds of 
pages of this report are filled with material that is supposed to show how people 
in various fields of entertainment, and people and organizations outside the enter- 
tainment field, have, in effect, conspired to have people fired from their jobs 
because of Communist or Communist-front afl51iations. 

This report is a matter of the utmost importance to you, as it is to the American 
Legion, which has also been criticized in its pages. It came as no surprise to 
find ourselves singled out for criticism, because we have always opposed the em- 
ployment of Communists and Communist sympathizers in the theater, motion 
pictures, radio, or television. Nor should it be surprising to find the Fund for 
the Republic attacking the entertainment industry for trying to discourage Com- 
munists and Communist sympathizers anxious to work in this strategic field. 

You might say that this report is an extension of the thinking of Robert May- 
nard Hutchins, president of the Fund for the Republic. Testifying before a con- 
gressional subcommittee a few years ago when he was head of the University of 
Chicago, Hutchins made the surprising admission that despite a commotion on 
his campus over Communists there, he was "uniustructed'' on this vital subject. 
Only a few weeks ago, on a television program, he made an even more startling 
admission, that he would knowingly hire a Communist who was competent to 
do a particular job. Proving that Hutchins means this. Earl Browder has been 
gainfully employed on one of the many projects spawned by the Hutchins-run 
Fund, and his operation has employed others with records of affiliation with Com- 
munist fronts. 

It is only reasonable to assume that a man who would knowingly hire a 
Communist in the year 1956 would find nothing wrong in giving Communists 
jobs in entertainment. He would obviously not understand the particular ad- 
vantage such untrustworthy people would enjoy in such jobs, and how such 
people would certainly exploit such jobs to the detriment of the American people 
and their Government. He would not understand these things despite all the 
evidence, for the simple reason that Dr. Hutchins is not only uninstructed on 
the subject of communism but his mind seems to be impervious to any under- 
standing of the Communist menace. 

Obviously such a man cannot help feeling that if a Communist or a Communist 
stooge or sympathizer is fired, the person who causes such a person to be dis- 
charged is ipso facto at fault, regardless of the facts. 

This thinking, through some sort of osmosis, has been carried into the report 
on blacklisting, just as it seems to have penetrated into all the projects of 
the Fund for the Republic dealing with communism. The line is that the 
Communist is a poor, misguided person who is more sinned against than sinning. 
The real culprit, beyond redemption, is the person who dares to point a finger 
at any member of the Communist conspiracy. 

However, while the foregoing is a matter of record, it is somewhat beside 
the point in this instance. Actually, everyone seems to have missed the point 
that should have been the first thing established in talking about Communists 
in the entertainment field. Those who prepared the report missed it, and up 
to now no one seems to have given it a thought. 

The point is simply this : It is up to the public to decide. 

The Fund for the Republic in its report overlooks this elementary fact com- 
pletely. It goes on the naive assumption that stars are made by officials of 
motion-picture studios, broadcasting systems, and theatrical producers. It t.Mkes 
hundreds of pages to depict an ingenious picture of cowardly starmakers dis- 
carding their creations because wicked and mercenary individuals and organi- 
zations frightened them with a sinister kind of blackmail. 

This utterly ridiculous and highly melodramatic recital by the Hutchins 
people is being presented with a straight face to the American public, and in 
view of that it is likely to be accepted as factual. 

It is hardly necessary to explain to anyone with the least imderstanding of 
show business how silly this is. Those who know show business realize that 
the motion-picture producer or the radio-TV director can only give the per- 
former an audience. From that time on, it's up to the performer. If he makes 
good and becomes a star, the public rewards him, and usually the rewards are 


great. When the performer no longer pleases the public he goes into eclipse, 
and there isn't much that the people who run show business can do about 

This is so basic that even Hutchins' "experts" ought to know it. And there's 
something else they ought to know. Just as the public can make a star over- 
night, it can break him just as quickly. Further, it can do this for reas(ms 
that have nothing whatsoever to do with his ability as a performer. Possibly 
this proprietary attitude can be explained by the fact that tlie public feels it 
pays its performers well enough to expect certain standards even in the per- 
former's private life. In any case, the public has a rather frightening way of 
turning on those who betray their trust or who offend common ideals of 
morality, decency, or loyalty. 

Everyone knows that because of this the motion-picture industry years ago 
had to clean house of a vicious element and establish a code of decency. When 
it established its code, which incidentally called for certain personal standards 
of decency, and hired Will Hays to see that it was enforced, press and publJc 
joined in acclaiming the move. We don't recall that any early-day funds de- 
nounced this as a violation of civil rights or liberties. 

Today we are locked in a death struggle with communism, and for years the 
agents of this criminal con.spiracy have been infiltrating every agency which 
reaches and influences the public. One of the major targets of these con- 
spirators has been the entertainment industry, and there is much evidence to 
show the inroads these people made. Yet when the industry started moving 
against these traitors and their stooges there was ojjposition on every hand. 
The cry was "Hands off." This did not come from the public, of course, but 
from people in high places who are always myopic in the presence of sub- 

Despite this opposition, the entertainment industry did go ahead and it did 
make progress in cleaning out nests of Communists and commie-minded peo- 
ple who had moved in on them. It was able to do this, not because of people 
like Robert Maynard Hutchins, of course, but because the American public 
were being alerted to the Red records of many entertainers, and they didn't 
like what the records proved. The American people made it plain that they 
wanted no Communist sympathizers as their stars. The Charlie Chaplins and 
others more or less silently slipped away. 

People wlio think like Hutchins have condemned the American Legion for 
its part in all this, but what was our part? All we did was read the legal, 
official records concerning these people. The records were written not by us 
but by them. For this we certainly have no apologies to make. As a matter 
of fact, the only apologies that seem to be in order are from those who made 
a handsome living from generous Americans, while advancing the cause of 
our Communist enemies. You don't hear many apologies or explanations from 
people of that ilk, whose treachery is exceeded only by their arrogance. Nor 
may we expect to hear any apologies from the Hutchins camp. Instead they 
persist in exposing not communism but their own abysmal ignorance of com- 
munism. And that ignorance jeopardizes all America. 

But where do we go from here? You may be sure that the so-called report 
on blacklisting will not remain a museum piece. Hutchins will break out some 
moi-e of his tax-exempt millions to plug this particular masterpiece, and soon 
you will find powerful voices raised in its behalf. The book will be employed 
as a lever to force the entertainment industiy to hire back all those Reds and 
pinks whose records once before made them a liability to the industry tis well as 
to the Nation. It won't matter much whether or not these people have any 
talent — the fact that they are not good Americans will give them some sort of 
right to a job if not stardom. This, in the Hutchins lexicon, is "civil liberties." 

That will be the aim, but let's not overlook the American public, as the Hutchins 
people did. They'll make the final decision, and you may be sure they won't 
participate in the creation of any Red stars. The point, which continues to 
escape the people who lain the Fund for the Republic, is that not many Americans 
share Dr. Hutchins' sublime tolerance for Communists. 

If it be so minded, the entertainment industry need pay no attention to the 
Communist-serving report prepared by the Fund for the Republic. Indeed, 
since the Fund itself disavows the report, there is no reason whatsoever why 
anyone should take it seriously. The job of keeping Communists and Com- 
munist sympathizers out of a key communications area can be continued and, 
where necessary, accelerated. For, while progress has been made in this work, 
the job is by no means complete. 


The American jieople eertaiuly will not stand for any letdown, despite the 
propaganda that may be distilled from the Hntchins refnirt. All branches of 
show business have been iilaced in an awkward position by this report since, 
like all Fund for the Republic projects, it purports to prove that an honest effort 
to expose and eliminate ("omniunists is a vicious form of persecution. 

However, we wish to assure you that you can count on the cooperation of 
the American Legion in fighting this kind of propaganda. We believe that the 
Amei'icau public should be permitted to retain their traditional freedom of choice 
when it comes to selecting the kind of people who will entertain them, and that 
the choice should not be dictated by the Fund for the Republic acting as the devil's 
disciple for people with malodorous backgrounds. 

Mr. Arkns. Mr. O'Neil, is thei'e another publication of tlie American 
Legion to whicli you care to allude in your testimony ? 

Mr. O'Neil. In May 1953 — I would like to say at this point that in 
many of the activities as it related to the Americn Le«>ion on this 
particular ])roblem, the manaoino- editor of the American Legion mag- 
azine, Mr. Robert B. Pitkin, participated. In the May 1953 issue ne 
wrote an article whicli appeared in that issue, The Movies and the 
American Legion, which was the followup to the article of December 
1951, bringing the American Legion membership up to date on the 
problem and the American Legion's identification or association 
with it. 

With your permission, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the com- 
mittee, I w^ould also like to have this article inserted in tlie record. 

The Chairman. Let it be inserted. 

(The document referred to, marked "O'Neil Exhibit No. 4," fol- 
lows :) 

O'Neil Exhibit No. 4 

[From the American Legion Magazine, May 1953] 

An Oveeaxl View of the Dilemma the Reds Gave Hollywood, and of the Rela- 
tionship Between the Movies and the Ameeican Legion 

(By Robert B.Pitkin) 

In the last year, the American Legion has been linked more closely with events 
in the Hollywood motion-picture industry than in any previous period. 

Twice, in 19.j2, top (New York) executives of the major film companies met 
with then National Commander Donald R. Wilson and others to discuss problems 
created in the movies b.v more than 15 years of Communist infiltration. 

Between the two talks, national representatives of the American Legion, 
including the present national commander, Lewis K. Gough, visited the west coast 
studios in May 1952 and exchanged views with the top studio executives and 
with legal and union leaders in the studios. 

The film comi)anies had many reasons for going beyond their own walls to 
discuss anti-Communist movie operations. Public resentment against com- 
munism in the movies was perhaps at its highest in 1952, although the industry 
had gone to great expense for 5 years to clean house. 

In 1947 the major film companies had established a policy of (1) getting rid. 
of all identified and unrepentant Conmiunists, and (2) getting rid of all movie 
personnel who would not testify frankly on the subject of communism when under 
oath as witnesses before congressional conmiittees. 

That policy was first annotmced at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York 
on November 24 and 25, 1947. It became known as the Waldorf Declaration. 
The policy was followed after a fashion, though not always promptly. 

By 19.52. pursuit of the Waldorf policy had cost the industry a minimum of 
$1,700,000 in lawsuits, settlements, and reworked or abandoned film pi-operties. 
However, the movies could scarcely have weathei'ed the storm without it. 

So great had been the Communist infiltration before 1947 that no summary 
can possibly give an idea of it. The person who reads the record finds it hard to 
believe that it happened in America. Two summaries from the volumes of 
amazing testimony furnish a slight hint. 


First, testimony indicates that the red penetration of the film industry was 
planned by a Soviet Commissar for Heavy Inudustry, Michael Aisenstein, doing 
business in San Francisco in 1934 and 1935 as west coast representative of 
Amtorg Corp. 

According to testimony, early parties in the planning included the Soviet 
consul in San Francisco, Galkovich ; a small group of American "liberals" in- 
cluding Albert Rhys Williams and Ella Winter; at least one west coast CIO 
organizer, Jeff Kibre, and leftwing intellectuals and "cultural" organizers in 
New York — including V. J. Jerome and John Howard Lawsou, both of whom 
moved to Hollywood and became prophets of the large "liberal" wing of the 
Screen Writers Guild. 

Second, reams of testimony indicate that the Soviet master plan went steadily 
forward in the hands of its American sponsors with complete success short of 
entire domination of the movies for 13 years — from 1934 to 1947. The movement 
infiltrated the Los Angeles Democratic Party; enlisted hundrds of movie per- 
sonnel into Communist Party membership ; sucked thousands in Hollywood 
into thinly transparent front "movements" and opportunist causes ; molded the 
tenor of everyday conversation in Hollywood, and produced a bloody struggle for 
control of the movie labor and craft unions by the Communists. 

Only the last step — complete domination of American films — failed. It failed 
because exposures by the House Un-American Activities Committee and stubborn 
resistance of the Hollywood AFL film unions forced the Communists to extreme 
and suicidal steps in 1946-47. 

Then, after 13 years, the film industry heads perceived something — but not 
all— of the degree of infiltration and the danger that the "rule or ruin" Com- 
munists presented. Thus the Waldorf declaration. Until then the industry 
heads had been nearly as ignorant of the truth as the average American. 

The exposures of 1947 and the Waldorf policy definitely put communism 
on the defensive in the movie industry. 

But in 1951 and 1952 new congressional investigations shocked the industry 
and the public. They exposed a vast network of Communist influence in film- 
dom that had been untouched by the Waldorf policy, and was apparently un- 
dreamed of by the industry heads in New York, though it was fairly common 
knowledge in Hollywood. 

When the 1951-52 investigations tapered off, the list of identified Communist 
Party members in Los Angeles professional circles had risen above 400. Of 
these, 288 were in the movies — from producer on down. Highest concentration 
was among the screenwriters. Other film people had escaped subpena, and the 
list of studio personnel who "took the fifth amendment" and refused to talk 
to the point of Communist affiliation when under oath had risen above 70. 
These revelations shook the American film industry — and touched off a grow- 
ing, nationwide silent boycott of movie theaters. 

In the studios, the new findings greatly enlarged the number of "unemploy- 
ables" under the Waldorf Declaration so as to include the new-found Com- 
munists and defiers of Congress. Some of these drifted to Europe and Latin 
America to make "American" films abroad and seek a way to distribute them 

A greater blow to the film industry was the secondary effect of the 1951-52 
findings. They showed how inadequate the Waldorf policy had been during its 
5 years of existence, even though it had saved the industry. 

The Waldorf policy did not identify movie Communists. It called for their 
removal when and if identified. In 1951-52 a large number of presumably 
"innocent" ex-Communist fronters, who had claimed all along that they had 
been fooled by the Communists, were discovered to be or to have been active 
party members. 

Thus, of 102 screenwriters who signed one pro-Communist petition as "honest 
liberals speaking up on a matter of civil liberties and a point of constitutional 
justice," 36 (or 1 in 3) have since been identified as actual Communist Party 
members, as have the wives of 2 others. 

As a result, fewer and fewer paying movie customers were willing to patronize 
pictures made by any people who had unexplained front records, whether or 
not they had been proved Communists. 

The industry faced a dilemma whose solution was beyond its imagination. 

It couldn't force people to attend movies. 

On the other hand, it felt it had gone about as far as it could go with a fixed 
policy that excluded known Communists and" "fifth amendmenters." The in- 
dustry was unwilling to be a court or an FBI to investigate and try its quite 


large residue of people who still had some sort of unexplained public association 
with communism. 

As it shranli I'rom becoming a police agency to find the "guilty," the industry 
was stuck for a way to guarantee to itself or its Main Street customers who the 
"innocent" were. 

To add to the confusion, the leftwing terms "innocent" and "guilty" were 
widely accepted, when tlie industry's actual problem was that of acceptability 
or unacceptability at the box office. 

Consequently, the movie industry was over its head in a muddle that is nor- 
mally alien to the entertainment industry. The muddle was so confused in its 
nature and terms that it became almost impossible to conduct an intelligent con- 
versation on the subject. 

For this a deep bow to the Communists. 

In a way, the movies had long held their critics responsible for "stirring up 
trouble." There had been little difficulty at the box office over communism during 
the better part of the 17 years from 1934 to 1951, when the Communists were 
making vast inroads into the movie world. During those years the customers 
were largely ignorant of what was going on. Until 1947 most of the opposition 
to the Communists had come from Hollywood's AFL film unions, headed since 
1945 by Roy Brewer, and from a small group of militant anti-Communists, 
typified by such actors as Ward Bond, John Wayne, and Adolphe Menjou, and 
such screenwriters as the late Jim McGuiness, Adele Buffington, and others. 

The American motion-picture industry owes a debt to Hoy Brewer, head of 
the studio lot AFL unions, that it can never repay. A "hayseed" movie bouse 
projectionist from Nebraska who had risen in the AFL theatrical workers union, 
Brewer was assigned to Hollywood in 1945. In less than 11 weeks he perceived 
what the industry had not seen clearly in 11 years. Tlie fate of American 
movies lay in a battle in which there would be but one winner — the Communists 
or the industry. 

Brewer was the first person in an official film industry capacity who declared 
tmremitting and organized war with the Communists on their own terms. 

It was the resistance to Communist capture of Brewer's AFL unions in 1946-47 
that pushed the Communists into open, bloody union warfare in the Los Angeles 
streets, thus administering the first of a series of shock treatments that began 
to stir Hollywood out of its suicidal trance of "enlightened liberalism." 

Even this did not arouse the movie audiences. Few newspapers clearly reported 
the fact that the violent strikes of 1946-47 in Hollywood were neither more nor 
less than open warfare for the Communist control of the movie unions. Or that 
the unions were the club the Communists intended to use to force the studios to 
accept the kind of picture content and censorship that the party's screenwriters, 
directors, and producers were prepared to insist upon. 

But after 1947 there was a stirring of public unrest as official Government 
committees began to pile the facts on the public records. Even then, few movie- 
goers ever read such hair-raising documents as the six volumes of hearings on 
Hollywood communism published by Congress for 1951. If moviegoers had been 
ardent readers of such things, the industry could well have collapsed overnight. 

The trouble at the box office began in earnest when such individuals as col- 
umnist George Sokolsky and such organizations as the American Legion began 
to acquaint the public with what was in those documents and what the shout- 
ing was all about. Such outside public information programs, broadcasting the 
official record, stirred up fairly general resentment in Hollywood. 

By late 1951, the studios had no answer left except resentment. Revelations 
by the House Committee on Un-American Activities had undone nearly every 
public-relations cliche about communism in the movies that had been mimeo- 
graphed for the newspapers by the studios over 15 years. What wasn't so was 
so. What was a mere nothing was a big plenty. The reactions in the hinter- 
land was violent. 

The national convention of the American Legion in Miami, in 1951, instructed 
the American Legion magazine to publish all available information on Commu- 
nist associations of people still employed in the entertainment industry. The 
demand for such action originated in several States was combined into one reso- 
lution and passed unanimously. It was the first time a Legion convention had 
given such specific instructions to the Legion's magazine. 

In its December 1951 issue this magazine published Did the Movies Really 
Clean House? — an article by J. B. Matthews. It was a long listing of associa- 
tions with Communist movements of people still active in films ; of the studios 
where they worked, and of their current productions. The article brought a 


mixed but violent reaction. Some of the studios concurred Avith the Legion's 
attitude that this problem related to American security and had to he faced in 
the open. However, Hollywood "liberal" elements protested that the article was 
unfair and somehow un-American — although it was dissemination of public in- 
formation to the public. On at least half the major studio lots, resentment 
toward the Legion boiled over. Then, sporadically, Legion posts and other local 
groups began to picket theaters here and there where films involving the ques- 
tioned personnel were showing. 

Late in the winter of 1951-32. the top executives of the major film companies 
called a halt to the practice of the studios railing at their critics. They stepped 
in and took the play away from the studio lots. The first thing they asked for 
was a meeting with the national commander of the American Legion to review 
the whole mess the Communists had got the movies into. 

The meeting was held in Washington, D. C, on March 31, 1952. The then 
national conunander of the Legion, Donald R. Wilson, with 1 aide, met with top- 
echelon representatives of the S major studios, and with Eric Johnston, executive 
director of the association of the major producing companies. Companies repre- 
sented were Columbia, MGM, Paramount, Republic, RKO, 20th Century-Fox,. 
Universal, and Warners. 

The meeting was inconclusive but fruitful, and became the subject of great 
speculation in the i)ress. At that meeting, Commander Wilson defined the 
Legion's interest and policies as those of opposing communism in America. He 
defined the Legion's method as that of giving the widest possible distribution to 
(a) information identifying American Communists, and (&) information which 
seemed strongly to relate people and activities to Communist infiuence. 

He recognized that the path that events had taken w^as damaging an entire 
industry. But the Legion would continue its public information program, he 
said. It was mandated to do so by its conventions, and dedicated to do so by 
its principles. No proper solution could be found by suppressing the record. 
This would only perpetuate the immunity to informed public criticism which had 
permitted the vast Communist penetration of the movies in the first place. If 
the movies (and the questionable individuals) could achieve a record on com- 
munism that would stand the public gaze, then there would be no problem. 

While the Legion would not "call off its dogs" just to be a pal, Wilson told 
tho industry heads that the Legion would cooperate in any earnest steps that 
the movies would take to better their reputation, and the same would apply to 
any individuals whom the Legion had spotlighted. The emi)hasis was on 

If the Legion had been wrong in any of the information it had published, it 
would welcome any correction that the studios could supply. 

These remarks brought out the painful fact that few studios knew much about 
the actual position of many of their personnel whose names were becoming box- 
oflSce poison. Many of the film i)eople who had apparent Communists connections 
protested that they had been publicly cited or named, but had never had a 
platform from which to answer the allegations, or explain the facts. Nor had 
the studios given them a platform. 

Rpyros Rkouras, head of 20tli Century-Fox, admitted this weakness. His 
studio was not in a position to defend any of its employees who might have been, 
wronged by public association with Communist movements, because the studio 
didn't have the facts. 

Skouras remarked that he, at least, felt the time had come to give his employees 
the platform which they sought. He announced that after a recent conference 
with columnist George Sokolsky he had already begun to get together any and all 
allegations of Communist connections against his employees, and was inviting 
them to arm him with a written, signed explanation or denial. 

Nate Spingold, of Columbia, said his studio bad been doing just that for a year. 

C!olumbia and RKO said they both had considerable information as to which 
of their employees were in hot water. Republic said it didn't have much of a 
problem. But every studio welcomed Commander Wilson's invitation to com- 
pare notes in the hope of confining the Legion's criticism to personnel whose 
studios could find no factual defense for them. 

For this purpose they requested that the Legion give them all information that 
it had — large or small — that tended to connect any of their employees with 

Any such infoi-mation would be treated in strictest confidence, and would be 
seen only by top stiidio personnel and the actual individuals involved. 


With that understandinjr, Commander Wilson agreed. Before the meeting broke 
Tip, the tiliii heads invited Conunander Wilson to send a personal representative 
uud a wriUT frtmi the Legion's magazine to the west coast to talk directly with 
the studio operating heads. 

A few (lays later an ohicial Leiiiou letter went to the eisht major studios. It 
listed major and minor (.'ommunist associations of .several hundred artists then 
employed, and invite<l the studios to correct the I^egion on any matters in which 
they found the Legion to be in error. This information had been compiled by the 
Legion from scattered pid)lic sources. It applied to film artists who were cur- 
rently employed or who were connected with <;urrent film releases. It later be- 
came known as The Legion List, although by that time many other sources had 
added information to it. 

The Legion's covering letter is highly interesting, in view of later developments. 
It said : "We respectfully request that you check this material for any possible 
factual errors and make such report to us as you deem proper." 

Any use of this material called for delicate handling by the studios. It had 
been released to them on the theory that a lot of innocent people had gotten bad 
names without a chance of answering, and that a careful check might enable 
some or many of them to clear themselves of the slightest suspicion and reduce 
the serious problem that they and their industry faced. 

Almost immediately, it began to look as if it had been a mistake to trust the 
studios to check on siich delicate information. A writer at IMGM, Art Colin, 
who had a perfectly innocent but unexplained association with a Communist 
newspaper (the Communists had pirated his copy from a regular Oakland paper) 
was called into the offices of a vice president at the MGjM studio, and came 
out believing that the Legion had demanded that he be liquidated from the 
motion-picture industry. 

Cohn, in a just rage, wrote letters to Commander Wilson and to Congress- 
men, inveighing against the Legion's "blacklisting" of him "without attempting 
to confirm the information." Cohn, a hater of communism, deserved as much 
as any man a chance to explain to his employers in private conference that 
the Communists had affiliated him with them by stealing his name and his 

He could only have gotten the impression that he was being "liquidated" 
by a crude interview at the hands of the MGM vice president who was charged 
with the very job of letting Cohn set the record straight. 

When Cohn sounded off, Commander Wilson, irked at an apparent misuse 
of the information, was tempted to call off any further attempts to cooperate 
with the motion-picture industry. But MGM officials speedily apologized and 
turned the responsibility for cheeking the information over to another vice 
president, Louis K. Sidney- — a man of considerable tact, adroitness, comiietence, 
and sympathy. 

It may have been Cohn, or perhaps others who had been mishandled at the 
MGM studio before the interviewing was turned over to Sidney, who spread 
to their fellow employees and the newspapers the MGM studio notion that the 
Legion had issued a secret blacklist to the motion-picture industry. The story 
.sf)on spread in Hollywood that the movies were "knuckling under" to the Legion, 
and were ready to "clean house" of "300 alleged subversives" on the Legion's 
say-so. Fi'om there the yarn went to the national press — with fanciful em- 
broidery — and called forth pious editorials about the rights of men to "face 
their accusers." 

Meanwhile, 6 — and later a 7th — of the 8 major studios adopted variations of 
the Sokol sky-Fox-Columbia plan to give any employee a chance to answer 
without publicity any discoverable connection in the public record between him- 
self and Communism. To the Legion's collection of small and large facts, the 
studios added whatever information they could find from any other sources that 
tended to put their employees under a cloud. This program of the studios was 
soon known to the press, which inaccurately called it a Legion program. 

The program the studios had chosen to follow worked well within its natural 
limits. It was the first effective plan to help any movie employee who could show 
and wanted to show that he had innocently become publicly connected with com- 

First, a significant number of the people involv<id had, like Art Cohn, simple, 
t^traightforward answers that put them entirely in the clear of the faintest 
suspicion of any deliberate coimection with communism. 

Second, another significant group had at one time, at least half knowingly, been 
sucked into Communist activities, oidy to regeret it. Of these, nuiny wrote and 


signed unmistakably clear statements of where they stood, and frankly described 
their earlier mistakes. 

But probably the greatest measure of the value of the program is to be found in 
the alarm it created in leftwing camps, and in the desperate measures that were 
made to sabotage it. 

In its June 28, 1952 issue, the magazine The Nation published its view that the 
whole business was a vicious "attack on civil liberties." 

One paragraph from The Nation's article sets the tone. Said The Nation . 
"Out of the 'appeasement' meeting between the Legion and the industry repre- 
sentatives came a preliminary list of some 300 names, furnished by letter to each 
studio. The letter stated that if the studio employed any of the listees, picket- 
ing on a national scale would ensue when the picture involving the person's serv- 
ices was released." [Our italics.] 

Such outright lying in the "defense of civil liberties" could be a measure of 
The Nation's alarm that the program might work. 

Anyway, among Hollywood's true victims of Communist finagling the oppor- 
tunity to go on record was widely welcomed. Signed (and sometimes notarized) 
letters poured into the studio offices, with such statements as : "A correct under- 
standing of the facts is very important to me." * * * "I recognize that my name 
has been associated with subversive organizations, and I willingly cite these 
organizations * * *." 

* * * "All of us make mistakes, and I'm happy to explain some of mine. * * *" 

* * * "I am glad to have this opportunity to clear my name." * * * "I once 
felt that the Communist Party had a right to function, and I became associated 
with the front organiaztions listed below * * * history has proved that they were 
based on lies and I disavow all of them." 

It was a much smaller group that resented the program. Some of these refused 
to cooperate, others wrote diatribes against the "inquisition," and a few wrote 
austere letters that weren't to the point — anything from essays on human rights 
to long lists of the fine pictures they'd produced and the honors and press notices 
they'd received. 

What was the actual effect? A dozen or so film employees were able to point 
out that some of the information that damaged them was in error. For the 
rest the explanations proved nothing conclusively, but made two groups of people 
out of what had been one vague group. One is the group that was willing to 
speak up frankly, whom the studios can now defend against public criticism 
with their own statements. The other is the group which the studios remain 
powerless to defend, because they have chosen to let the record as it appears be 
the final record. 

And there it stands today. 

With the Waldorf declaration of 1947 the studios moved against some identified 

With the project of 1952 they offered the "presumed innocent," a platform to 
state their case. 

The Legion's actual part in all this was small, but important. Giving the 
information that it had was but a convenience. All of the information was avail- 
able to the studios from other sources. Commander Wilson's actual contribution 
was to assure the studios that, as a critical and respected public-opinion body, 
the Legion was not out to harass the industry. 

But the Legion played another part that borders on comedy, as a result of 
misrepresentations in the press. Some daily papers and motion-picture trade 
journals were only slightly more moderate, and only slightly more truthful than 
The Nation in reporting the events that came out of the Washington meeting 
of March 31, 1952. National Variety and Daily Variety (Hollywood) reported 
repeatedly that the Legion had tendered the studios a blacklist of 300 alleged 
subversives. The New York Times picked up the story. The New York Post 
editorialized that the studios were "knuckling under" to Legion pressure, and 
the idea was bruited about that the Legion was doing the hiring and firing in the 
studios and intimidating them with threats. 

As a consequence of all this fanfare, the press bestowed upon the Legion a 
new appearance of importance and power — practically the dictator of personnel 
of the multi-million-dollar American motion-picture industry. 

This was a hard reputation to live up to. Some Hollywood lawyers and inde- 
pendent producers greeted the news they read in the papers with joy. They 
rushed to the Legion with their clients and employees. They besought the 
Legion's blessing or threatened dire trouble. 


Apparently, for different motives, the fringes of the motion-picture world 
were anxious for the Legion to be foolish enough to set itself up as Hollywood's 
OflScial clearance agency. 

A prominent Hollywood lawyer wrote to the Legion demanding that a certain 
studio be retiuired to hire his client, and a budding legal business grew up which 
claimed to be able to "iix" iilm folks vA'ith the Legion. 

An excitable actress who had been out of work for some time rushed to 
the press with a story blaming the Legion for her decline and threatening all 
sorts of legal complications for the Legion if she didn't have a job soon. 

Unfortunately, hardly anybody in Legion officialdom had ever heard of her. 

Eventually, the Legion's New York office became so loaded with calls, mail, 
and vists for the mistaken purpose of movie hiring that a second meeting was 
scheduled between Commander Wilson and the tilm company heads. The meet- 
ing was held in New York. It verified the fact tliat the Legion was not to, 
and would not, clear movie personnel, or recommend who should and who should 
not be hired by the studios. 

It turned out that there had been no change in the understanding that the 
studios and the Legion were cooperating in an attempt to help the industry 
by limiting, as much as the facts would warrant, the area of criticism. In the 
operations of the studios, and the decisions as to who was publicly acceptable, 
the studios would continue to go their own individual ways. In the publica- 
tion of information, the Legion would go its way. 

In their own interests, and in the interests of any innocent people involved, 
both the studios and the Legion now had more and better information, which 
was especially helpful in protecting the innocent. 

Today, there is little more that the studios or the Legion can do in this direction. 
The studios cannot, and have no obligation to, employ people who are rejected 
by the public as Communist sympathizers — and a superior court has so found 
{RKO V. Paul Jarrico). The Legion is bound by convention mandate to publish 
information that indicates Communist connections on the part of people who 
seek public patronage as entertainers (resolution No. 2, Miami convention, 1951). 
Commander Wilson's term expired at the end of August 1952, and his successor> 
National Commander Lewis K. Gough, has reaffirmed the Legion's position. 

The subject of Legion picketing of pictures has caused widespread discussion. 
Contrary to screams from The Nation, the Legion's national organization has 
never once suggested that any post picket any picture. On the other hand, 
it does not ask posts not to picket. The national organization has no authority 
over such local decisions. 

The national Legion does ask posts to make sure of their facts and to review 
legal implications before taking such action. It will supply the best available 
information on picture personalities and their public record on communism to 
any posts that nsk for such information. Depending on its nature, this informa- 
tion may encourage or discourage the post in its action. What happens is a 
reflection of how the record sits with the folks on Main Street. 

It has become somewhat of a fad to protest that any sort of public pressure 
against an "artist," short of a criminal indictment, is bad as a matter of prin- 
ciple, regardless of one's objection to the "artist," 

It is doubtful that arguments based on such principle are made in good faith. 
One of the first effective examples of pressuring a film artist out of business in 
Hollywood occurred just before World War II. Hitler's girl photographer, Leni 
Riefenstahl, was cold-shouldered out of Hollywood, and her movies of the Berlin 
1936 Olympics were boycotted out of a successful run in America, without any 
criminal indictment. The Hollywood community was almost 100 percent for 
this political bo.vcott, although Miss Riefenstahl's "art" was of the highest. 
Hollywood liberals still boast of this achievement today. A good thing, too, 
Bince the proceeds of a successful run of Fraulein Riefenstahl's films would 
probably have gone into Hitler's war chest. 

The difference in principle, if any, between boycotting an "artist" who fed 
Hitler's kitty with United States box office receipts, and boycotting those who 
cannot be trusted not to feed Russia's kitty the same way, has never been put 

Part of the public resentment that has ruined Chaplin's Limelight as a 
United States box-oflice attraction is the utter lack of any assurance that the 
receipts would not find their way into Communist tills. 

The furor over Chaplin obscures the fact that, generally, things are certainly 
better in Hollywood today. A few years ago, almost any Communist-designed 
petition could attract the signatures of a host of movie artists. A few months 


ago a nationwide Communist i>etition contained nearlj' 200 names of college 
faculty members and clergymen, but not one person currently employed in the 
movies. The extreme left cries that entertainers have a right to sign such 
jjetitions, but are scared out of it by "witchhunters." What is far more signifi- 
cant is that, today, Hollywood knows a Communist petition when it sees one. 
A lot of trouble would have been saved if that had been true a few years back. 
American communism can't get very far if it can't find suckers to use and abuse 
and ruin. 

But attempts to fill Communist coffers by exploiting American movie audi- 
ences are far from over. Today, in France and Italy, films are being produced 
for American consumption by native Communists and Red refugees from Holly- 

In both countries, there are both Communist and non-Communist movie unions. 
American producing and distributing companies are only beginning to distinguish 
between the two, and between Communist and uon-Conimunist producers, writers, 
and directors. 

It is a moot question how many informed Americans would want to patronize 
"American" films made abroad by Communists. Italian labor sources report that 
50 percent of the wages of members of the Italian Communist movie unions go 
into the treasury of the Communists, to be spent in whole or in part for "anti- 
American activities, propaganda, espionage, etc." 

Non-C<mununists in both France and Italy are in the midst of a fight for the 
future of their countries to a degree yet unknown in America, and they are 
appalled at American producers and distributors who do business with the 
European Communists. United Artists, the major nonproducing United States 
film distributor, has burned its fingers several times in the foreign-made film 
field. Now, UA shows signs of extreme wariness but faces a difficult problem. 

United Artists does not have direct control over the making of pictures it 
releases. It has had a few bad recent experiences — some of them prolonged 
because of contracts previously signed. Now, United Artists announces that it 
will take a strong position in the future against contracting to release products 
that may feed Red tills, and will look much more closely into any foreign-made 
film it handles. 

Independent i>roducer John Huston recently expressed resentment at trickery 
that entangled him personally in Hollywood Communist-front movements in the 
past. Huston had the disturbing experience of hearing from the mouth of a 
friend the details of how he had been manipulated. Huston, who sometimes 
makes movies abroad and releases them through United Artists, announced that 
he Avould pursue a tough attitude toward the use of Communists in his foreign- 
made films. He is reported to be carrying out this promise, in spite of serious 
scheduling delays, in a film now in production in Italy for United Artists release. 

American producers and distributors, with their strong economic position as 
the gateway to the large American market, can exert a powerful influence against 
the strength of Communist movie unions and artists abroad. 

Italian and French anti-Communist labor unions emphasize that the American 
distributors should make the distinctions. If the United States public must make 
the choice, they argue, it will eventually result in bad business in America for 
all foreign-made films, which will hurt the non-Communists abroad quite as much 
as the Communists. The European non-Communists agree with hundreds of 
thousands of Americans that there is one matter of principle that counts above 
all others in this tangled business. That is that men and women of the free world 
have a right to a highly positive assurance, with no maybes about it, that the 
money they spend in idle entertainment will not be used in any way to foment 
their own destruction. 

This principle has never been challenged except by changing the subject. 

Mr. Aren8. Mr. O'Neil, are there any otlier observations, comments 
or information which you would like to call to the attention of the 
committee ? 

I understand you to say you have not had an opportunity to study 
the report yourself personally, but that you have at least glanced 
through certain parts of it. 

Mr. O'Neil. No. I think that would cover as much as I know about 
the situation, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen. Of course I recognize 
that there may be some things in this report with which I am not 


familiar. On the other hand, I think I have made it very plain that 
the American Legion has never been engaged in clearance activities, 
that it has never been associated in any manner with any so-called 

Mr. Arens. Has the American Legion ever apologized or does it 
apologize today for undertaking to preclude from the entertaimnent 
industry people who ai-e in the Communist apparatus? 

Mr. O'Neil. No; definitely not; definitely not. Certainly I could 
not arrogate to myself any powers that the American Legion would 
not take for itself. So I must give the flat lie to any clearance state- 
ments or allegations made in any report. 

Mr. Arexs. Mr. Chairman, that concludes the staff interrogation 
of this witness. 

The Chairman. Plas the Legion taken any position with respect 
to the employment of Gale Sondergaard in Philadelphia? 

Mr, O'Neil. Yes; they have, Mr. Chairman. I believe at the local 
level they have. From what I have read in the press, the Legion 
protested her appearance on the jjrogram in Philadelphia, and cer- 
tainly this would be in keeping with the resolution adopted by the na- 
tional convention because of her identification with the Communist 

The Chairman. I might say that Miss Sondergaard has been 
identified by perhaps a dozen witnesses as a member of the Communist 
Party. That has been a matter of public knowledge. It was not a 
case of blacklisting which prevented her from being employed or that 
caused any great protest against her employment. It was her own 

Mr. O'Neil. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. I would say in all 
these matters that fall within the area of public opinion largely as 
to how the public is going to react, what the American Legion has 
attempted to do is to present the facts to the public regarding the 
public records of these individuals. I do know that in Philadelphia 
they have protested her appearance on that basis. 

The Chairman. Mr. Doyle, have you any questions ? 

Mr. Doyle. Yes. 

I am another who has not as yet had the benefit of having a copy 
of the Cogley report in my hands long enough to read it, so the few 
questions that I ask you are in tlie absence of that advantage. I have 
read 4 or 5 pages of the report. 

Mr. O'Neil. We are on common grounds, Mr. Congressman. 

Mr. Doyle, I didn't have a chance yesterday to read more than 
4 or 5 pages. 

I did make a note here with reference to Mr. Foi-ster. He was 
asked by counsel about Mr. Woltman, Mr. Wren, Mr. Sokolsky, and 
you, the American Legion, and Mr. Foi^ter said, as I wrote it down, 
"From where I sit these people were doing good." I think those are 
his exact words. Mr. Forster included your name in the 4 or 5 that 
he complimented. 

Mr. O'Neil. I am very grateful to Mr. Forster for that because we 
definitely thought we were doing a good work, 

Mr. Doyle. He included you in tlie 4 or 5 and lie stated that — I 
wrote it down at the time because I had never met you — "from where 
I sit these people are doing good." 

82833— 56— pt. 1 8 


That included the Legion and he named you, as I recall it. 

Wliat year did this letter- writing campaign begin, this rehabilita- 
tion? I think once or twice you called it a clearance letter. 

Mr. O'Neil. No, I didn't refer to it as a clearance letter. It was 
a rehabilitation project. It was an effort on the part of the indi- 
viduals to clear themselves. 

Mr. Doyle. A^Hiat year did it begin ? 

Mr. O'Neil. 1952, Mr. Congressman. 

Mr. Doyle. In how many cases have such letters been used so far 
as you know, to the knowledge of the Legion, by individuals in the 
industry as long as you were the channel through which these letters 
went? No doubt you have some information on that. 

Mr. O'Neil. I would say it was 100 or less, Mr. Congressman. I 
would say it was less than 100. 

Mr. Doyle. How did these individuals come to the Legion? 
Through what channel did they come to the Legion to get the coopera- 
tion of the Legion in the use of these rehabilitation letters ? How did 
they get to you ? 

Mr. O'Neil. The letters were first written to their employer or 
prospective employer, and with the permission of the individual those 
letters were made available to the American Legion, That is how 
they came to us. In other words, they came to us from the employer 
or the prospective employer. They were distributed to others besides 
the American Legion. 

Mr. Doyle. In other words, this was an original letter written by 
the person involved who was in the industry or wanted to get back 
into it, to the employer, and then the employer forwarded it to your 

Mr. O'Neil. That is right. 

Mr. Doyle. Then what did you do ? 

Mr. O'Neil. We made these available, Mr. Congi-essman, to local 
posts where a situation might arise regarding a particular picture 
which was appearing with somebody who had been cited in the public 
record. This was the answer of that person to the allegations and, 
so far as we could make out, it was the only opportunity that the per- 
son had to answer because there was no other avenue open to him. 

This was made available to the local posts so that they could evalu- 
ate the situation based upon the public record and the person's reply 
to it. 

Mr. Doyle. Do I understand, then, that the original letter from the 
person involved to the employer went to the local posts? Did the 
original letter to the employer go out to the local posts? How did 
you function? 

Mr. O'Neil, They were copies of the original letters, of course. 
Insofar as that operation was concerned, going to the local posts, I 
would say very few went to the local posts, because the instances of a 
situation arising involving such individuals would be relatively few in 
number. Copies of those letters went out so they could be evaluated 
by the local people because they had the autonomous power to do what 
they wanted about a protest. 

Mr. Doyle. When the local post functioned, did the local post then 
report back to your office or with whom did they operate ? 

Mr. O'Neil. They made no report. We would find it out. Generally 
speaking I would say that the letters proved satisfactory to the local 


posts. I don't recall any instance, Mr. Congressman, where a letter 
as such didn't satisfy wliatever questions had arisen in the minds 
of the local posts regarding the particular picture or the entertainer, 
tlie producer, or the writer. 

Mr. Doyle. I want to assure you that my whole purpose in question- 
ing you is to learn the facts, whatever they are. 

]\Ir. O'Neil. I am trying to be as helpful as I can, 

Mr. DoTLE, This is not to be critical, but I do feel there is an area 
of absence of procedure so far in the record as to how you functioned, 
and as a member of this committee I am interested in the relationship 
of you people who aided in rehabilitation. You have stated that this 
letter was accepted by the employers as the method. 

Mr. O'Neil. That was one of their methods, of course. 

]\Ir. Doyle. You stated that Mv. Skouras, of 20th Century-Fox, 
had written a letter, and he considered that a method of clearance. 
That was your exact language a few moments ago. 

Mr. O'Neil, No, Mr. Congressman. A letter had been written to 
him by an employee. 

Mr. Doyle. That is right. That is what I mean. But Mr. Skouras 
reported to you in this conference where there were these 15 or 20 
representatives of the moving picture firms, that Mr. Skouras con- 
sidered that letter as a method of clearance. 

What, then, is the next step ? A copy of the letter from the employee 
went to the local post. Then how did the employer know what the 
local post was doing, if anything? In other words, how did you re- 
habilitate ? That is what I am getting at. 

Mr. O'Neil. Of course rehabilitation, Mr. Congressman, would 
come, I would say, not directly probably from the letter- writing cam- 
paign but from all of the things that went with it. In other words, 
if the protest arose at the local level, the exhibit or exhibitor became 
involved, and that built up into the studios. By the same token, when a 
local post became satisfied with the explanation and in their local 
appraisal felt there was no longer any occasion for them to protest, 
they would make their views known to the exhibitor at the local level. 
Of course that would be transmitted back through the entertainment 
industry belt to the studio people. We at our level would feel that if 
there was no further inquiry from the local posts they had become 
satisfied. If there was another inquiry, then we would try to determine 
whatever they desired. We tried to determine a method to obtain the 
answer to any questions which might arise. 

Mr. Doyle. You stated a minute ago these letters have become a 
very vital factor as means of rehabilitation. Those were your exact 
words as I wrote it down. I am not disagreeing with you at all, but 
I do want the information. I think the committee should have the 
information as to just Avhat the procedui'es were in this agreed ar- 
rangement between you and the industry as to this letter on rehabili- 
tation. You said there were less than 100 such letters. 

Mr. O'Neil. Less than 100 that came to my attention, Mr. Con- 

Mr. Doyle. Approximately how many of those 100, if you know, 
were rehabilitated in the sense in which you use the term? How 
many of those 100 got their employment again ? 

Mr. O'Neil. I would say ]iractically all of these people involved got 
their employment. Either they were continued in employment or 


they obtained employment. In other words, there was no denial of 
employment to them. 

Mr. Doyle. About how many of that approximately 100 had been 
identified as Communists for the purpose of this letter? 

Mr. O'Neil. I wouldn't be prepared to answer that without an 
examination of the letters, Mr. Congressman. There were some, of 

Mr. DoYLE. The reason I ask you that is to get at the extent of 
rehabilitation which resulted. 

Mr. O'Neil. I wouldn't be prepared to answer that. I would like 
to reserve the right to obtain that for you after an examination of 
my files, which, incidentally, have been transferred to Indianapolis. 
I would have to get at those files to answer that properly. 

Mr. Doyle. I don't know whether your exhibits offered here today 
include a copy of this rehabilitation letter. If you have it there, I 
would like to see a copy of the letter which was used by the Legion for 
this purpose of rehabilitation. 

Mr. O'Neil. Mr. Congressman, every letter would be different, be- 
cause it would have to be in answer to the specifics. This was not an 
agreement between the Legion and the industry as a method at all. 
This was a proposal, as I said, offered or suggested by Mr. Skouras 
as one method which the studio had employed. This was not our con- 
ception at all. This was a plan which people who had no other 
avenue of approach to this problem might utilize. Mr. Skouras sug- 
gested this as possibly one way to answer the problem, and he asked 
if the American Legion would participate and help the industry 
and the individuals involved. That we agreed to do. 

Mr. Doyle. I wish to say I think it is a magnificent thing you did. 
I am not criticizing you. 

Mr. O'Neil. I appreciate that, Mr. Congressman. 

Mr. Doyle. But it is not clear in my mind yet, just the procedures 
that were followed because you stated a minute ago the Legion has 
participated in the distribution of this letter for rehabilitation of the 
individuals. I wrote that down and I don't think I missed more than 
1 or 2 words of your exact wording. Therefore, I assume that it was 
some sort of agreed content of letter. I am in error, apparently. 

Mr. O'Neil. I wouldn't say that you are in error, Mr. Congressman. 
I would say, though, that every letter had to take on different lan- 
guage, particularly because each individual would have different 
allegations. Therefore, the statement would have to cover that par- 
ticular individual. 

Mr. Doyle. I realize that. You have made that clear to me. One 
more question, please. You mentioned Mr. Eric Johnston, stating you 
conferred with him in 1947, and that he said that he was concerned. 
That was your wording. 

Mr. O'Neil. That is right. 

Mr. Doyle. Subsequent to 1947 did you ever confer with Mr. Eric 
Johnston as head of the movie industry on this point? If so, when? 

Mr. O'Neil. No. The next time that I met with him was on March 
31, 1952. 

Mr. Doyle. That was at the conference when Schenck, Skouras, 
Schneider, O'Connor, and others were present ? 

Mr. O'Neil. That is correct. 


Mr. DoTXE. May I ask this question because the other witnesses 
yesterday and today were asked. I don't recall that you were spe- 
cifically asked this. What is your idea of blacklisting? What does 
blacklisting consist of ? 

Mr. O'Neil. I would say blacklisting is reprehensible in its general 
terminology, of course, and certainly the American Legion and myself 
as an individual would not be identified with it. The American Le- 
gion, however, feels very definitely that those identified with the Com- 
munist conspiracy, the Communist apparatus, should not be employed 
in the entertainment industry. 

Mr. Doyle. I don't disagree with you. I wanted to get your defini- 
tion because the definitions have varied. 

Mr. O'Neil. I am sure they will because the word itself connotes 
something reprehensible. It does to me. 

Mr. Doyle. Is the legion now functioning in this fine program? 

Mr. O'Neil. I would say, Mr. Congressman, that the Legion con- 
siders the situation in Hollywood to be very, very good at the present 
time. I see no occasion for us to be alarmed, although we certainly 
continue observation of the whole situation. We certainly are ready 
and willing to participate, as we always have been, in helping in 
rehabilitation, as such is the keystone of our structure and organiza- 
tion. As of now I would say things are very good. 

The Chairman. Any questions, Mr. Willis 1 

Mr. Willis. No questions. 

The Chairman. Mr. Jackson. 

Mr. Jackson. I thought after the vote we had last week I probably 
would be in the witness chair and the American Legion would be ques- 
tioning me. 

I think probably the major portion of the criticism, if it can be called 
criticism, could probably be directed at the Firing Line. I would like 
to ask several questions on this because I know very little about it. 
I receive it and read it with considerable interest. What is the cir- 
culation figure, if you know, of the Firing Line ? 

Mr. O'Neil. I don't know, Mr. Congressman. If I had to make an 
offhand guess, I would say that it Avould be somewhere in the area of 

Mr. Jackson. On what sources of information does the Firing Line 
depend for its data ? 

Mr. O'Neil. I would say very largely on the public records, Mr. 

Mr. Jackson. Of this and other committees ? 

Mr. O'Neil. Yes : and other governmental agencies, State and Fed- 

Mr. Jackson. What would you say the prime mission of the Firing 
Line is ? Would you say that it is for the purpose of effecting a black- 
list as "blacklist" has been used in this hearing this time by some of 
the witnesses, or is its primary purpose to supply information to the 
local posts and membership of the American Legion ? 

Mr. O'Neil. I would say it is an information bulletin such as com- 
parable to a newsletter, Mr. Congressman. 

Mr. Jackson. Do you have any personal knowledge of any instance 
where the American Legion or any representative of the American 
Legion has gone directly to an employer or a producer, let us say, and 
interposed objections to the employment of a given individual ? 


Mr. O'Neil. I don't know of anything like that. 

Mr. Jackson. In other words, your interpretation of the function of 
Firing Line — if I am in error I want to be corrected — is that it fulfills 
the same role in the American Legion as the labor press does within 
organized labor and the Chamber of Commerce News does within the 
chambers of connnerce ? 

For instance, I am blacklisted, literally. I can't get into a union 
hall. I am blacklisted because my name appears on a blacklist of those 
who ought to be defeated. In spite of all of my protestations to the 
contrary, I remain on the blacklist. So I think all of us in one way 
or another are blacklisted in the wide use of the term. But the role 
of the labor press is to inform labor members of positions taken, who 
should be supported and who should be opposed. Is that the role of 
Firing Line ? 

Mr. O'Neil. I wouldnt' say that, Mr. Congressman, definitely no, 
I would say that the role of the Firing Line, although we do not par- 
ticipate in its publication or distribution 

Mr. Jackson. I understand that. 

Mr. O'Neil. The role of the Firing Line is to inform the key people 
in the American Legion — probably more Americanism officers receive 
it than any other group — of the situations which develop around the 
country in this and other related fields. In other words, its concen- 
tration is against the Communist infiltration and activity, and it be- 
comes a newsletter in that area. 

Mr. ScHERER. Will you yield for a question ? 

Mr. Jackson. I will be happy to yield. 

Mr. ScHERER. The Firing Line, as you have indicated, in times past 
has called to the attention of Legion posts certain movies in which 
members of the Communist conspiracj^ appeared? 

Mr. O'Neil. That would be correct, sir. 

Mr. ScHERER. And recommended against the public or the Ameri- 
can Legion supporting such movies. 

Mr. CNeil. That is directly or indirectly implied, 1 would say 

Mr. ScHERER. And the Catholic Church has its Legion of Decency 
and it sends out a publication recommendation that the members of the 
church not support movies which do not comply with certain moral 

Mr. O'Neil. That is right, sir. 

Mr. ScHERER. Would you say that is somewhat similar? 

Mr. O'Neil. I would say that would be more similar than the refer- 
ence made by Congressman Jackson. 

Mr. Jackson. I think the gentleman from Ohio has probably 
brought attention to a better example. 

Mr. ScHERER. When you were engaged in conversations with the 
movie industry in Hollywood did you learn anything about any re- 
strictions on employment of individuals in the industry who did not 
belong to a union ? 

Mr. O'Neil. No ; we never became involved in any discussion of that 

Mr. ScHERER. As I understand it, unless all who are employed in 
the industry out there belong to a certain union or unions they can't 
work ; can they ? 


Mr. Doyle. Mr. Chairman, I don't think that is germane to this 
question. I think it is outside the issues. The question of union mem- 
bership is not here involved and I object to the question. We have 
here the question of communism and infiltration of communism and 

Mr. ScHERER. It is the question of blacklisting. 

The Chairman. Proceed, Mr. Scherer. 

Mr. Scherer. I just made it as an observation that from our hear- 
ings in Hollywood I understood that the movie industry would not 
employ a cameraman or others who did not belong to a certain union. 
I am not saying there is anything wrong with that. I am just saying 
that is a fact. I don't know wh}^ my dist'nguished colleague should 
object to that observation. 

Mr. Doyle. I stated the objection for the record. 

Mr. Scherer. We are all trying to find out what blacklisting really 
means. I am puzzled at this point myself. 

The Chairman. Maybe I can clarify the atmosphere. 

Mr. Scherer. You go ahead, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. A blacklist is a general term used to describe a list 
of persons considered obnoxious for reasons good or bad. 

Now will you please tell me whether or not there is in existence such 
a list? 

Mr. O'Neil. I know of no list, Mr. Chairman, that is in existence. 
I wouldn't know where such a list was. 

The Chairman. Of course if there isn't a list, then those people who 
are complaining about a list are complaining because through their 
own fault they have found themselves to be obnoxious. Certainly it 
seems to me that we cannot talk about a nonexistent thing when we 
are thinking about a set of circumstances. 

Mr. O'Neil. I would agree, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Arens. One of the individuals frequently alluded to in the 
report is Mr. George Sokolsky. We tried to communicate with Mr. 
Sokolsky to invite him to appear today or some time in response to 
the allegations against him in the report. Mr. Sokolsky told me on 
the telephone that because of his heart condition he was in a state of 
semiseclusion but that he would be very happy to prepare a statement 
for submission to the record. He has done so. It arrived yesterday. 
I have it at this time for presentation to the committee and if it meets 
with the pleasure of the committee, for incorporation in the record, 
it will be marked "Sokolsky Exhibit No. 1." 

The Chairman. It will be incorporated. 

Sokolsky Exhibit No. 1 


In reply to your inquiry by telephone, I wish first to regret that my health 
does not yet permit me to come to Washington. Were it possible, I should only 
be pleased to join you. 

I have read both volumes of the Cogley Report on "Blacklisting" and while the 
volume dealing with motion pictures appears to me to be of superior workman- 
ship to the volume on radio and television, both suffer from inadequate research, 
from either an unwillingness or an inability to get at all the facts, from a 
double standard of morals. 


As regards the double standard of morals, I note that some persons are 
identified by name while others are anonymous or are disguised by initials, 
or are turned into composite personalities so that their identities do not disclose 
themselves although certain phases of their personalities are identifiable. This 
is not objective reporting and represents, in my opinion, that characteristic of 
congressional investigations vphich Mr. Cogley and others have described as 
McCarthyism ; namely, an accusation without adequate proof or any at all. 

Before I proceed to answer your direct question, I wish to make the point that 
my interest was entirely in the field of movies and never in the field of radio 
and television. The reason is quite simple : In the motion-picture field there was 
the possibility of aiding in the rehabilitation of men and women of talent, so 
that they might be enabled to contribute to American life. It was also possible 
to smash the Communist treasui-y which drew more heavily on Hollywood than 
anyone will ever be able to establish. 

Also, the motion-picture industry is well organized, with comparatively few 
companies, headed by men of direct responsibility. Radio and television is a 
vast arena of networks, local stations, advertising agencies, producing companies, 
with participants who come and go and about whom one learns only long after 
the event. I therefore felt that while it was possible to do a constructive job 
in motion pictures, it was practically impossible to do anything constructive in 
radio and television. 

Although Cogley mentions me often and apparently I have won some favor 
in his eyes, his researchers have failed to discover how I came into it at all. 
There were two routes : At Jim McGuinness' funeral, or at his wake, some 
of us were discussing tlie enormous sacrifices this noble American made and how 
it really cost him his life. On that occasion, John Ford introduced me to Ward 
Bond and I learned of the work that these men were doing in Hollywood in their 
fight against the Communists, Their story appealed to me as one of the most 
constructive works in the anti-Communist movement, but I was immediately 
certain that the solution was not in blacklists or boycotts but in rehabilitation. 

This conviction was strengthened by a visit to my home of Nate Spingold, a 
vice president of Columbia Pictures who had formerly been a newspaperman 
and who ranks high in culture and intelligence. Spingold was discussing a boycott 
of some of the pictures produced by his company. He challenged me to answer 
this question : 

"Suppose a man is accused of being a Communist, or of having been one, 
how does he ever clear himself of the charge? Where is the forum? If he 
goes to the FBI, they take down what he says and then it is filed and nobody is 
permitted to see the files. The House Committee on Un-American Activities 
can only hear a few cases and they are selected and the committee calls the few 
who are selected in its own time. Meanwhile, such a person cannot work. 
What do you say to that?" 

No rule-of-thumb answer would do. After many telephone calls and exchanges 
of views, the reply to Spingold's challenge was threefold : 

1. No person could clear another. It is only possible for an individual to 
clear himself, because only he knows what his motives were and what all his 
actions were. 

2. The only value of an outside group could be, from experience, to help to 
evaluate statements made by individuals and perhaps act as a clearinghouse for 
data. The clearinghouse idea was tried and failed because it was impossible to 
set up such an organization. 

Instead each person who wanted to clear himself communicated in the form 
of a letter to his employer, the head of the company that employed him. In the 
event that the person was unemployed, he communicated with the company that 
formerly employed him or with a prospective employer. 

3. No person engaged in this activity was to accept payment for any services 
or even compensation for expenses. This rule was adhered to strictly. 

I do not and cannot know the correct number of those rehabilitated by this 
process. My rough estimate runs about 300 men and women who are today 
working in the motion-picture industry who could not work before because of 
the record they had established of Communist or pseudo-Communist associa- 
tions. Rather than being a blacklisting effort, this was an effort in rehabilitation. 

It was unpopular on two sides : Many sincere anti-Communists believed that 
it was an effort in the wrong direction because it made it possible for those 
who had been pro-Communists to work, but it failed to do anything for ex* 
Communists who testified before congressional committees and the FBI. This 


criticism was well founded, but those of us who worked in this program had 
no answer for it. 

The second criticism came from the Communist group who prepared dishonest 
statements and wanted one of us to say that we believed every word they wrote. 
It was a very trying situation because while we rejected the concept of "clear- 
ing" as morally dishonest, we nevertheless had no desire to be tricked and 
fooled. On the whole, I would say this program was socially beneficial. 

As regards your questions concerning the data running from page 89 in the 
radio and television report, this seems to me a melange of misintormation. I 
do not know who is responsible for it, but it would seem that someone was 
boasting, was trying to give the appearance of being a big shot. 

For instance, reference is made to a public-relations counsel who obtained 
affidavits from me. I never signed an affidavit. Even if the word "affidavit" 
is put in quotation marks, it is untrue. 

Reference is made to Victor Riesel, Frederick Woltman, and I acting together. 
This never happened, except that Victor Riesel came to my house one day with 
John Garfield. Just before he died, Garfield was preparing a statement in 
Arnold Forster's office, which he told me would show the relation of Charlie 
Chaplin to Communist recruitment in this country. I never saw this statement. 
I was told that it was taken by Benjamin and Krim after Garfield died. I do 
not know whether this is true or not, as I did not pursue the subject. 

Forster also asked me to see Judy HoUiday and a man called Block who 
advertised a toothpaste on radio or television. I saw Judy HoUiday but our 
conversation led to nothing. I also saw Block but only recall that he told me 
he had given someone "expenses" for clearing and I would have nothing to do 
with him. 

The letter which Cogley's report says I gave an actor was to Luther Adler. 
I cannot understand why his name is omitted from the account as this seemed 
to me a clear case of injustice and I said so. I had known Luther Adler's father 
and mother, among the greatest actors of their time, and I respected them. I 
am sure that that played some emotional part in my attitude toward this man 
who while he was a liberal certainly was no Communist. 

In any case, there was no clearing ring, as Cogley's book seems to infer. 
As for Frederick Woltman, an able journalist, I am quite sure that we had no 
occasion to discuss these particular problems at all. 

It rather amuses me that with all the money that the Fund for the Republic 
has expended on this research, they did not get at the true nature of the effort 
for rehabilitation and they permitted this so-called public-relations export, 
whoever he may have been, to tell them a weird story which was wholly untrue. 
His motive could only have been to advertise his importance. No one ever 
asked me to see 10 or 12 persons interested in radio and television. I never 
saw others in this field than I have here indicated by name. 

The Chairman. Is there anything more ? 

Mr. Arens. Nothing more this afternoon. We have witnesses for 
tomorrow beginning at 10 o'clock. 

The Chairman. Mr. O'Neil, you are excused with the thanks of the 
committee and its commendations for the attempt that you have made 
to deal intelligently with a very difficult subject. 

The committee is in recess until 10 tomorrow morning. 

(Whereupon, at 3 : 20 p. m., Wednesday, July 11, the committee was 
recessed, to reconvene at 10 a. m., Thursday, July 12, 1956.) 



3 9999 05706 3248 



i-^i ^8t^ ft ^ 


tUfckltf^vvj pfejtl 







A/'Qu^HflwA fir 1-5 



U- eis 11 



5«*i«^^tSKV» dtf4 



'Ov)~^ ^,^^^-1^ ^ 


-. '-':»^: ^v-.