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


VE n R I 











JULY 12 AND 13, 1956 

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







United States House of Representatives 

FRANCIS E. WALTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman 


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


Richard Arens, Director 




July 10, 1956: Testimony of— 

John Cogley 5175 

Afternoon session: 

John Cogley (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 

July 12, 1956: Testimony of— 

Vincent W, Hartnett 5291 

Afternoon session: Testimony of — 

Rov M. Brewer 5312 

Paiil R. Milton 5327 

July 13, 1956: Testimony of— 

Paul R. Milton (resumed) 5329 

Godfrey P. Schmidt 5353 

Afternoon session: 

Victor Riesel (statement) 5367 

"rancis J. McNamara 5368 

July 17, 1956: Testimony of— 
Afternoon session: 

Gale Sondergaard (Mrs, Herbert Biberman) 6390 

July 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 hy the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States 
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. 


Rules Adopted by the 84th Congress 
House Resolution 5, January 5, 1955 

Rule X 


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

If: iH 4c « 4: H: 4i 

(q) Committee on Un-American Activities, to consist of nine members. 
* * * sa nn rti m 

RtTLfi 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, 
character, and objects of un-American propaganda activities in the United States, 
(2) the diffusion within the United States of subversive and un-American propa- 
ganda that is instigated from foreign countries or of a domestic origin and 
attacks the principle of the form of government as guaranteed by our Constitu- 
tion and (3) all other questions in relation thereto that would aid Congress In 
any necessary remedial legislation. 

The Committee on Un-American Activities shall report to the House (or to the 
Clerk of the House if the House is not in session) the results of any such investi- 
gation, togethet- 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. 


THURSDAY, JULY 12, 1956 

United States House of Representatives, 

Committee on Un-American Activities, 

Washington^ D. C. 


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

Committee members present: Representatives Francis E. Walter, 
of Pennsylvania; Clyde Boyle, of California; Harold H. Velde, of 
Illinois ; and Gordon H. Scherer, of Ohio. 

Committee staff present : Richard Arens, director, and K. Baarslag. 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order. 

I understand that some of the members are on their way, so that we 
will get started. 

Mr. Arens. Will Mr. Vincent Hartnett please come forward? 
Would you remain standing while the chairman administers an oath 
to you ? 

The Chairman. 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. Hartnett. I do. 


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

Mr. Hartnett. My name is Vincent W. Hartnett. I am 40 years 
of age. I presently reside in New York City, and by occupation I am 
a talent consultant especially to the radio and TV industry. 

Mr. Arens. Would you give us, if you please, Mr. Hartnett, a 
characterization or description of your functions as a talent consult- 

Mr. Hartnett. Yes. In the course of my occupation or profes- 
sion, I compile research material on actors, producers, directors, 
writers, and so forth, in the entertainment industry, not only as to 
their general talent background but also with special reference to 
any Communist Party or Communist-front affiliations. 

Mr. Arens. How long have you been engaged in this profession, Mr. 

Mr. Hartnett. Professionally engaged, sir, in any regular sense 
since September 1952. 



Mr. Arens. Give us, if you please, a brief summary of your back- 
ground, your education, and any professions or occupations in which 
you have engaged prior to your present occupation. 

Mr. Hartnett. Yes. I was a graduate B. A. and also M. A., 
maxima cum laude, both from the University of Notre Dame ; and I 
think I should add that I did special postgraduate studies in the 
Theory and Practice of Bolshevism under the late Dr. Waldemar 

I began to compile files on the Communist movement prior to World 
War II. During the war I served on the highest levels as an officer 
in intelligence posts in the Navy. I was separated from the naval 
service finally with the rank of lieutenant commander. 

After the war I was a free-lance writer and also engaged in public 
relations and fund-raising work, and in 1948 I went into radio. My 
first job was as assistant to the executive producer of a leading radio 
independent producer, Phillips H. Lord, Inc., and I became super- 
visor of the Gangbusters radio program. I left the Gangbusters pro- 
gram at the end of June 1949, directly as a result of a Communist 
issue, and I began to compile extensive files on the subject and then 
became a consultant. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Hartnett, I should like at the outset here in your 
testimony to read you an excerpt from Report on Blacklisting, page 93, 
volume II, Radio-Television, by John Cogley of the Fund for the 
Republic. This report, in alluding to you, makes the following state- 
ment among other things : 

Hartnett may be the most widely criticized man in the radio-TV industry, 
because he is frankly in the business of exposing people with "front records" and 
then later of "clearing" them — or as the Times writer delicately put it, "advising 
them on how to counter pro-Communist allegations." 

Are you conversant with the fact that this language does appear in 
the report ? 

Mr. Hartnett. Yes ; I am, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Is this a truthful characterization of yourself ? 

Mr. Hartnett. No, sir. It is a falsehood. 

Mr. Arens. Wliat is the truth ? 

Mr. Hartnett. The truth is that I have never been in the business 
of acting as a clearance man, so-called, for any performers. I have 
never solicited, have never received, and would never accept any com- 
pensation of any kind from any individual who sought my help or 
to whom I offered my free services to help rehabilitate himself. This 
is an enormous falsification. 

Mr. Arens. By "this," what do you mean ? 

Mr. Hartnett. This statement. It is hardly an innuendo. It is 
almost a direct statement that I am in the business of extorting from 

Mr. ScHERER. Do you mean the statement from the Fund for the 
Republic report on blacklisting ? 

Mr. Hartnett. Yes, sir. It accuses me of threat and ransom ac- 
tivities. It is an outrageous falsification. 

Mr. Arens. What are your fees for your services ? 

Mr. Hartnett. I am employed directly by several leading sponsors 
in radio and TV. I have been employed by a motion-picture studio, by 
a couple of law firms, by a network on a regular basis, a couple of 
advertising agencies. 


My fees to my clients as I have enumerated are ordinarily $5 for a 
first research check. I am not an investigator. I am a researcher. 
Two dollars if a name is repeated to see if any new information has 
come upon the record; if the report is extensive, $20. I could name 
the cases on one hand where there has been an extremely tedious 
amount of research. For example, I was asked by a client a month 
ago about Arthur Miller. That report was more than 33 pages and 
I charged more than $20 for it. It took about 2 weeks. 

Mr. Arens. What are the sources of your information ? 

Mr. Hartnett. First, of course, the reports of State and congres- 
sional investigating committees. They are the backbone of any con- 
sultant's library ; secondly, an original collection of literature issued 
by the Communist Party and many, many Communist-front groups. 
Third, a large collection, one of the best in the country, of theater 
literature, literature pertaining to productions in the theater. Fourth, 
of course, newspapers and magazines and periodicals. Fifth, to a 
lesser extent, actual eyewitness reports of Communist-front meetings, 
rallies and parades. 

Mr. Arens. Have you ever in the course of your professional life, 
solicited any one with a Communist or Communist- front record to 
employ you to quote "clear" that individual? 

Mr. Hartnett. Sir, this question was raised in the pre-trial exam- 
ination in my $200,000 lawsuit against John Crosby and the New 
York Herald Tribune. It had such currency that I began to look at 
myself a second time. I have gone over my records and files and 
searched my memory and will say flatly under oath I have never done 

The Chairman. If you pick up some of the newspapers tomorrow 
you may find that your enormous falsification will be not enormous 
falsification, but that you have confirmed the findings of the report. 

Mr. Arens. Have you ever, Mr. Hartnett, accepted compensation 
of any kind from the individual whom you have helped to rehabilitate 
himself ? 

Mr. Hartnett. Sir, because I am under oath, let me be precise. 
My services were once sought by a good friend of mine, a good anti- 
Communist newspaper writer, Victor Lasky, who felt that Yul 
Brynner, the famous director and actor, had been unfairly treated. 
I met at Longchamps, 49th Street and Madison Avenue, New York, 
with Mr. Lasky and Mr. Brynner, and, over my protests, Yul Brynner 
paid the luncheon check. That is about the only case of that kind. 

In the case of an executive of Decca Records, he felt that he had 
been unjustly labeled. I met him, assisted him, and he sent me one 
phonograph record. That was compensation. I didn't want to be 
sent it. 

Mr. Arens. Before we proceed further, may I ask you 1 or 2 
general questions. Do you feel, Mr. Hartnett, that there is a legitimate 
place for private individuals and private organizations in the process 
of routing Communists and pro-Communists from the entertainment 
industry ? 

Mr. Hartnett. If I didn't feel that, sir, I wouldn't be doing what 
I am doing, because this was forced on me. My present profession 
was not of my choice. 


I was in a situation originally as a radio producer where I became 
conversant with the operations of what we call the Communist ap- 
paratus. I began to acquire information and I began to be deluged 
with phone calls and requests for information from many sources. 
They became so great in the period 1950 to 1952 that I finally had to, 
for self-protection, charge very modest fees. 

Let me say this : that in spite of the tremendous information un- 
covered by this committee, which is, of course, an object of opprobrium 
to the Communists — they dread investigations, especially by this com- 
mittee — in spite of that, in spite of all the investigations conducted by 
both State and congressional committees, I would say that not more 
than 5 percent, not more than 5 percent of the past and present Com- 
munists in the entertainment industry have been uncovered. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Hartnett, may I quote to you some language ap- 
pearing on page 97 of volume II ? 

Mr. ScHERER. You say that, with all of the investigations conducted 
by this committee and similar committees, that we have uncovered only 
5 percent of the Communists in the entertainment field ? 

Mr. Hartnett. I would think that is correct, Mr. Scherer. I have 
made a tabular analysis of records, and I would think it is no more 
than 5 percent of past and present Communists. 

Mr. Scherer. And we have been accused time and time again, as you 
know, of exaggerating the menace. 

Mr. Hartnett. Let me put it this way, if I may, Mr. Congressman. 
In the New York local of the American Federation of Television and 
Radio Artists approximately 30 members have been so far identified 
before this committee by sworn testimony as Communist Party mem- 
bers; no more than 30. Yet the minimum voting strength of the 
progressive, so-called caucus in AFTRA is about 400. They have a 
steady, reliable vote, election after election, of 400. Not all of those 
are party members. Some are sympathizers. 

That means that at present, people who will consistently go along 
with the party, number 400 in-lhe New York Local of AFTRA. 

They are not all Communists. Probably the actual Communist 
Party members number 150. 

Then you have a Communist bloc in Equity. You have a Commu- 
nist bloc in the American Guild of Variety Artists. The vast ma- 
jority of these have never been named before any congressional 

Mr. Arens. I have often made the observation that there is no ex- 
pert on communism, that there are experts on various phases of the 
Communist conspiracy. 

On the basis of your background and your specialized experience in 
this one facet of the Communist operation, would you express to this 
committee your opinion, your judgment, and your appraisal as to the 
degree to which the Communist Party is, at this instant, in penetra- 
tion in the entertainment industry? How serious is the menace of 
Communist penetration right now in the entertainment industry? 
That is your specialty. 

Mr. Hartnett. Among the older established performers, producers, 
and directors, of course there is no progressive infiltration. Those 
people have chosen sides long ago. The extreme danger is with the 
young people coming up, especially those in their late teens and early 
twenties, particularly boys and girls from out of town who come to 


New York and avIio work in a few off-Broadway theaters. They find 
that it is advantaj^eous to tlieir careers, if not to become party mem- 
bers, to at least be "progressive" and vote along with the Communist 
fraction and sign petitions and the like. 

Mr. SciiERER. You mean they are afraid they might be blacklisted 
if they do not do it ? 

Mr. IIartnett. Well, it hasn't come to that yet. They are afraid 
that, if they don't go along with this, they won't get the job oppor- 

Mr. ScHERER. "We had some testimony in Los Angeles that that did 
happen in Los Angeles a few years back, namely, that there were 
many in the JjOS Angeles area who went along with the Communists 
out there because, if they did not, they felt that their careers would be 

Mr. Hartnett. That is correct, Mr. Scherer. That is a very difficult 
problem that I will have to say Mr. Cogley did not treat of in his 

Mr, Sciierer. That is what I was going to say. The report of the 
Fund for the Republic says nothing about that; nor does it say any- 
thing in that report of the blacklisting of Herbert Fuchs, who was 
mentioned by the chairman the other day. There is a man who, when 
he refused to cooperate with this committee, the university said they 
would stand behind, because he was a good professor and a good 
teacher. The minute he cooperated with this committee and gave us 
some of the most valuable testimony that this committee has ever had 
on infiltration into Government, they fired him. 

Yet this report of the Fund for the Republic says not one word about 
that type of blacklisting. 

Mr. Hartnett. Congressman, I saw a couple of sad cases of that. 
For example, one individual whom I listed in Red Channels, which was 
published and edited by the Counterattack people, was the then well- 
known radio-TV writer, Allan Sloane. Sloane initially filed a lawsuit 
against my book for libel, claiming he had been libeled by mention of 
a couple of Communist affiliations. Subsequently he came before your 
connnittee and admitted he had been a hard-core Communist Party 
member. Since that time Allan Sloane has not, to my knowledge — 
and I am supposed to be an expert, I keep casting figures — to m.y 
knowledge, Allan Sloane has not worked for the firms for which he 
used to work. He has done the Navy Log Program on television in the 
last season, the Navy Log Program, and Allan Sloane, by the way, is 
a dedicated liberal anti-Comniunist ; but, as far as my information 
extends, he did not obtain emplo5rment from the people who had given 
him employment before he testified. 

Mr. Scherer. Have you an explanation as to why the report of the 
Fund for the Republic did not cover that type of blacklisting? 

Mr. Hartnett. There are some allusions, more in the first volume 
on motion pictures, of blacklisting on an unorganized or disorganized 
scale of anti-Communists by Communists, and "Progi^essives." I 
know it is not played up in this volume on radio and television. I must 
say in general that there is, as George Sokolsky put it, an inadequacy 
of research in the book. The book betrays an amateurish grasp of the 
radio and television industry. This is not remarkable because, after 
all, it is a difficult field. 


As General Twining said when lie came back from Moscow, there 
is no great knowledge of the Communist conspiracy. There are vary- 
ing degrees of ignorance. Some of us are less ignorant than others, 
and Mr. Cogley, I am afraid, is quite ignorant. 

The Chairman. I think that the review of this in the Brooklyn 
Tablet is the best description I have seen, that it is dull and amateurish. 
That is what The Tablet calls it. 

Mr. Hartnett. Congressman Walter, Mr. Cogley never seems to get 
to what I think is the base of the whole issue : Is there a Communist 
apparatus, conspiracy, or movement in radio and TV? Is it evil? 
Should we do something about it? How should we do something 
about it? He didn't seem to start from that. 

The Chairman. He would not call it evil. He would call it a 
political party the same as the Democratic and the Republican Parties. 

Mr. Arens. Will you answer those questions now, Mr. Hartnett? 
Is there a Communist apparatus in the entertainment industry ? 

Mr. Hartnett. No one has to take my word for it. There has been 
sworn testimony before this and other committees to the existence of 
such an apparatus and, when the members of this committee inter- 
rogated witnesses in the Foley Square hearings in August 1955 one 
witness after another took the fifth amendment when asked if he had 
knowledge of such a Communist caucus. 

Mr. Arens. How serious is the Communist penetration of the enter- 
tainment industry? What is your appraisal? 

Mr. Hartnett. That is a very broad question. 

(At this point Representative Harold H. Velde entered the hearing 
room. ) 

Mr. Hartnett. Could I break it down ? 

Mr. Arens. How much of a menace is the Communist penetration 
of the entertainment industry ? 

Mr, Hartnett. I would like to start with, for example, the Ameri- 
ican Federation of Television and Radio Artists. That is the per- 
formers' union in radio and television. 

As I said before, numerically, party members do not impress one. 
Let us say that in round figures there are about 150 actors, members 
of AFTRA, under party discipline in the New York local, but there 
are 5,000 members of the local. 

Out in Los Angeles this problem is well under control. In Chicago 
there is not much of a problem in the midwestern AFTRA, but the 
difficult thing is some of the Communist Party members, as always, 
insinuate themselves into positions of great influence where they are 
able to 

Mr. Arens. How great is the influence of Communists in the enter- 
tainment industry ? Is it negligible ? Is it appreciable ? Is it signifi- 
cant? Is it a menace or is it not a menace? 

Mr. Hartnett. It is a significant thing. I wouldn't want to over- 
estimate the menace because I think that there are forces in the in- 
dustry itself which recognize it. The situation, however, is compli- 
cated by the presence in such as the New York local of AFTRA of 
individuals who are anti-Communist in the abstract. They are op- 
posed to sin but, when it comes down to opposing individual Com- 
munists or those under Communist discipline, they won't do it. In- 
stead they tend to run guard for the Communists. In other words, 


while the Communists will carry the ball, you have 5 or 6 alleged 
liberals who will knock out the opposition. 

Mr. Arens. On page 97 of volume II of this report appears the 
following : 

Hartnett's position on blacklisting is clear : he is for it. Like many others, 
he balks at the word but accepts the fact. Not long ago he stated his belief 
that "no provable Communist Party member or provable collaborator of the Com- 
munist Party should work on radio or television." 

Do you care to comment upon that statement ? 

Mr. ILvRTNETT. Yes, that is my statement. Like everyone else, I 
resent having a dirty term, an epithet, improperly attached to a prac- 
tice which in itself is laudable. 

Mr. Arens. What are you speaking about ? 

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

Mr. Hartnett. The word "blacklisting," Blacklisting is a nasty 
term. You might just as well, for example, say that the newspaper 
which prints records of court cases, like the New York Law Journal, 
is blacklisting. It says that such and such a man is remanded to 
jail. You might say that the Better Business Bureau is blacklisting 
if it turns in truthful and accurate records on phony businessmen. 
You might say that Dun & Bradstreet is blacklisting when it gives a 
bad credit report. 

The term "blacklisting" originally had a hard and fast meaning 
in labor circles, and to attach that to honest, intelligent, reasonable, 
and fair patriotic efforts to keep subversives out of radio and television, 
I think is a dangerous slanting. 

Mr. Arexs. Let us come right to the heart of the matter, please, 
Mr. Hartnett. On the basis of your background and extensive ex- 
perience, are people being unjustly accused of Communist activities 
in the industry and thereby being deprived of employment oppor- 
tunities ? Is there a practice of that going on ? 

Mr. Hartnett. There have been a few isolated instances which 
have come to my attention of confusion of identity, and I will men- 
tion one case. It won't harm the man to mention the case. It might 
hurt him. 

Mr. Arens. You mean it might help him. 

Mr. Hartnett. Right. It may help him. In the New York run 
of Silk Stockings, there was an actor by the name of Philip Sterling, 
S-t-e-r-1-i-n-g. I have kno^^^l Phil Sterling from radio circles for a 
half dozen years. Unfortunately, as it happens there was a writer 
for the Communist press who used the pseudonym Phil Sterling ; and 
Phil Sterling called me up one day and said he knew he was in trouble, 
he was able to work on Broadway but not in television. I asked. 
"Could you drop around to my office on 42d Street?" He said, 

Some of my clients had asked me about Phil Sterling, the actor, and 
I knew he was not Phil Sterling who worked for the Communist press. 
I tried to figure out what to do about it. The obvious thing was to put 
out a report. 

I am criticized for interviewing actors or trying to elicit their com- 
ments, but how else could this man get the word around that he was 
not the Phil Sterling of Communist literature ? I put out a report to 
my clients pointing out that he was not the other individual of the 


same name. Phil Sterling, the actor, is fine. It so happened there 
was one minor thing that I wouldn't even discuss. He was a splendid 
fellow to my knowledge. There have been other such cases. 

Mr. Arens. Is this a general or isolated instance? 

Mr. Hartnett. An isolated instance. The same thing might happen 
in business. They might confuse Joe Jones, the haberdasher, with Joe 
Jones, who operates a stationery store. 

Mr. Arens. This industrial epithet "blacklisting" then embraces the 
efforts of people like yourself and of patriotic organizations to preclude 
Communists and those in the Communist apparatus from being in the 
entertainment industry. 

Mr. Hartnett. It is being used as a blanket term for both the good 
and evil. 

Mr. Arens. How effective is the process of disassociating Commu- 
nists and those in the Communist web from the entertainment industry ? 

Mr. Hartnett. Sir, that gets to the heart of your whole problem 
and it is something that Mr. Cogley again didn't seem to grasp. 
Patronage is of the essence of Communist success in the entertainment 
industry. In the entertainment industry you have always more quali- 
fied people for jobs than you have jobs. Therefore, the Commies, 
beginning in the middle thirties, began to operate a patronage mecha- 
nism. They were able to take Communists and sympathizers, for ex- 
ample, from the Group Theater in New York and give them the "magic 
carpet" to the west coast and Hollywood, and build them up in jobs. 
You didn't have to be a party member. That helped. They were able 
to build up people. They were able to insinuate themselves in positions 
of authority as casting directors and directors and producers, so that 
those who would go along with the Commies without necessarily join- 
ing the party, just signing petitions, being as they say "progressive," 
these people would get preferential treatment. This is commonly 
known in show business. 

Mr. Scherer. We had ample testimony on the west coast from many 
people that that was the practice. 

Mr. Hartnett. So that the secret, in my opinion, of defeating com- 
munism, and it is not the only means of doing it — there are many 
things — exposure and so forth, possibly some legislation, I am not 
sure ; that is not my field. But to my mind the dagger thrust to the 
heart of the enemy here, the Communist movement in the entertain- 
ment industry, is to cut this patronage apparatus. Once 98 percent of 
the people in show business, 95 to 98 percent of the people, are con- 
vinced that it is no longer profitable or popular to go along with the 
Communists, they won't do it. You always had some few — I don't 
know the exact percentage, I have never worked it out — people who 
would go along, as they say, with the Communists because it paid off. 
You have to stop that. This, to my opinion, is the most significant 
thing about the security procedures in the entertainment industry. 

They are not aimed at an individual as such. Oh, yes, it is true 
that a performer who is a party member is able to make money and 
contribute to the Communist cause. He can make speeches. I am 
not minimizing that. 

But the main thing is that communism is all an integrated appara- 
tus. The security procedure is not aimed at hurting the individual. 
It is aimed, in my opinion, in an overall strategic point of view, it is 


aimed at breaking up the patronage apparatus that the Coinniiuiists 
have created. 

The Chairman. The thing that has been so serious, as I see it, after 
thinking over the west-coast revelations, is the large sums of money 
raised from these performers, all of which goes into Commmiist or- 
ganization work. That is the very serious situation, of course. 

Mr. ScHERER. Along that line that the chairman mentioned, who 
was it, what actor in New York, testified that he contributed $40,000 
to the cause ? 

Mr. Hartnett, Robert Rossen, the producer. 

Mr.ScHERER. $40,000. 

The Chairman. Many of these people were assessed a percentage 
of their incomes, and, strangely enough, it went to the Communist 
Party in New York and the Communist Party diverted it to Com- 
munist-dominated labor unions. 

Mr. Hartnett. Y^es, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Aside from the question of filling the coffers of the 
Communist Party, do you, as one who has specialized in this field, 
have any appraisal to make as to the seriousness of Communist pene- 
tration of the entertainment industry for other reasons? 

Mr. Hartnett. Yes, sir. There has been testimony, most of it 
correct but some of it lacking in depth, as to the "inability of the Com- 
munists to put propaganda on the air," and I say that is not entirely 
correct because it is a too-simpliiied formulation of propaganda. 
Certainly the Communists do not try to extol Marxism-Leninism 
over the air, but we did have instances, for example in 1947, when 
Norman Corwin made his One World Flight, of pro-Soviet propa- 

The Communist tactic is the use of parallelism. Let me give you 
an illustration, if I may, of what I mean by parallelism. 

Mr. ScHERER. We had some testimony. 

The Chairman. No; you go ahead. 

Mr. Hartnett. Let us take a motion picture, for example, which is 
being shown on television now. It is not a Communist movie. The 
Ox Bow Incident. In the Ox Bow Incident, I think some innocent 
men are lynched. Lynching of innocent people by vigilante groups, 
misidentification, this can be used by the Communists to insinuate 
over a period of time by repetition that in most cases the wrong indi- 
viduals, innocents, have been identified, or, as they say, "persecuted," 
by congressional committees. 

Another way of insinuating the same idea was used on a television 
show February 18 or 19, 1956, directed by a director who is mentioned 
in this book by Mr. Cogley and who has worked for the Ford Founda- 
tion. This was called Tragedy in a Temporary Town. Tragedy in 
a Temporary Town was a story of the brutal beating of a young 
Puerto Rican by an intemperate, fanatic group of vigilantes who 
wrongfully identified him as an individual who had tried to assault a 
teen-age girl. Let me give you a couple of quotes from that program. 
They talked about "the committee," just "the committee." It was 
a committee of three engineering workers. Then they said : "No one 
has a right to do what they are doing. There is the police and there 
are the law courts." 


Then they talked about "the committee of three stupid men." Then 
there was a dialectical extension, to my mind. I am admittedly hyper- 
sensitive to this because I am in contact with it all the time; I am 
sure it would sail right over the heads of a lot of people ; maybe I am 
wrong. They talked about this : "When some other pigs come for you 
some time." 

That line was delivered by Lloyd Bridges who admitted before this 
committee he had been a party member at one time but said it was 
brief and he was out. 

Mr. ScHERER. Who directed this ? 

Mr. Hartnett, This was directed by Sidney Lmnet. He was one of 
those innocently, wrongfully accused, according to Cogley. But 
the insinuation — it is a matter of opinion, I want to state in all fair- 
ness — the insinuation was that if private groups or committees try 
to apprehend people or administer justice, it is going to become unfair 
and innocents are going to be caught. I mention this because it is 
now a theme repeated on television again and again and, if you have 
time, but you probably don't in your duties, to watch television, you 
will find script after script in which the policeman shoots an innocent 
teen-ager, not the bad teen-ager. It is always the innocent. The 
wrong man is identified and sent to jail. An honest official abroad 
is susi^ected of being a Communist agent and the man who points 
the finger at him is always a fanatic, disgruntled. 

In other words, if you could believe television, our courts are in- 
capable of convicting the right man, our witnesses are incapable of 
making a positive identification, our juries are incapable of coming 
in with the right finding, private citizens are incapable of making a 
right evaluation. We are being brainwashed. 

Mr. Arens. I invite your attention to volume II, pages 92 and 93, 
in which the case of a Miss X is recited. Miss X being, according to this 
report, some actress who engaged you to assist her in some of her 
difficulties in the industry. 

Do you have a recollection of that particular case of Miss X? 

Mr. Hartnett. Very clearly, sir, and again you have an outrageous 
falsification, a distortion, a suppression of some of the evidence ? 

Mr. Arens. By whom ? 

Mr. PIartnett. By Mr. Cogley. He crops evidence like some un- 
scrupulous politicians crop photographs. 

The Chairman. In other words, you call that McCarthy ism in 
reverse ? 

Mr. Hartneit. It is termed McCarthyism in reverse. It is out- 
rageous. It is as if, for example, you were to take a photograph of a 
criminal in a court being sentenced by the judge and crop away from 
the photograph all the background and make it appear as if the judge 
is shaking hands with the man. It is outrageous. 

Mr. Arens. The language in the report on pages 92 and 93 speaks 
for itself, and the apparent intent is evident to any reader. In your 
own way tell this committee the facts. 

Mr. Harnett. Eight, sir. Under date of May 12, 1953, one of the 
top public relations men in the motion-picture colony, Arthur P. 
Jacobs, of Beverly Hills, Calif. — well respected, and represents 
Humphrey Bogart, Santayana Productions — wrote me and said : 

Dear Mb. Hartnett : At the suggestion of Roy Brewer and Howard Costigan I 
am writing this note to see if you would be kind enough to help me with some 
information about one of the clients of this office, Kim Hunter. 


Miss Hunter has been with this office since she appeared in the Arthur Koestler 
play, Darkness at Noon, and only recently I have been informed that it is pos- 
sible she was connected with some leftwing organizations earlier in her career, 
which, if true, should be cleared up at this time. 

I am sure Miss Hunter is not sympathetic to the left cause as her many talks 
with me have convinced me of this — as well as the fact that she has appeared in 
the violently anti-Communist play. Darkness at Noon. 

Could you let me know if it would be possible to get any information on her 
previous activities— which I am sure Miss Hunter will be most anxious to clear 
up. Also, I would be interested in knowing if there would be any costs involved 
in obtaining this information. 

Looking forward to hearing from you. 

Mr. Arens. Mr, Chairman, I respectfully suggest that the ])hoto- 
static copy of the letter M'hich Mr. Hartnett just read be marked "Hart- 
nett Exhibit No. 1" and incorporated by reference in this record, since 
it has been read into the record. 

The Ciix\iRMAN. So oixlered. 

(The document referred to was marked "Hartnett Exhibit No. 1" 
and filed for the record. ) 

Mr. Hartnett. Under date of May 15, 1953, 1 replied to that letter : 

May 15, 1953. 

Dear Mk. Jacobs : This will answer your letter of May 12. 

A quick look through my files reveals that the name of Kim Hunter (Emmett) 
has indeed been linked with a number of activities officially cited as Communist 

It reflects also that Miss Hunter's name has been used in connection with a 
dubious activity as recently as March 1953. 

Further research by me would be necessary in order to insure a complete 
report, and to authenticate information. The fee for such a complete report 
would be $200. 

This is one of the cases that I said I could count on the fingers of one 
hand. That amount of research would take me 3 days to prepare. 

This includes a thorough analysis of Miss Hunter's leftwing connections in the 
theater, as well as her listed affiliations with activities cited as Communist front. 
It also includes photographic copies of key exhibits. If she really wishes to cor- 
rect her past mistakes, she will have to review her entire record — whether obtained 
from me or from whatever source she wishes. There are a few other experts in 
this field, in addition to me, who would be able to make such an analysis. I 
imagine their fees would be the same as mine, and in some cases a bit higher. 

I am sure you and Hunter, who is a talented young woman, realize that 
no individual and no agency or committee can "clear" her. That is a job she 
alone can do — not merely l)y a statement acknowledging and repudiating past 
mistakes, but by concrete pro-American acts. For her country's sake, for her 
own sake, and for her admiring public's sake, I hope she will do so. 

Vincent W. Haktnett. 

Let me explain that Mr. Jacobs is a highly paid public-relations man. 
He doesn't work for free. Had Miss Hunter come to me directly, I 
would have been glad to sit down and talk with her and advise her. 
Here is not Miss Plunter but a public-relations man from the west 
coast who probably makes 5 G's a year on this account. On some 
accounts, his probable retainer is 50 G's a year. I said I could make a 
report for him, and I think I would be a complete ass if I did it for 

(The above letter was marked "Hartnett Exhibit No. 2" and filed for 
the record.) 

Mr. Hartnett. Then I got a phone call from George Sokolsky. 
Sokolsky told me that he had heard a rumor third-hand that I had 

82833— 5&—pt. 2 2 


offered to sell Miss Hunter for $200 copies of letters which he had 
written to her or she had written to him. Luckily he checked with 
me. Also the report went to Victor Riesel. I am not suggesting here 
what Mr. Forster apparently was understood mistakenly to suggest, 
that there was a ring. The fact is that somehow or other the w^ord 
was spread around, apparently from a talent agent in New York, that 
I was trying to blackmail Miss Hunter. Sokolsky was decent enough 
to check with me and I assured him I didn't even know of such letters, 
it was entirely not the truth, and I sent him photostatic copies of the 

I then called on Jacobs. 

I wrote Art Jacobs on May 25, 1953, and I said that I had heard about 
this and I wanted to know if he had started this smear on me that I was 
trying to shakedown Miss Hunter, and he phoned me back and said he 
certainly had not, that he realized my position was entirely reasonable 
but that Kim Hunter having consulted with her agent in New York 
was told that she didn't have to do anything about it, that it would all 
blow over. 

I wrote back to Mr. Jacobs, on May 29, 1953, thanked him for his 
kindness in setting this smear against me to rest, and I thought that 
ended the matter. 

You will notice that Mr. Cogley, reporting this at the end of para- 
graph 1 on page 93, has four dots. The four dots, Mr. Arens, indicate 
omission of the vitally important part of my letter in which I said 
that I couldn't possibly clear Miss Hunter, that she could only clear 
herself, and that I hoped she would do so by concrete anti-Communist 
actions. That appeared in the Cogley book as 4 dots and it wasn't 4 
dots. Cogley further says her attorney had written me. Her attor- 
ney never wrote me. It was a high-priced public relations man. 

(The letters referred to by Mr. Hartnett were marked "Hartnett 
Exhibits Nos. 3 and 4" and filed for the record.) 

Mr. Arens. Are you one of these men who brings the damning in- 
dictment against the person and then exercises your power to heal the 
wound ? 

Mr. Hartnett. This, sir, could mean anything or nothing. I have 
written a number of articles for various magazines — I think five 
articles in particular for the Sign magazine, for the American Legion 
magazine, and for American Mercury — and in these I have gone into 
some detail about Communist operations in the entertainment indus- 
try. I have named names. I have given records. 

This is one on Broadway that I did for the American Mercury. I 
was also the coauthor of Red Channels. I wrote File 13, volume I, re- 
ferred to in the Cogley book, which gave records of individuals. That 
was a highly specialized book. This is the second volume of File 13. 
There will be about 10 volumes in all. 

If that is to create records — I don't know what he means. 

Even Mr. Cogley admits I am a thoroughgoing researcher. I am 
honest. I have a master of arts degree, maxima cum laude, in this field. 
And certainly I do compile records. 

He then talks about "healing the wounds." My door is always open 
to any person who is involved in the Communist movement who wants 
to come to me. I will give an example. 



About 3 years ago, one of my clients proposed the name of George 
Hall, II-a-1-1, to me, for a television show. On the record, George 
Hall had only a couple of very insignificant Communist-front affilia.- 
tions, very slight. However, I knew tliat George Hall had been a 
member of the Midtown branch, Midtown Club, of the Communist 
Party about 1946-47. I wrote a letter to George or called him on the 
phone and I said, "Can we meet? It is very important I talk with 

So I took him to lunch and I said, "Look, I want to assure myself. 
I think you are out. I don't think you have been a member of the 
CP, the Communist Party, for a couple of years but I have got to be 
sure of it in justice to my clients and because I have a double duty. I 
have a duty first of all as a citizen, and as a former naval intelli- 
gence officer I have a sworn duty to uphold the Constitution. They 
may take me as a zealot or fanatic, but I try to do it. I have a duty 
to protect my client from any unfounded protests. If the protests founded and I make a mistake, let people protest." 

In this case I said to George, "I want to protect my client and I also 
want to be sure from an Americanism point of view you are all right." 

We had a long talk. He said he had written to this committee, 
which he had, offering his services. 

If that is called healing the wounds, I accept it. I healed the wound. 
I helped the guy. He got rehabilitated. 

After he appeared before the committee as a friendly witness, the 
only friendly witness in August of last year, the party tried to have 
him hounded out of his job as a standby in the Broadway show, The 
Boy Friend. Luckily the management stood up for him and would 
not blacklist him for testifying. George is now in California on the 
road tour of The Boy Friend. He is fine. He got rehabilitated. He 
is acceptable on TV as far as my clients are concerned. 

Mr. Arens. I would like to get these questions answered as pre- 
cisely as you can as an expert in this field. 

Question No. 1 is: In your judgment, using the phrase blacklisting 
as used in the report, how many people have been blacklisted wrongly 
in the entertainment industry ; and, secondly, how many people have 
slipped through the net and are still in the entertainment industry 
who are Communists or in the Communist apparatus ? Could you give 
us your judgment? 

Mr. Hartnett. This wotild be, again, a lesser degree of ignorance. 
I am constantly accumulating new research material, constantly ac- 
quiring new information so that I am able to identify as party mem- 
bers people who previously were not known to me or not found in the 
public record as party members. As to the wrongfully accused, I have 
issued one invitation after another to newspaper reporters in New 
York, to people in the entertainment industry, and I have said, "Name 
me two people wrongfully accused." So they come up with two people 
from Red Channels, Jean Muir and Ireene Wicker. I say, "How is 
Jean Muir wrongfully accused?" 

"Well, Red Channels made allegations against her which she de- 

I say, "Wait .a minute. Do you know that Jean Muir voluntarily 
appeared before the House Committee on Un-American Activities, 
that she was interrogated about seven of the affiliations listed in Red 


Channels? Two were not covered. She admitted every one. Sh& 
denied having attended the Communist Party study group, or rather, 
she admitted she attended it but said it was not willful and with 
knowledge on her part. She admitted she had loaned her car to Lionel 
Stander and a couple of other Communists but said she did not know 
them as Communists at the time. She denied ever having contributed 
funds to the Communist Party as it had been testified she did. In 
other words, she admitted, in effect, more than charged." 

Jean Muir has been away from the Communist movement for several 
years now. Her last activity of any kind was in 1947 when a fund- 
raising party for the Hollywood Ten was held at her apartment. I 
think she thought again they were wrongfully accused. 

They were all Commvmists and she thought they were wrongfully 
accused. She is a fine woman and if it were not for the fact that she 
is a very sick woman she could be working in television. 

Cogley said she was cleared and can't work. Cogley is such an ass. 
She can't work because she is a sick woman. It is a condition where 
water accumulates in her system. The woman can hardly get up and 
cannot stand the strain of a rehearsal. She is not blacklisted. 

Her husband, Henry Jaffe, the attorney, could open door after door 
for her. 

Mr. Arens. Is there another case of a person whom it is alleged 
had been wrongfully blacklisted ? 

Mr. Hartnett. Yes, Ireene Wicker, the Singing Lady. How this 
man, Cogley, can get his facts crooked. Pardon me. I will calm 

This account is a classic example of how to not tell a story. 

Red Channels, the book I coauthored, carried one citation only on 
Miss Ireene Wicker and that was, "Reported as a sponsor of the Com- 
mittee for the Reelection of Benjamin J. Davis to the New York City 
Council." That was in September 1945. 

I knew when I set that down in the book that Ireene Wicker was 
married, her second marriage, to Victor Hammer, his second marriage. 
Victor Hammer was a son of one of the founding members of the 
Communist Party. Old Doctor Hammer was such a big wheel in the 
party that he used to pay the rent on the party headquarters in the old 
days. I have a memory on these things — I am older than I look — 
whether by direct or indirect knowledge. 

Miss Wicker had married into what had been the aristocracy of the 
Communist movement. I knew that. 

I also knew that Miss Wicker in June of 1946 had lent her apart- 
ment for a fund-raising gambling party for the Joint Anti-Fascist 
Refugee Committee, one of the top fund-raising arms of the Com- 
munist Party. JAFRC must have raised $500,000 for the Communist 

I knew also that in September 1946, she and her husband had taken 
a whole table at $100 a plate at the Waldorf for a fund-raising luncheon 
for the Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee. I knew this from wit- 
nesses and I had photostatic copies of checks from the gambling party. 

I could not use that in Red Channels because it was not a matter 
of public record. The publisher might be sued because it was not a 
matter of public record. 


In October of 1949, I had written an article for the Sign maga- 
zine — it was published in October 1949 — in which it was merely 
stated that Ireene Wicker had sponsored various leftist causes. 

Following the publication of that article in October of 1949, Miss 
Wicker, that is to say, Mrs. Victor Hammer, through her brother- 
in-law, Armand Hammer, A-r-m-a-n-d, protested to the Sign magazine 
that she had not been affiliated with leftist causes. The editor asked 
me to prove what I said. 

I said, "Here is the citation from the Daily Worker about the 
Benjamin Davis campaign. Here is the information about the gam- 
bling party and about the $100 a plate fund-raising luncheon at the 

She said about the committee for Benjamin Davis in 1945, "I have 
never seen it before." 

I said, "All right. You go to the Daily Worker and have them pub- 
lish a correction and I will be happy to circulate it." 

Initially she said that she wasn't at the Waldorf, had never been 
there. I said, "Miss Wicker" — this was going through channels — "I 
have two witnesses who were there as your guests at the table." 

Finally she admitted she had b-een there but pleaded good faith. I 
knew this, I had information. Then she did not secure any correction 
from the Daily Worker and, frankly, I believed that she had lent her 
name knowingly to the Benjamin J. Davis campaign. I believed the 
public record was correct because she made no effort to secure any cor- 
rection from the Daily Worker. Therefore, it was put in Ked Chan- 
nels, only the one citation. There was other information, but only the 
one public citation was used. 

Red Channels was published on June 22, 1950, that is to say 7 months 
after the initial incident with Ireene Wicker. She then stated, if 
quoted correctly by the New York Post, that this was the first time 
she had heard about the Benjamin J. Davis committee, whereas in a 
letter 6 months previously we discussed it. 

Here is how Mr. Cogley gets into the act with his "trained seal" 
routine. He makes it appear that Red Channels had stated that 
Ireene Wicker had signed the Communist Party nominating petition 
for Benjamin Davis. Red Channels never stated she had signed a 
nominating petition. Red Channels said that reportedly she had been 
on a committee for his nomination. This is the old tactic of setting 
up a strawman and knocking it down. 

Ireene Wicker's husband went to the records of the city of New York 
and had a check made and said, "She is not on the nominating peti- 
tions. She is unjustly accused." 

We never accused her of signing a nominating petition. It was the 
old tactic of setting up a strawman and knocking it down. 

Mr. Arens. Answer question No. 2 : How many, in your judgment, 
are in the entertainment industry today who ought to be, even using 
the term of Cogley, "blacklisted" because of Communist activities? 

Mr. Hartnett. I would hate to go out on a limb on that one, Mr. 
Arens. I would hate to try to make an approximation. That is 
something I could prepare. 

Mr. Arens. Is it a substantial number ? 

Mr. Hartnett. Of actual people under Communist discipline? 

Mr. Arens. Yes, sir. 

(At this point. Representative Doyle returned to the hearing room.) 


Mr. Hartnett. Yes, sir; it is, in the entertainment industry as a 
whole who are still working. 

Mr. Arens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hartnett. Let us go into cases. 

Mr. Arens. I do not want to take time to go into each individual 
case. I want your judgment and appraisal as an expert in this field. 
Is there a substantial number of people through the mesh right now ? 

Mr. Hartnett. Yes. They get through the mesh because they have 
no known records of affiliation with any organization on the Attorney 
General's list or the House committee's list, the Guide to Subversive 
Organizations and Publications. They are getting smart. Since the 
passage in 1950 of what is known as the Internal Security Act not 
many people will affiliate or remain affiliated with an organization on 
the Attorney General's list. You have off-Broadway groups. You 
have informal groupings with no name at all, or they will affiliate 
with a group which you have not cited. Let's take the Emergency 
Civil Liberties Committee, one of the most subversive groups in the 
United States. 

Mr. Arens. Is that the organization of which a man named Clark 
Foreman is president? 

Mr. Hartnett. Yes. This organization does have some affiliates 
from the entertainment industry. 

I won't pick up the book but, if one reads the Cogley report — the 
"white paper on communism," that is what I would like to call it, the 
"white paper on communism" — you read this, and you will see the name 
of J. Eaymond Walsh, a commentator. From the Cogley "white paper 
on communism" it would appear that Mr. Walsh is wrongfully ac- 
cused and deprived of his job. I want to make sure of my facts. I 
must get the citations. Here is a commentator with a very significant 
Communist-front record and who even recently has been affiliated 
with the Emergency Civil Liberties Committee. This is a man who, 
as I say, recently, that is to say after the Korean war, still was active 
in the Emergency Civil Liberties Committee. Yet, according to 
Mr. Cogley, he was wrongfully accused. There is no mention in the 
Cogley report that Walsh has had a record since the outbreak of the 
Korean war. 

Mr. Arens. On page 96 of volume II, the report makes reference 
to a letter which you are alleged to have written to an actor by the 
name of Leslie Barrett. Would you kindly recite to the committee 
the circumstances of that letter and compare what you regard as the 
facts in comparison to the recitation of the situation in the Cogley 
report ? 

Mr. Hartnett. Yes, sir. 

As one means of acquiring information, I tried to make it a point 
to photograph the May Day Parade in New York each year because, 
as you Congressmen have said, it is an annual mobilization of Com- 
munist strength. 

One of the photographs of the 1952 New York May Day Parade 
showed a group of individuals who were obviously in the entertain- 
ment industry and presumably in radio because one of the placards 
being carried in the contingent said, "Stop the Blacklist in Kadio." 
I did not know, when I first looked at the positive, and I could not 
identify any of the people in the photograph. 


At a meeting one night, happening to meet with some actors who 
are well informed on the subject and have been in show business for 
some years, I handed around the photographs and said, "Could any 
one make au}^ positive idents on any of the people in the photographs?" 
Two of the people gave as their opinion that it looked like Leslie 
Barrett in one photo, but they weren't sure. I then wrote Mr. Bar- 
rett, and I would like to give you for your files a complete copy of 
the correspondence. 

Mr. Arexs. AVould you hesitate for just a moment there? You say 
that in this parade one of the hues and cries of the celebration was 
to stop blacklisting? 

Mr. Hartnei-t. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. What do the Communists mean bv the term "black- 
listing" ? 

Mr. Hartnett. Denial of employment to Communist Party mem- 
bers and "progressives" ; no question about it. 

Mr. Arens. Is that part of the Communist Party line at the present 
time to identify with the odious term "blacklisting" the deprivation of 
employment of Communists and those in the Communist conspiracy ? 

Mr.'HARTXETT. Yes. They have no exclusive on the word "black- 
listing" but, as spelled out in party literature, Political Affairs, Masses 
and Mainstream magazine, and so forth, "blacklisting" is a term used 
by the Communists as well as possibly others to describe denial of 
employment to known, unrepudiated party members, and "progres- 
sives" who are not actual party members. 

I want to make the point, though Cogley seems not to get the point, 
that at no time in the history of the Communist movement have all 
activists been party members. I am sure Congressman Velde, from 
his experience, knows that most of the people in espionage nets had not 
been party members. If they were, they dropped out. Some had 
not been. They were safer that way. 

Mr. Arens. They were in the party discipline but not technical 
members, as you and I might join the Rotary Club. 

Mr. Hartnett. Correct. Cogley seems not to know that the cadre 
of Communist strength consists of more than Communist Party mem- 
bers. It also includes those under discipline. 

Mr. Arens. Would you kindly revert to the letter that is described 
here on pages 95, 96 of the Cogley report which you are alleged to have 
written to an actor by the name of Leslie Barrett, Tell us the cir- 
cumstances surrounding that incident. 

Mr. Hartnett. Barrett's name had previously been proposed to me 
by a number of clients and I had said that I had no derogatory infor- 
mation against him prior to December of 1954 when, as I say, two of 
my friends thought that this looked like Barrett, might be Barrett, 
they thought it was Barrett, words to that effect, but they weren't sure. 
I had been criticized, following the publication of Red Channels, by 
the so-called liberals for not first checking with people and giving 
them a hearing, so I have been trying to give people a hearing and 
m}' head has been beaten in. 

On December 9, 1954, I wrote Mr. Leslie Barrett, 56 West 71st 
Street, New York, as follows : 

Dear Mr. Barrett : In preparing a book on the Left Theater, I came across 
certain information regarding you. 


A photograph of the 1952 New York May Day parade shows you marching 
just to the right of (name deleted). 

It is always possible that people who have in good faith supported certain 
causes come to realize that their support was misplaced. 

Therefore, I am writing you to ascertain if there has been any change in 
your position. You are, of course, under no obligation to reply to this letter. 
As a matter of fact, I am under no obligation to write you. However, my aim 
is to be scrupulously fair and to establish the facts. If I do not hear from 
you, I must conclude that your marching in the 1952 May Day parade is still 
an accurate index of your position and sympathies. 

I am enclosing a 3-cent stamp, and would appreciate the courtesy of your reply. 

I sent this first-class mail in a sealed envelope with scotch tape 
so that no one else would open it, and marked it "Personal and 

Mr. Arens. This was pursuant to inquiries you had received from 
some of your clients as to whether or not Barrett should be employed 
by them ? 

Mr. Hartnett. It was two things : first of all, because I wanted to 
ascertain whether this was he; secondly, because I am preparing a 
book on the Left Theater and I wanted to have my facts straight. Here 
it is. [Shows book.] It is true that I stated that the photograph 
showed him marching in the parade. I did not know that it was 
he. Those of you with experience as interrogators know that it is 
the standard operating procedure to say to someone, "Wliy did you 

If you say to a person, "Were you in Joe's delicatessen, and did you 
take a bologna sandwich?", he will say, "I have never been near the 

If you have reason to think he has, you say, "Why did you take the 

It is a trick. My experience is if you come up flat to someone who 
is a suspected party member and say, "Were you ever in the party?" 
he will say "No." 

Following the publication of Red Channels I was asked to talk to 
Abe Burrows as a favor, no money involved. He denied that he had 
ever been a Communist, or ever attended Communist meetings. Sub- 
sequent testimony indicated that he had been a Communist and he 
testified before this committee in equivocal terms. That is a standard 
experience we have all had. 

As the former counsel of the American Civil Liberties Union in 
New York said, "They all lie to you" so the thing you try to do is put 
it as a fact and ask for an affirmation or denial. It is an interro- 
gating technique. I wrote him and wanted an answer. Again I said : 

"If I do not hear from you, I must conclude that your marching " 

Of course, I couldn't conclude it morally or legally. I shouldn't have 
said it in the letter. Again, it is a technique. I was trying to help 
the fellow. I wanted to be fair and wanted an answer because many 
times I will write to these people and they will never answer the 

We had a long correspondence. I was convinced that it was not 
he, and, as a matter of fact, he subsequently worked for some of my 

Mr. Arens. How do these facts, as you have just recounted, square 
up with the recitation of those facts in the Cogley report? 

Mr. Hartnett. He omits most of it. 


Mr. Arens. Now, I invite your attention to the section of the publi- 
cation beginning at page 173 of vohnne II, in which tlie Fund for the 
Republic report tells of a series of blacklisting experiences, and ask 
you whether or not you can identify the facts and the individuals, in 
any of these cases of serious blacklisting experiences recounted here? 

Mr. Haktnett. The hrst case, tlie leading actress, Miss H., by con- 
text can'only be one person, Uta Plagen. I would say offhand that she 
was connected with around 25 to 30 Communist-front groups. She 
is a former confidante of Paul Robeson. She was married to Jose 
Ferrer and that broke up the marriage. 

(The letter dated December 9, 1954, to Mr. Barrett, read by Mr. 
Hartnett, together with attached copies of related correspondence was 
marked "Hartnett Exhibit No. 5" and filed for the records of the 

( Present in the hearing room : Messrs. Walter, Scherer, Velde, and 

Mr. Arens. Are there any other in the anonymous cases. 

Mr. Hartnett. Yes. The radio actor K. L., mentioned on page 175, 
volume II, I would make an educated guess that is Mr. Alan Hewitt. 
All the facts aren't given. There is no bill of particulars. 

Mr. Arens. We do not want speculation. 

Mr. Hartnett. I am sure it is Alan Hewett. Since there are no 
particulars in Cogley's account to defend against, I cannot comment 
on it. 

The next one, radio-TV director, MP, I can't identify. The context 
is too vague. 

Mr. Arens. Is there any conspiracy or collusion between yourself 
and Fred Woltman, or among yourself and Fred Woltman and Victor 
Riesel and George Sokolsky and James O'Neil, of the American 
Legion, in which you wield a power and influence in concert in depriv- 
ing people of employment and then healing the wounds ? 

Mr. Hartnett. First, I will take Fred Woltman. I will say this 
much : that Fred Woltman struck a great blow for the patriotic cause 
in July of 1949. He did a marvelous article for the World-Telegram 
of July 18, 1949, in which he discussed the case of William M. Sweets, 
who had been my director on the Gangbuster show, who was very active 
in Communist causes. 

Mr. Woltman did interview me about the Bill Sweets case. I gave 
him what facts and documents I had. He wrote a magnificent article 
called Reds Colonizing in TV and Radio. 

Possibly since that time I have met him at social functions and 
meetings, or called him on the phone, five times since 1949. 

In other words, if I had what I thought was a good item about a 
Communist maneuver, I would call him or Nelson Frank, or Victor 
Riesel because these people are columnists who know the score. They 
are anti-Communists and they have a wide following. 

As far as any collusion in any sinister sense goes ; no. That is the 

Mr. Arens. Would the same apply with reference to George Sokol- 
sky and with reference to James O'Neil, of the Legion ? 

Mr. Hartnett. I have met George Sokolsky at social functions. 
I talked to him on the phone a couple of times. I think I have been 
at his office once, possibly, to tell him about something, again some 


maneuver by the Communists, something I thought was important 
that would be of interest to his readers. 

But as far as any colhision of conspiracy for a clearance apparatus; 
No. Sokolsky used to forward to Jim O'Neil — I forget the sequence, 
but originally they, I think George Sokolsky — used to forward to 
supposed leading anti-Communists letters from people in Hollywood 
in which they "explained" their past Communist or past Communist- 
front affiliations. 

I received possibly 30 such letters. r- 

Subsequently James O'Neil, I think, would just pass these along. 
You could take them or leave them. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Hartnett, have you read the Cogley report? 

Mr, Hartnett. Yes ; volume II. 

Mr. Arens. I ask you now on the basis of your background and 
experience in this field of Communist penetration of the entertain- 
ment industry, to give this committee your appraisal of whether or 
not the Cogley report is objective, fair, and honest in its presentation 
of the facts ? 

Mr. Hartnett. Omitting any references to myself, let me say that 
the man is either woefully ignorant or he is a rogue. I know Mr. 
Cogley would say this is being black and white, polarizing things; 
it is too simplified ; I lack philosophical penetration ; I can't see the 

But there it is — ^he suppresses, consistently suppresses, evidence, 
and he crops the evidence which would be against his case, that is 
to say, that people are being wrongfully accused and we ought to let 
the poor Conununists alone. He suppresses facts and puts forward 
distorted versions of evidence in favor of his thesis. 

For example, on page 179, volume II, he talks about a director, 
David Pressman. He talks about a director, J. R. 

Mr. Arens. Wlio does? 

Mr. Hartnett. Cogley in his "white paper on communism." He 

Before Red Channels, J. R. had built up a considerable reputation in tele- 
vision. * * * J. R.'s first task was to prepare a pilot kinescope for a new show. 
He did this using two actors who had been listed in Red Channels. 

This is more than an educated guess. That director is David 

Wliy doesn't he name David Pressman? Because David Press- 
man is one of the top directors in the Communist movement in the 
cultural field. Don't take my word for it. [Picks up documents.] 

For example, here, "Signed Communist Party nominating petition. 
On the social staff of Communist Camp Unity." 

Mr. Arens. Does the report or reference of this case point out an 
illustration of a person who has been unjustly blacklisted? 

Mr. Hartnett. Yes; he (Cogley) talks about the trouble he (Press- 
man) had with these two people. Just because they were in Red 
Channels, he could not use them on the show. Who were they ? 

Mr. Arens. You tell us what are the facts with reference to the 
case of J. R. who the report indicates has been so wrongfully abused, 
this sad case of J. R. Tell us what are the facts of J. R. 

Mr. Hartnett. I think J. R. could only be one man, David Press- 
man, who has a strong Communist record. In January 1947, he 


directed the cultural portion of the Lenin memorial meeting in INIadi- 
son Square Garden. 

Cogley says that he (Pressman) used two actors who were listed 
in Red Channels. Who were the actors ? J. Edward Bromberg and 
Sam Wanamaker. 

Bromberg tried to kid your committee. He pleaded a heart attack 
and then went out to Ann Arbor to work. 

Sam Wanamaker had a record of about 40, at least, Communist- 
front affiliations. If he is not a Communist Party member, he ought 
to take the sign down. Wanamaker jumped the United States when 
another committee of Congress had a subpena out for him. 

These are the two men. Wliy should a sponsor use them in his tele- 
vision show? Pressman consistently used, tried to use, some of the 
most notorious Communists in the business on the show "Treasury 
Men in Action." He finally got the heave-ho from the show. 

Now he has been directing this summer down in Playhouse in the 
park in Philadelphia. This is a man with a very strong record. 

As Cogley says in the "white paper," he is a fake because he still 
masquerades on television. He comes in and another man will front 
for him. 

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

The Chairman. What is on the program for this afternoon? We 
have a rollcall. 

Mr. Arens. We have three witnesses en route to Washington. Al- 
though we anticipated they would be here by 2 o'clock to testify, we 
have just been advised this morning that because of plane and train 
connections they will not arrive in time to testify before 3 o'clock. 

So I suggest that with the approval of the committee and chair- 
man, that the committee reconvene at 3 o'clock. 

The Chairman. Have you any more witnesses at this time? 

Mr. Arens. No more witnesses this morning. 

The Chairman. Then the committee will stand in recess until 3 
o'clock this afternoon. 

(Present in the hearing room at the conclusion of the morning ses- 
sion Messrs. Scherer, Velde, Walter and Doyle.) 

(The committee recessed at 11 : 25, July 12, 1956, to reconvene at 
3 p. m., same day.) 


(Committee members present : Representatives Frazier, Scherer, and 

Mr. Doyle (presiding). The committee will please come to order. 

By virtue of the power and authority vested in him as chairman 
of the full committee under Public Law 601, Chairman Francis E. 
Walter has constituted a subcommittee for this afternoon's work, con- 
sisting of Mr. Frazier of Tennessee, Mr. Scherer of Ohio, and myself, 
Mr. Doyle of California, acting temporarily as subcommittee chair- 

Call your first witness, please. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Chairman, if you please, Mr. Roy Brewer has as- 
sumed the witness seat here and I respectfully suggest that you ad- 
minister the oath. 


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


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

Mr. Brewer. My name is Roy M. Brewer, and I am now residing 
in Stamford, Conn., and I am employed as the manager of the branch 
operation for Allied Artists Pictures Corp., with offices at 1560 Broad- 
way, New York City. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Brewer, give us, if you please, a thumbnail sketch 
of your personal background, with particular reference to any activity 
in which you may have been engaged, touching on the problem of com- 
munism and its attempts to penetrate into the entertainment industry. 

I suggest you may proceed in chronological order if it is agreeable 
to you. 

Mr. Brewer. I was born in the State of Nebraska, Hall County, in 
1909. I was raised in Nebraska and started early as an employee in. 
the motion-picture theaters, wliich was my first association with the 
motion-picture industry. 

I also became active in the labor movement and served for a time as 
president of the Nebraska State Federation of Labor, 8 years, as a 
matter of fact. My work in labor ultimately took me into the national 
scene, where I became an appointed officer of the International Alli- 
ance of Theatrical Stage Employees. This was in 1945. 

On March 12 of 1945 I was assigned to a temporary assignment in 
Hollywood, Calif. That was the day that the first of the so-called 
Hollywood jurisdictional strikes broke out, and for a period of 8 yeara 
thereafter I remained as an officer, international representative in 
charge of the west coast office of the lATSE. 

It was in this capacity that I came into contact with the problem 
of communism in Hollywood, and my contact came almost on the date 
of my arrival, and, I might add, is still going on. 

Mr. Arens. May I ask you, in preliminary fashion, is there or haa 
there been in Hollywood "blacklisting"? 

Mr. Brewer. Well, I would say that blacklisting in the term of an 
illegal, improper, sinister activity, as has been applied, does not exist, 

Mr. Arens. Plas it existed in general ? 

Mr. Brewer. No. 

Mr. Arens. What has been the practice and what is the practice, 
the employment practice, insofar as it bears upon the problem of Com- 
munist and pro-Communist penetration of the motion-picture 
industry ? 

Mr, Brewer. Well, after the hearings in 1947 

Mr. Arens. Do you mean the hearings of the House Committee on 
Un-American Activities on the Hollywood Ten ? 

Mr. Brewer. Right. 

After those hearings, the motion-picture industry, in what has come 
to be known as the Waldorf-Astoria Resolution, enunciated a policy 
to the effect that they would not hire known Communists in the 
motion-picture industry. This was the first basis of an industry 


Since that time. I think that position has been changed somewhat. 
There is no overall policy that is rigidly adhered to by each of the 
companies but, by and large, as a result of the expose of those hear- 
ings and subsequent hearings which disclosed a rather serious Com- 
munist penetration in the motion-picture industry, the industry took 
the position that those persons who had become publicly identified 
with Communist activities would not be employed unless and until 
they made it clear that such associations as they had with the Com- 
munists no longer existed. 

Mr. Arens. Is that in your phraseology within the frame of the 
reference you have in mind, "blacklisting" ? 

Mr. Brewer. No. 

Mr. Arens. In the course of your experience in the work which you 
have described, have you had occasion to formulate an opinion as to 
whether or not there have been any sweeping instances or general 
instances, significant instances, of blacklisting of innocent persons 
from employment on false charges of communism or Communist 
activity ? 

Mr. Brewer. I would say that, within the basic policy which I 
have enunciated, every effort has been made on the part of everyone 
comiected with the industry to make it as easy as possible for those 
persons who had gotten involved innocently or unintentionally to 
make their position known and, as I say, there has been no person 
that I know of who wanted to make their position clear who was not 
only given a chance to, but aided in every way that they could do so, 
and, having done so, there was no further question about their em- 

Mr. Arens. Have you, in the course of your career, been engaged 
as a "clearance" man ? 

Mr. Brewer. Well, I have been charged particularly in the re- 
port of the Fund for the Republic of having done so. 

Mr. Arens. Have you done so ? 

Mr. Brewer. No. 

Mr. Arens. Do you have a copy of the report before you ? 

Mr. Brewer. I do. 

Mr. Arens. I invite your attention, if you please, sir, to not only the 
references to yourself and to your activities, which appear scattered 
in various places throughout Volume I of the report, but to a con- 
centration of reference to yourself beginning on pages 66 and 67. 

I should like to have you, at your own pace and in your own way, 
allude to the references in this volume to yourself and make such state- 
ments as you feel obliged to make to this committee. 

Mr. Brewer. This has to do with the 1945 Hollywood strikes, and 
■of course it is impossible to intelligently understand the issues and 
the problems revolving out of the strike without understanding a 
great deal of the background that led up to the strikes, because these 
were very strange circumstances under which these strikes were called ; 
very few people could understand them because they did not under- 
stand that, basically, the strikes of 1945 and 1946 were strikes called 
by persons who were involved in trade-union organizations that were 
identified in one way or another with the Communist Party position 
to win jurisdiction and power in the motion-picture industry, as 
^against those unions that were resisting the Communist Party. 


Mr. Arens. What is this relation between the Communist pene- 
tration of your union and so-called blacklisting? 

Mr. Brewer. The Communuist movement in Hollywood was a 
single overall movement and the efforts of the Communists to get 
control of the unions was a part of their effort to get control of the 
motion-picture industry itself. It was the effort of the industry to 
shake off the control of the Communists that had reached a pretty 
substantial stage in 1945 that has brought about the charges of so 
called blacklisting. 

Mr. Arens. On page 15, Volume I of this report, there is a reference 
to "Salt of the Earth," a motion picture ? 

Mr. Brewer. Yes. 

Mr. Arens. A footnote here reads, among other things : 

Roy M. Brewer, then international representative of the Theatrical Stage 
Employees' Union, and Chairman of the Hollywood A. F. of L. Film Council, 
offered the services of the council in helping to suppress the film. The distribu- 
tion of Salt of the Earth was halted after motion-picture projectionists (mem- 
bers of Brewer's union), and theater owners across the country refused to show 

Do you have any comments or suggestions to make ? 

Mr. Brewer. The term "offered the services of the council" is 
obviously the language of the person who prepared that report. It 
was no secret in Hollywood that the Hollywood AFL Film Council, 
myself, and most everyone who knew the circumstances, considered 
the picture Salt of the Earth as an effort made by persons who had 
been publicly identified for the most part as Communists to produce 
a picture that would prejudice the interests of the United States, par- 
ticularly in the Latin American countries. 

We felt that the making and the showing of this film was a part 
of the effort to discredit the position of the United States in the 
world struggle that was going on, and as such, we were against it. 
There was no secret about that. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Brewer, on page 17 Volume II of this report, refer- 
ence is made to yourself and your union activities and reference is 
made to George E. Browne and a man by the name of Willie Bioff. 

Without undertaking to read all the language, I would summarize 
the reference by saying that the paragraph here and the page points 
to the fact that Mr. Bioff and I believe also, yes, Mr. Browne, were 
sentenced to jail sentences? 

Mr. Brewer. Right. 

Mr. Arens. Did you as an individual have any connection with 
either Mr. Browne or Mr. Bioff in any of the events which contributed 
to their jail sentences? 

Mr. Brewer. I held no position as a national officer in this organi- 
zation during the period when Mr. Browne or Mr. Bioff were in 
power. As a niatter of fact, they were convicted in 1941 and my first 
official association with the national officers of the organization was in 

I had seen Mr. Browne during the time when he was president merely 
as a member of the union, but Mr. Bioff I had never even met. The 
only time I saw him was from a distance at a convention in 1938. I 
had absolutely nothing to do with him, I had absolutely nothing to do 
with the so called administration of that group. 


^AHien I went with the lATSE as a national officer, I considered 
them and I consider now that their influence had been completely 
dissipated so far as the direction of the national organization was 

Mr. Arens. Were you ever interviewed by a representative of the 
Fund for the Republic in connection with the preparation of the 
report of that organization in blacklisting <■ 

Mr. Brewer. Yes. 

Mr. Arens. Tell us in your own words what transpired in that 

Mr. Brewer. I was interviewed at quite great length by Mr. Paul 
Jacobs. He asked me a great many questions, which I answered as 
best I could. I tried to make him see that there really was no basis 
for the report whatsoever, in my judgment, and that I considered the 
efforts to write the report as an effort not to defend civil liberties as 
they said but, rather, to discredit those persons who had devoted them- 
selves to the effort of preventing the Communist Party from taking 
control and domination of the motion-picture industry. 

I tried to point out to him that with respect to the matter of clear- 
ance, that the only person that could clear an individual was that 
individual himself ; that the vast majority of persons who got involved 
with the Communists were persons who either didn't understand what 
the Communist Party was or didn't understand that they were really 
involved with the Communist Party. 

There was a great deal of confusion and this is the thing that the 
Communists thrived on. 

First, they created confusion and then they generated hatred and 
bitterness, and that out of this had come a most chaotic situation for 
a long period of time, and that the only hope of cleaning up the situa- 
tion and restoring it on some sort of basic standards which were ac- 
ceptable to Americans was to eliminate and isolate the Communist 
Party influence. 

Now, most of the persons, as I say, who found themselves involved, 
were not persons who basically sympathized with what the Communist 
Party was trying to do. As I say, they either didn't know that the 
Communists were there — some knew they were there but were deluded 
in the idea that they were not subversive — others thought that they 
might be a little subversive but they were not important; that the 
cause they purported to stand for was more important and so they 
went along. 

So what I tried to make him see was that when these persons found 
themselves in disrepute as a result of disclosures which had taken 
place, what those of us who were working in Plollywood were trying 
to do were actually trying to help those persons who wanted to make 
their position clear to make it clear. But if a person didn't want to 
make their position clear, there was nothing anybody could do for 
them. They had made their record and it was up to them to clarify 
that record. 

As I say, we were willing to help them, to try to make them see 
where they had made their mistake and how they could make their 
position clear, but so far as the clearance was concerned, those indi- 
viduals that were cleared, cleared themselves by their actions and their 
statements and by convincing the American people basically that they 


had no subversive intentions and that whatever associations they had 
with the Communist Party had been severed. 

Mr. Arens. On the basis of your background and experience, Mr. 
Brewer, are you in a position to appraise before this committee the 
phraseology which was used by the Communist Party itself to de- 
scribe the efforts of the patriots to weed out the Communists from 
Hollywood? What phraseology did the Communists use? 

Mr. Brewer. Against those persons, you mean ? 

Mr. Arens. Yes. 

Mr. Brewer. Well, of course they used any phrase that they could 
to discredit them. If the people to whom they were trying to appeal 
were prolabor, they would try to create the impression that they were 
antilabor. If the people were interested in race relations, they would 
attempt to make them appear anti-Semitic or in favor of segregation. 

Mr. Arens. Did the Communists use the term "blacklisting" to apply 
to the efforts of patriotic people and organizations and the industry 
trying to rid themselves of Communist penetration ? 

Mr. Brewer. They have used the term "blacklisting," I think, in 
an effort to try to frighten the motion-picture industry as a whole 
from its efforts to eliminate Communist influences and Communist 

Mr. Akens. Do you know whether or not the Communist Party to 
this day in its publications uses the term "blacklisting" to undertake 
to describe the efforts of the House Committee on Un-American Ac- 
tivities, the agencies of Government, or the patriotic organizations 
to weed out the Communists from the entertainment and other 
industries ? 

Mr. Brewer. I have rather concrete evidence of that in the Daily 
Worker of June 26, which has a headline "Uncover Trio as Blacklist 
High Court," and, incidentally, they brushed me off in this and they 
are giving Mr. Sokolsky and Mr. Victor Riesel and Fred Woltman 
the term "the high court." 

The Fund seems to give me the credit but the Daily Worker doesn't 
seem to want to. 

Mr. Scherer. Mr. Chairman, I have before me two Daily Workers 
of more recent date, namely, July 11 and July 12, in which the Daily 
Worker with great glee welcomes the report of the Fund for the 
Republic which we are discussing here today. It uses practically the 
same language in the Daily Workers as is used in the report of the 
Fund for the Republic, and follows the same line. 

Mr. Arens. On the basis of your background and experience, I 
should like to ask you if you are conversant with the report itself? 
Have you read that part of the report pertaining to the motion-picture 
industry ? 

Mr. Brewer. Yes ; I have. 

Mr. Arens. Wliat is your appraisal of that report from the stand- 
point of an objective, factual, truthful appraisal of the situation within 
the industry ? 

Mr. Brewer. In the first place the report ignores the basic premise, 
the basic problem, that confronted the motion-picture industry and 
the basis of all the problems which the Fund purports to consider is 
the problem of Communist infiltration into the motion-picture indus- 
try which the Fund seems to feel is of no importance. 


Based upon a readiiif^ of the report, you first get the condusion 
that the evil is bhicklisting, not communism. This is the first basis 
on which I sharply disagree with the report. I think that had the 
Fund been interested in the matter of civil rights that they would have 
attempted to evaluate the entire problem, not just an oll'shoot of the 
problem which blacklisting was or so-called blacklisting. 

As I say, had anyone lived through the days when the Communists 
dominated the scene, as I did, and seen the way that persons' characters 
were destroyed overnight by a very effective program of character 

Mr, Arens. By whom ? 

Mr. Brewer. By the Communists. And it was a very effective 
■effort that they did. 

For example, they had a small secret group and they would take 
a grain of truth and they would distort this truth in such a way as to 
reflect, to exaggerate it, and enlarge it, and then they would start 
planting these stories all around the industry. 

Now, the average person, when he w^ent to work on one of the studio 
lots and he heard a makeup artist make reference to this fact, and I 
will give you a specfic example of one of the stories that they spread 
during the height of the strike. They spread the story that Richard 
Walsh, president of the lATSE, was a brother-in-law of George 
Browne, the former president, which, of course, was not true. But 
they spread that story all over Hollywood and a great many people 
came to believe it. 

Mr. Arens. T\niat difference would it make whether he had been 
the brother-in-law ? 

Mr. Brewer. Perhaps it wouldn't, but because of the fact that he 
was in great disrepute and they were attempting to prejudice the 

Mr. Arens. That was not guilt by association, was it ? 

Mr. Brewer. It could have been. I guess it might have been. 

This was exactly what they were trying to do, because he was in 
disrepute. They were trying to establish the fact that his alleged 
relationship to Browne made him unreliable and therefore would cause 
them to take the position which they w^anted the people to take, rather 
than the one Mr. Walsh wanted them to take. 

Mr. Scherer. Mr. Brewer, am I correct in my recollection that you 
attended some of the hearings of this committee on the west coast ? 

Mr. Brewer. I have attended most of the hearings of the committee. 

Mr. Scherer. That is where I first met you ? 

Mr. Brewer. From time to time since 1947. 

Mr. Scherer. Were you not present even as late as 1952 when there 
was volumes of testimony of so-called blacklisting by the Communists 
of non-Communists in the entertainment field ? 

Mr. Brewer. Yes ; there definitely was. 

Mr. Scherer. You know that there is considerable testimony avail- 
able in the records of this committee, sworn testimony ; is there not ? 

Mr. Brewer. Yes ; there is. 

Mr. Scherer. Let nie ask you now, does the report of the Fund for 
the Republic deal in any respect with that type of blacklisting? 

82833— 56— pt. 2 3 


Mr. Brewer. Yes ; it does touch on that but, in typical fashion, it 
brushes this off in that it says : 

Well, whatever there was was more or less informal and therefore not im- 
portant — 

whereas the actions of the industry were more formal and, therefore, 
more diabolical, or whatever word you want to use. 

I think it's important also to know that the apparatus which existed 
in Hollywood was unbelievably effective in the way that they would 
destroy a person, and this is the way that they accomplished their 

Mr. Arens. Wlio is "they" ? 

Mr. Brewer. The Comnnmist Party. They would have a secret 
meeting and they would agree upon a story that they were going to 
spread and, as I say, the next day that story would spring up on the 
sets, it would spring up in the shops and a person hearing it for the 
first time from a makeup artist or from some other person wouldn't 
think anything about it, but if he went down to the shop and heard 
the identical story in the shop, and then went into one of the offices 
and found it in exactly the same fashion from one of the girls in the 
office, they began to believe it. This is the way it worked and, as I 
say, this type of activity was rampant in the industry in 1945 and 1946. 

Mr. SciiERER. As I say, there is sworn testimony in the records of 
this committee giving incidents of blacklisting by the Communists ag 
you have just described, is there not? 

Mr. Brewer. Yes. 

Mr. Scherer. Now, in the Fund for the Republic's report, it goes 
into great detail of giving and outlining individual cases of alleged 
blacklisting by industry and of these various individuals who were 
anti-Communist, does it not ? 

Mr. Brewer. Yes. 

Mr. Scherer. I have not read it, I have only scanned through it, but 
does the Fund report list in any detail or does it give specific instances, 
the names, of individuals who were blacklisted by the Communists? 

Mr. Brewer. Yes ; it does. It does give some reference to that. It 
names several persons and does discuss in some detail the efforts of the 
Communists to set up their own blacklist, and does admit that it was 
effective to some extent. 

But, as I say, the summary of it and the conclusions were that it 
was of an informal nature and, therefore, appears not to be so im- 
portant as what the industry had done. 

Mr. Arens. May I read you some language appearing on pages 166 
and 167 of volume I of the Fund for the Republic ? 

So, though Brewer remained the top evaluator, Ward Bond, Borden Chase, an^ 
Martin Berkeley, all active members of MPA, were also called upon to sit m 

The MPA, that is the Motion Picture Alliance. 

That put them in the position of determining the "employability" of people 
who were competing for the same kind of jobs they themselves held. 

What is your observation with respect to that statement ? 

Mr. Brewer. I want to say this : that there is absolutely no evidence 
that can be produced by anyone that any of the efforts on the part of 
any person with whom I was associated in any way was on a personal 
nature. As a matter of fact, the objective, we considered the enemy 


to be the Communist apparatus and the minute that a person had indi- 
cated their disassociation with the Communist apparatus and that they 
were no longer serving the Communist apparatus, then everyone that 
I was connected with were ready and willing to assist them in any 
way possible. 

Now, a very specific example of that was the case of Mr. Ward 
Bond, who is mentioned, and Mr. Jose Ferrer. 

I think it was in about 1051 or thereabouts there was a very bitter 
exchange between Mr. Bond and Mr. Ferrer in the trade paper. It 
was front page of Daily Variety and there was a running quarrel 
going on for a long period of time, but in 1953, the early part of 1958, 
when Mr. Ferrer made it clear that he no longer had any desire to have 
any asociations with these peo])le, and also made it clear that those 
associations that he had had, had been by carelessness on his part 
or failure to analyze the entire situation, Mr. Ward Bond was one 
of the first ones to come to hir defense. 

So that there is absolutely no evidence that can be produced any- 
where to substantiate the charge that any of the people with whom 
I was in any way associated used their position in this fight or what 
influence they had to injure anyone professionally. It was all the 
other way. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Brewer, what is your observation with respect to 
the Fund for the Republic report on identifying data ? 

Mr. Brewer. Would you be a little more specific as to just what 
you mean by that ? 

Mr. Arexs. Does this report objectively, in your judgment as a 
professional in this field of fighting Communists, does it supply suffi- 
cient identifying data as the basis for its conclusions ? 

Mr. Brewer. The conclusions of the report, as I say, are running 
through it, all through it, and one of the rather significant things I 
think that I noticed about the report is that in summarizing the posi- 
tion of the anti-Communists, they use the language of the writer. 

In other words, my position is not what I said it was but what 
the writer concluded that it was, whereas, in the case of Mr. Sorrell, 
in one particular instance they quote him verbatim quite at length. 

So that in every instance where they are presenting the position of 
the anti -Communist, that position is stated on the basis of what they 
foimd the position to be rather than what it is. I won't say that this 
is the case in every instance but there are many instances of it and 
there are also instajices of where there haA^e been additions made that 
are not based upon fact also. 

So, as I say, there is some material to substantiate it. 

I noticed that in describing the strike situation, they go in quite 
detail quoting bulletins and so forth, but there are very, very many 
instances of where they have just drawn a conclusion and left it at 
that without any real statement of facts as they existed, which would 
permit a reader to draw his own conclusions. 

Mr. Arens. Are there any other items of information which you 
would like to supply the committee with reference to the subject 
matter ? 

Mr. Brewer. There are a number of points that I think ought to be 

Mr. Arens. Then at your own pace make those points. 


Mr. Brewer. For example, in discussing the question of labor in 
Hollywood, they make quite an effort to make it appear that these 
events were all leading up to a situation where I would become the 
dominant person in Hollywood. They fail completely to evaluate the 
position of a man by the name of Jeff Kibre in the development of the 
trade-union problem in Hollywood. 

There is a great deal of data available regarding Mr. Kibre and 
the part that he played and this report brushes that over completely. 
Mr. Kibre has been identified as a Communist in a number of instances. 

There is available a series of public reports which he made in 1939 
to known Communist officials and it was, a.s a matter of fact, the expose 
of Mr. Kibre's associations that caused their first effort in 1939 to fail 
and then the report goes on to set up the existence of the Conference 
of Studio Unions, the development of the Conference of Studio Unions, 
despite the fact that the president of the Conference of Studio Unions, 
Herbert Sorrell, has been identified I think by three different persons 
in sworn public testimon}'^ that he was a Communist. 

A copy of his Communist Party membership receipts was presented 
before a congressional committee in 1948, and the FBI issued a, report 
that the signature on there was his handwriting; all of these things 
have been brushed off' and the report in such a way as to create a 
doubt in the mind of the reader as to whether or not the efforts of the 
Conference of Studio Unions was really a Communist effort, when I 
think that any real student who is as proficient as the investigators 
for the Fund professed to be would know that this w'as very definitely 
a Communist effort continuing from 1934 on until 1947 or 1948 when 
it was finally disposed of. 

But, as I say, through the entire description of this background, 
despite the existence of very valuable and important material, as I 
say, including a verbatim report from Kibre to Mr. Roy Hudson in 
New York as to what their program was for Hollywood, which was 
published and is available, this was completely ignored. 

Now, another factor that is erroneous in the report is the implication 
that the Motion Picture Alliance was antilabor. As a matter of fact, 
the report says specifically that when I Joined the Motion Picture 
Alliance I jeopardized my reputation as a labor leader because the 
Motion Picture Alliance was supposed to be an antilabor organi- 

Well, as a matter of fact, at the time I joined the Motion Picture 
Alliance, the president was a labor man. The president was Mr. 
Walter Redmond, who was then the vice president of the plasterers 
international union, who later became the secretary-treasurer of the 
plasterers union, and from its inception the Motion Picture Alliance 
had the support of the anti- Communist labor groups, including the 
teamsters, under the able leadership first of Mr. Joe Touliy and 
later under the leadership of Mr. Ralph Clair and the plasterers union 
under the leadership of Mr. Redmond, as I pointed out, and Mr. 
Bennie Martinez, who is still a member of the board and who is now 
a vice president of the plasterers union. 

There were a substantial number of labor members in the Motion 
Picture Alliance from its inception. So that the implication that it 
was antilabor is not true and it should be corrected. 


Now, there are any number of smaller incidents which are only 
incidentally important. 

For example, in describing the question of the trial of Mr. Sorrell 
before the Central Labor Council in Los Angeles, the report makes the 
statement that the affiliations of the attorneys for the Conference of 
Studio Unions were questioned. 

Well, as a matter of fact, the attorneys for the Conference of Studio 
Unions were the firm of Pestana and Esterman, and both of these 
individuals have been identified in public testimony as having been 
members of the Communist Party. 

One of the other firms tliat represented the Conference of Studio 
Unions was the firm of Katz, Gallagher and Margolis, and this firm 
has been pretty well established as having some associations with the 
Communist Party. 

Mr. ScHERER. That is an understatement. 

Mr. Brewer. And despite the fact that when they describe the 
lATSE, they never fail to inject into the report the fact that this was 
the union of the notorious Browne and Bioff, and they failed in 
instance after instance to set forth the facts with respect to these 

In other words, they say that the affiliations were questioned so as 
to raise a doubt as to whether they were questioned properly or not, 
but as I say, in the case of our situation, it was a positive statement 
that this was the notorious situation. So that this is the tenor in 
which the entire report is written. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Brewer, do you know Elizabeth Poe, one of the 
contributors to the report? 

Mr. Brewer. I know who she is. 

Mr. Arens. Do you have any information respecting her activity? 

Mr. Brewer. "\A^at I know about Elizabeth Poe primarily is that 
she wrote an attack on me in a magazine called Frontier, which is 
edited by her husband, a magazine that is published as a so-called 
liberal paper on the west coast but which, so far as I am concerned, is 
a completely Communist Party line publication. 

Mr. Arens. Was that attack prior to the time that Miss Poe worked 
on the Fund for the Kepublic report ? 

Mr. Brewer. Yes. I might say that in this report she did not dis- 
tinguish at all between Communists and innocents or fellow travelers 
or anything else. She took the position that my efforts against the 
Communists were just as reprehensible as my efforts against anyone 
else. She did not, as I say, draw any line between them. She felt 
that an}' efl'ort on the part of anyone to prevent Communists from 
working in the motion-picture industry was wrong. 

Mr. ScHERER. A little bit of that philosophy is carried over into the 
report ? 

Mr. Brewer. A great deal of it, but not quite so much. 

Mr. ScHERER. I said a little bit. 

Mr. Brewer. There are a couple of points that I wanted to make. 

For example, there is a reference in the report on page 70, volume I, 
to the strike situation, in which it says, I think, in exact quotes : 

Roy Brewer attended most of the producers' meetings. 

Now this is a complete falsification. The producers met hundreds 
and hundreds of times, and during the crucial stage of this strike, 


when the Conference of Studio Unions was calling a strike in these 
studios to try to force the producers to allocate work, and this was the 
only issue, to allocate work favorable to their union and disfavorable 
to ourselves. There were some meetings Vvhich I attended, but to say 
that I attended most of the producers' meetings is a complete dis- 
tortion of fact. 

My relationship with the producers was just as it should be. I was 
the head of an organization which was involved in this situation with 
them. There were certain mutual areas of interest and I met with 
them to discuss them, and that is all. This is a distortion. 

Now there is another situation with respect to the famous Zsa Zsa 
Gabor incident which I want to point out. 

Mr. Arens. First of all, for the purpose of this record and the en- 
lightenment of the committee, tell us who is Zsa Zsa Gabor. 

Mr. Brewer. Zsa Zsa Gabor? She is a motion-picture actress. 

On page 158, volume I, he describes this incident to prove that my 
influence has become worldwide in this situation, and he says, and the 
incident took place, oh, she was offered a part in a picture to be made 
in France. Some American in France had cautioned her about this 
because they had heard that the director of this picture had been 
identified as a Communist and was what was termed in the parlance 
of the industry as a refugee from the committee. 

He had to go to France, apparently, to avoid the service of a 

Mr. ScHERER. There were a number of those. 
. Mr. Brewer. There was some question in their minds about whether 
or not this was a fact, and this person told her that if she wanted to 
find out for sure she should call me in Hollywood, which she did. 

I merely advised her that it was true; that he had been identified. 
It was true also that it has been the policy of the committee to sub- 
pena persons who had so been identified, but that he had not been 
in this country so that he could be subpenaed. The quote says : 

I made it clear I wasn't telling her whether she should go into the picture 
or not, Brewer said, but I did answer her question — 

which is the fact. Now the report goes on : 

The next day Brewer got a wire from Irving Brown, European AFL repre- 
sentative, asking again about Dassin's politics. Brewer made his objections 
stronger and Dassin was dropped. 

This is untrue. As a matter of fact, I had received prior to her call 
the same inquiry, to which I gave the same answer that I did to Mr. 
Brown, which was to do nothing except to tell them the truth. This 
is a distortion in the report, which I resent and which I think is 

Now with respect to the whole matter of this effort to make me the 
supreme satanic majesty in this evil operation that was taking place 
in Hollywood, I want to say that I became interested in the Communist 
problem as a result of my determination not to let the Communists 
run the union which I represented out of the motion-picture indus- 
try. It had been a part of the motion-picture industry since its incep- 
tion and it was obvious to me that the Communists had determined 
that they would never be able to control that union, and, therefore, 
they were bound to destroy it. 


I recognized that you cannot fight the symptoms of a disease. You 
have to fight the cause, and the cause of it was the hard core of the 
Communist Party which was operating in 2 groups, 1 in the trade 
unions and 1 in the creative crafts, and that whenever it served their 
purpose they joined together for the purpose of destroying their 
mutual enemies, and I happened to be on their list of mutual enemies. 

So that I realized that, first of all, you could not defeat them in the 
trade unions if they continued to flourish in the creative fields, and 
therefore I recognized it as one fight and I tried to associate myself 
•with the people who felt like I did, that they were a menace to the 
industry, they were a menace to the country, they were a menace to 
the freedom for which our country stands. 

I did not want, I did not seek, I do not want now, any power over 
anyone. As I said, any influence that I had came from the fact that 
I was willing to work at the job of countermanding the influence of 
what I consider to be a very evil force. 

Secondly, that I was willing to spend my time to help those persons 
who had been innocently involved and who had been tricked into 
going along with something which was sinister and which they really 
had no intention and desire of being a part of. This was the sole basis 
of my interest and, as I say, I did not want power, I do not want it 
now, and this is a complete distortion of my interest and my influence 
and my efforts in the matter. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Brewer, we thank you for your testimony. 

That would conclude the staff interrogation of this witness, Mr. 

Mr. Doyle. Thank you. 

Mr. Frazier? 

Mr. Frazier. No questions. 

]Mr. DoYLE. Mr. Scherer? 

Mr. SciiERER. No ; only, Mr. Brewer, I know of the work you have 
^one, particularly on the west coast, and you have rendered a valuable 
service not only to the industry and the union which you represent, 
but I believe to this country. 

Mr. Brewer. Thank you. 

Mr. SciiERER. Do not feel badly about the position in which the 
report of the Fund for the Republic places you. 

Mr. Brewer. Congressman, I don't. 

Mr. Scherer. Because whenever you join an anti-Communist cru- 
sade, whether in the Legion or a group such as you are identified with 
or this committee, you can expect, as you know, the type of attack that 
you have faced. 

Mr. Brewer. I don't worry about it. 

Mr. Doyle. May I be privileged to say, Mr. Brewer, that it is a 
pleasure for me to appear on this committee today and have you ap- 
pear before it ? 

I remember with pleasure my frequent contacts with you on the 
west coast and the very important and fine work you did out there. 
"We miss you out there. 

Mr. Brewt.r. Thank you. I miss being there, too. 

Mr. DoYi.E. I do wish to ask a very few questions. 

Mr. Brewer. Surely. 

Mr. Doyle. Not, however, on the subject of the report, but I feel 
I would like to take advantage of your expert knowledge in the field 


of communism and subversive activities as long as you are here to 
submit to a couple of questions. 

Mr. Brewer. I would be glad to try to answer them. 

Mr. Doyle. If you have an opinion based on your experience and 
knowledge in the field of entertainment in Hollywood, primarily, first, 
what is your opinion as to the present condition of the Communist 
infiltration of Hollywood entertainment? 

Mr. Brewer. Well, I think that, so far as the present situation is 
concerned, that the line of conmiunication between the hard core of 
the Communist Party and the persons who used to do the bulk of their 
work for them has been effectively severed. Wliile there are some 
remnants of the period during which they substantially influenced 
the minds of the creative people of the industry, I do think that the 
situation is improving daily, and I think that, by and large, it is in 
reasonably good shape and I think that a very effective job has been 
done there to break off thait influence with a minimum amount of 
injury to the persons who were their victims. 

Mr. Doyle. To be more specific, I think we have testimony that 
the Communist influence still continues quite substantial in Holly- 
wood, and I am wondering if that is your opinion. 

Mr. Brewer. My opinion, as I said, was that, so far as I know, there 
is no effective effort being carried on by the party in the sense that 
they are able to use the industry or that they are able to influence sub- 
stantially the people who make up the bulk of the industry. 

I think that the influence is pretty substantially reduced. I think 
it is at a minimum. 

Mr. Doyle. In addition, let me ask you this, bearing in mind your 
statement : 

Would you say that there are still active leaders in the Communist 
Party, who are still active in Hollywood, affecting the activity of the 
subversive influence in Hollywood? 

Mr. Brewer. I know of none and I would say that the persons 
who were the spearhead of influencing the Communist authority are 
persona non grata with practically the entire makeup of the industry 
today. Now there may be persons who have gone back in from other 
areas that we have not been able to identify. 

We know that persons who are identified Communists are still work- 
ing in the New York theater and we Imow that there is in intercourse 
between them, and there may be some influence through that end but, 
as I say, so far as being able to pinpoint any persons who appear to 
be a part of the Communist apparatus as we used to know it, I know 
of none today. 

But I must point out to you that I have been away for a year. 

Mr. Scherer. Are you speaking of Hollywood or New York? 

Mr. Brewer. Hollywood. 

Mr. Scherer. You are not talking about New York? 

Mr. Brewer. I am not talking about New York. There is no 
doubt but what there is a substantial infiltration in New York. 

Mr. Scherer. Particularly in the lower echelons? 

Mr. Brewer. Not only on the lower echelons, there are Broadway 
producers who are identified members of the party, there are many 
members of casts on Broadway shows where the record of this com- 
mittee shows they have been identified as party members, and they 


51 re playing in Broadway plays in New York City, and these are not 
second-rate plays, they are the top ones. 

Mr. ScHERER. You were talking in regard to Hollywood in re- 
sponse to Mr. Doyle's question and not necessarily the radio and tele- 

Mr. Brewher. I was talking only of Hollywood. 

Mr. Doyle. Now, do I understand then that even though your 
statement is that there is substantial Communist membership or ac- 
tivity in the entertainment field in New York, that that does not ex- 
tend by connections to Hollywood? 

I have always understood from you and others in years past that 
there was a pretty definite chain of activity between Communists in 
one part of the country and Communists in the other. 

Do 1 understand that Hollywood now is free from that connection 
with New York? 

Mr. Brew^er. Well, due to the position of the industry and its 
awareness of this problem, the Communists are finding it very hard 
to maneuver in Hollywood today. As I say, the type of maneuvering 
and the type of influence which gives them influence and effective- 
ness has been pretty substantially curtailed in the Hollywood area, 
and it is the type of thing which the Fund report is complaining about 
that has made it impossible for them. 

For example, there have been no motion-picture people of any 
consequence in any fronts of any consequence of any kind in the last 
2 years, that I know of. The most recent situation was in respect to 
the musicians union. 

Now the disclosures there did indicate that there was some activity 
within the musicians union but, as I say, I was not there during that 
time and I am not fully familiar with it, but the apparatus that used 
to function and that used to get Hollywood to do the work that they 
wanted to do behind the positions that they wanted to take, to gener- 
ally create an atmosphere that was favorable to their operation, has 
been pretty well dissipated. 

I think the fact that they have been able to get very little, if any, 
support for the Fund report is indicative of that fact. There have 
been no guilds rising up in Hollywood proclaiming the injustice of 
blacklisting in the motion-picture industry. There have been no 
guilds coming to the defense of the Fund for the Republic and saying 
that this is a great and noble project which they have instituted here 
in preserving the rights of freedom. 

Mr. ScHERER. But the Daily Worker has? 

Mr. Brewer. The Daily Worker has, but the point is that they can 
no longer get the people they used to get to do this job for them. 

Mr. DoYLE. May I ask this on the question of rehabilitation, because 
the other witnesses have all spoken of that, and just briefly you have 
mentioned it. 

To what extent do you feel that your efforts have resulted in rehabil- 
itation, which I think has been designated in your testimony, and that 
of others as "clearance" ? I am only using that because I have not read 
the report of the Fund for the Republic, but it is a word that has been 
used and I am interested in the question of rehabilitation. 

Apparently the report refers to you in that connection. In what 
way have you rehabilitated? How many people, how many Com- 


munists or former Communists would you say have been rehabilitated 
in the sense that they are now back in the industry because they cleared 
themselves ? 

Mr. Brewer. Well, I would say that there must be a hundred 
at least, and some of the most important names in the industry today 
are in that group. 

The first man, whose name is well known to this committee, whom 
we helped to reestablish in the industry was Edward Dmytryk. As 
you know, Dmytryk was one of the original 10 and was cited and 
convicted and served a term for contempt of this committee. 

A strange thing came out in the subsequent study of Edward Dmy- 
tryk's case, which was that he was actually not a member of the 
Com.munist Party at the time he was taking this position ; that he had 
actually resigned from the party and that he had been influenced, and 
in some instances tricked, into taking a position before this committee 
which led to his citation for contempt. 

Now I say that Edward Dmytryk today has been reestablished. He 
is a top director ; he is directing one of the most important pictures in 
production in Hollywood today, which reputedly has one of the largest 
budgets in history. He is recognized as a great creative artist. He is 
accepted by the industry, and the industry for the most part has for- 
gotten the episode, and I have every confidence that Edward Dmytryk 
has never believed in the Communist movement but he was tricked and 
deceived into becoming a part of it, because he was at heart a humani- 
tarian and thought during this period that he was helping a humani- 
tarian cause. 

Mr. Doyle. He was identified as a member of the Communist Party 
before this committee. 

Mr. Brewer. He was. He was one of the original 10. There are 
many others. 

Mr. Doyle. What is your thought about the activities, the extent to 
which the Communist members in New York are underground, or 
what we would say are getting smart? Are they concealing their 
membership ? Are they joining ? 

The reason I ask you that, to be perfectly frank with you, a witness 
this morning said that in New York they are getting smart. By that 
term I know you will know what it means. 

Mr. Brewer. I would agree with that, that they are. Persons who 
have appeared in certain activities which certainly indicate that they 
are oriented in the Communist position, have no open records at all. 

Mr. Doyle. How can this committee and other similar governmental 
bodies uncover the fact that they are under Communist discipline, even 
though they may not be members of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Brewer. My belief is that if the opposition to them is intelli- 
gent, that they will have to expose themselves or they lose their use- 
fulness in the work which they really want them to do. It's not the 
best way, but I think it's the only way. 

Mr. Doyle. I want to take advantage, I have not discussed this with 
you, but I want to take advantage of your presence here. I know that 
you know the history of this committee over a term of years. 

Will you give us out of your experience over a term of years your 
appraisal in general terms at least of the extent of the usefulness of 
this committee, say, in this field of exposing and defeating, meeting 


the problem of subversive activities in the field of entertainment, either 
in Hollywood or any place that you have in mind ? 

I do not know what your answer is going to be, but you have ap- 
peared here as an expert and I would like to have your opinion as an 

Mr. Brewer. Well, I have appeared before this committee at various 
times since 1947 and as the knowledge of the Communist conspiracy 
grew, I think that this committee has done a very effective work. 

First of all, let me say that it was the hearings of 1047 that first 
alerted the American people to the danger of the Communist pene- 
tration of the entertamment field, and particularly the Hollywood 
motion-picture industry. Up until that time, I think that the average 
American thought that all the charges of communism were so much 
hogwash : that it was just the imagination of persons who were politi- 
cally opposed to certain activities and were using this, to use an ex- 
pression, a red herring. 

But the exposures before this committee in 1947 here in Washington 
I think alerted the people that there was a real danger. Then, of course, 
subsequent hearings have made it possible, I think, to focus the 
activity on the real culprit in the case, and tliis was always the charge, 
and, of course, this is the way the Communists played it, which was to 
get us fighting amongst ourselves while they went oil scot-free. 

But I think the careful efforts of this committee over a long period 
of time, and as I say, as the knowledge of the Communist movement 
grew their techniques improved, and I think they have done a very 
effective work and certainly I have been a champion of what the com- 
mittee has done and have defended it and would do so today. 

;Mr. DoTLE. Thank you very much. 

Any questions, ^Ir. Scherer^ 

!Mr. ScHERER. Xo questions. 

Mr. DoYXE. Mr. Frazier < 

Mr. Fr-\zifjl Xo questions. 

Mr. DoTT.E. Unless you have something. Counsel, the witness is 
excused with the thanks of the committee. 

Mr. Bre%ver. Thank you. 

Mr. Doyle. Call your next witness. 

Mr. Arexs. PaurPi. Milton. 

Kindly remain standing, ^Ir. ililton, while the chairman adminis- 
ters the oath to you. 

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

^Ir. ;Milt(jx. I do. 


'Mr. Arexs. Kindly identify yourself by name, residence, and 

Mr. MiLTox. My name is Paul R. Milton. I live in Xew York City 
and have been a radio writer since 1942. 

I had my first brush with what I think was the Communist Party in 
1936. I was then editing a small magazine concerned with part of the 
theatrical industry and including the schools. 

At tliat time the city of Xew York proposed a license measure to 
license all professional schools from chiropodists through teachers of 


art, music, and dancing. The teachers of the arts got together and 
didn't want to be classified with certain other groups they didn't 
regard on their same cultural level, we will say, with no disrespect to 
chiropodists, and felt that a license measure of that kind would not 
serve any useful purposes. 

So some 25 organizations came together, including one representing 
a group in the theater project, an unofficial one, at that time widely 
regarded as a Communist-dominated group. That one group insisted 
that the objections to the license measure that were going to be pre- 
sented to the mayor be couched in its way and in its language and in 
no other terms would go along. 

I have often admired the commonsense of those groups who were not 
political sophisticates but who listened to this man for a while and 
then said, "We are sorry. We have compromised and you won't. 
The only thing you can do is withdraw." 

That taught me something about Communists. The name of that 
lawyer was Martin Popper, not then very well known but since known 
as the sponsor of the Peace Conference, an eminent lawyer of the ,. 
Lawyers Guild and the International Juridical Association, and so on. ■ 

So their suspicions were well founded. ^ 

My next contact with what I regard the Communist Party came 
with the Radio Writers Guild, beginning in 1950 and lasting through 
1952. In that connection I had occasion to testify as an anti-Com- 
munist witness. 

Mr. Doyle. Because of the signals indicating there may be a roll- 
call on the report of a bill before the House of Representatives, the com- 
mittee will stand in recess for at least 15 minutes. 

Members of the committee will respond and then return. 

( Committee members present : Representatives Doyle, Frazier, and 
Scherer. ) 

(A short recess was taken.) 

(Representative Doyle returned to the hearing room.) 

Mr. DoYLE. Because of the necessity for the committee members to 
be on the floor of the House for the rest of the afternoon, this commit- 
tee will stand in recess until tomorrow morning. The hearing will be 
held tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock in 1301, New House Office 

(Wliereupon, at 5 p. m. Thursday, July 12, the subcomittee re- ; 
cessed, to reconvene at 10 a. m., Friday, July 13, in room 1301, New j 
House Office Building.) 


FRIDAY, JULY 13, 1956 

United States House of Representatives, 

Committee on Un-American Activities, 

Washington^ D. C. 
public hearing 

The Committee on Un-American xlctivities convened, pursuant to 
recess, at 10 a. m., in room 1301 of the House Office Building, Hon. 
Francis E. Waher (chairman) presiding. 

Committee members present : Representatives Francis E. Walter, of 
Pennsylvania, ]\Iorgan M. Moulder, of Missouri, Clyde Doyle, of 
California, Edwin E. Willis, of Louisiana, Harold H. Velde, of Illi- 
nois, Bernard W. Kearney, of New York, Donald L. Jackson, of Cali- 
fornia, and Gordon H. Scherer, of Ohio. 

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

The Chairman. The committee will come to order. 

Who is your lirst witness, Mr. Arens? 

Mr. Arens. The witness who presently occupies the witness chair 
was in the process of testifying yesterday afternoon, and he has already 
been sworn. The gentleman is Paul R. Milton. 

The Chairman. You may proceed. 


Mr. Arens. Mr. Milton, when the committee recessed yesterday, you 
were in the process of giving us a little of your own personal back- 
ground. Do you have other material that you wish to add with refer- 
ence to your own personal background before we get into the general 
subject matter? 

Mr. Milton. I would simply finish what I think I was saying, that in 
1951, 1 was an anti-Communist witness in front of the Senate Internal 
Security Subcommittee in connection with the Communist issue in 
tlie Radio Writers Guild, which is now defunct. Thereafter, I have 
been concerned with the foundation of iVWARE, Inc., an anti-Commu- 
nist oi'ganization in the entertainment-communications field, and I am 
a member of the board of directors of it, and I am tlie chairman of its 
information committee. I am here today in that capacity. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Milton, are you personally referred to in the report 
of the Fund for the Republic on so-called "blacklisting"? 

Mr. Milton. I am several times, sir, and the references to me per- 
sonally in connection witli the Radio Writers Guild controversy and 



elsewhere I \vould say are both fair and accurate. But I cannot say 
the same about two anti-Communist groups I have been connected 
with, the Anti-Communist Caucus, and Radio Writers Guild, which 
was called We the Undersigned, and there are several misrepresenta- 
tions of it in the report, and in connection with AWARE, Inc. 

Mr. Arens. Are you appearing today on behalf of AWARE, Inc., 
or representing AWARE, Inc. ? 

Mr. Milton. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Arens. Do you have a prepared statement which you would like 
to submit for the record on behalf or for AWARE, Inc. ? 

Mr. Milton. I do, sir, and it deals with factual misrepresentations, 
what I consider significant omissions of fact, and particular with 
reference to AWARE and several of the controversies it has been in 
since 1953 when it was formed and made up. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Milton, I see that your statement is rather lengthy 
and I am going to suggest to the chairman that the statement itself 
be incorporated in the body of the record and that you now proceed 
to summarize the essence of the statement orally for the committee. 

The Chairman. Let it be so incorporated. 

I am just wondering whether the statement will be sufficient for 
the purpose of the report. We will determine that later. 

(The statement referred to above appears on pp. 5344—5353.) 

Mr. Arens. What are the main observations by AWARE on the 
report ? 

Mr. Milton. They come down to three, sir. One is the overall 
murkiness of language. 

Mr. Doyle. May I have that answer again ? 

Mr. Milton. The overall murkiness of language, the cloudy use of 
undefined terms. 

The Chairman. May I interrupt ? I think that I best described it 
the moment I read the report by calling it gobbledegook. Is not that 
a pretty good technical description of it ? 

Mr. Milton. That is somewhat an insult to gobbledegook, sir. 

The Chairman. Then you would say it is an understatement ? 

Mr. Milton. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Milton. To give specifics in support of that observation, it 
uses the terms, "rightwing" and "leftwing" throughout the report 
and I am speaking specifically of volume II of the report dealing with 
radio and television in the East. "Rightwing" and "leftwing" are 
used again and again without any definitions as to what they may 
mean. The word "liberal" is likewise used without any definition. 
Some 40 times the word "political" is used as a substitute for or 
euphemism for communism. 

That is, for instance, it talks again and again about "political screen- 
ing." Tlie report uses that term in connection with AWARE. We do 
not screen or suggest screening anybody with a purpose of finding 
out whether they belong to Republican or Democratic or Liberal or 
Farmer-Labor Party or any legitimate political organization. 
AWARE believes, and agrees with the President of the United States 
and the Supreme Court and every other official body of the Govern- 
ment, and with Communist writings that the Communist Party is a 


conspiracy, and has nothing whatsoever to do with ordinary politics 
as the American people understand the material. 

So to use "political," instead of "Communist" in this report throws 
a cloud of vagueness over every passage in which it is used. It must 
be misleading to any reader who is uninitiated in the jargon of the 
Communist Party, and uninitiated in the anatomy of the controversy 
as it has been on for several years in the entertainment-communica- 
tions field. 

Mr. Kearney. In other words, you go along with the theory of 
the majority of the American people that this is not a political party, 
but it is a Communist conspiracy ? 

Mr. Milton.- We do, indeed, sir. 

Mr. ScHEitER. Hiding under the name of a political party? 

Mr. Milton. Yes, sir. There is no question about it, in our minds, 
that it is a conspiratorial effort which is composed in part of, delib- 
erate and knowing conspirators, and in part, of people who go along 
with it without realizing that they are giving it assistance. 

Mr. Arens. What is the position of AWARE, Mr. Milton, with ref- 
erence to so-called clearances dealt with in the Fund's report ? 

Mr. jNIiltgn. We would not agree with the report at all, that any 
such efforts have been sinister. On the contrary, as Mr. Brewer tes- 
tified yesterday, the voluntary efforts of people in the entertainment- 
communications field to help Communists, ex-Communists, and Com- 
munist fronters and ex-Communist fronters to "rehabilitate" them- 
selves as the word has been used — those efforts are admirable. Many 
allegations are made that money has been paid. The report alleges 
in several cases that so-called clearance men have hired themselves 
out to write speeches for people trying to rehabilitate themselves or 
in some other way unspecified in the report, requesting money 0!it of 
the desire of people to reestablish themselves as employable citizens. 

If the report can name any names in that connection, it should 
have done so. It alleges vaguely in many places, hints at possibilities 
of extortion in such situations. If the Fund for the Republic and the 
report know of any instances of such extortion, they should ha^•e 
gone to the district attorney of whatever county they think the 
events took place, and AWARE, for one, would join in any effort to 
expose such incidents if they happened. 

It is AWARE's conviction that if any such events like that did 
take place, they were so few as to be the criminal exception rather than 
the decent normal nature of events. 

Mr. Arens. What is the position of AWARE with reference to this 
term "blacklisting" which is used throughout the report? 

Mr. Milton. The report gives one definition of "blacklisting," 
which I shall try to paraphrase: "Simply the denial of employment 
to people deemed worthy of censure or condemnation." In that sense, 
we know that blacklisting is practiced very widely. The Federal 
Housing Administration, for instance, issues occasional lists of buiid- 
ei's deemed to have gypped homeowners and blacklists them. 
They are not to be dealt with by persons obtaining FHA loans. The 
Water Front Commission of New York City by State law blacklists 
men from working on the waterfront who have criminal i-ecords. 
Every union blacklists employers who are deemed to have treated 
their members unfairly, such as not paying wages, not meeting con- 


ditions of collective bargaining agreements, and so on. The question 
is, if anybody is blacklisted in that sense, are they or are they not 
worthy of condemnation and censure? 

AWARE believes that a Communist, a fifth- amendment witness, and 
persons with significant and unrepudiated records of association with 
Communist-front organizations should not be employed for a variety 
of reasons which I will state in a moment. But, I would say that 
the judgment of whether or not they should be employed should rest 
with the individual employer. The Government may clear employees 
for itself. Each individual employer should make up his own mind 
on the basis of what information he may have or obtain and seek such 
advice as he feels necessary as he may do in a legal matter, in an 
accounting matter, or in a tax matter. 

He will stand on his own judgment and take the praise or blame 
as it may eventuate. Now, the reasons why Communists and fifth- 
amendment witnesses and persistent fronters should not be employed 
in entertainment-communications are fairly obvious to us, but not 
obvious in the report, for instance. 

On the premise that communism is a conspiracy, we know that there 
are Communist caucuses in several of the unions, and this committee 
has stated its belief and its conviction that there is such in the Ameri- 
can Federation of Eadio and Television Artists, and we knoAv there 
was one in the Radio Writers Guild. 

Mr. Akens. How about Actors' Equity Association ? 

Mr. Milton. And of Actors' Equity Association. I might comment 
parenthetically, sir, that tliis morning the Associated Press apropos 
of yesterday's testimony by Mr. Hartnett, quotes an official of Equity, 
as follows : 

Over a period of 30 years allegations of this kind have been advanced with 
varying degrees of responsibility. Every member of Actors' Equity Association 
who has been identified in any w^ay in this connection has denied under oath 
that he is a Communist, and no evidence has been presented whether those 
charges are true. 

Mr. Kearney. That is not exactly so. 

The Chairman. Of course, it is not so. 

Mr. Milton. I was coming to that, sir. To link this to the report, 
it is a comment on testimony about the report, but it is a kind of 
misinformation that does nothing whatsoever to clarify the issue of 

Mr. Arens. What are the facts on Actors' Equity ? 

Mr. Milton, Without even going to the records, we can say that in 
Actors' Equity Association a number of persons have been charged 
with Communist Party membership before this or some other com- 
mittee, and have taken the 5th, 1st, and 10th amendments or none 
whatsoever, and from just a casual reference we know there is Lionel 
Stander, Gale Sondergaard — who is to appear next week in Phila- 
delphia and there has been a big public storm there over her appearance 
in a tax-supported theater. There is Morris Carnovsky, John Ran- 
dolph, George Tyne, Jack Gilford, Lou Polan, Elliott Sullivan, Stan- 
ley Prager, and there are as many more again who do not come to 
my mind. 

The Chairman. And it is significant to note that each of those 
people were confronted with sworn testimony of witnesses who said 
that they were members of the Communist Party, and instead of deny- 


ing the accusations hid — and I use the word "hid" advisedly — ^behind 
the Constitution of the United States. 

Mr. Milton. Yes, sir, and I believe there was one exception who 
took no refuge in no amendment and who just flatly refused to answer, 
and I believe that was Lou Polan. But the point is, it does not square 
at all with the statement from Actor's Equity. Certainly the Equity 
statement does nothing to clarify the situation with respect to Com- 
munists in unions. 

ISIr. Jackson. May I ask a question there? Do I understand the 
individuals whom you have named and who have appeared and taken 
recourse in the provisions of the Constitution, with the exception of 
the one noted, are presently members in good standing of Equity i 

]Mr. Milton. We were speaking, I think, of blacklisting and why 
AWARE, for one, believes that such persons are rendering themselves 
unemployable. Reason No. 2 is that wages paid to Communists go 
in part to the Communist Party, that the use of their names by Com- 
munist Party groups and by Communist action groups and fronts, acts 
to aid those organizations in persuading the public that they are re- 
spectable. We know that actors, personalities, and important pro- 
ducers, directors and writers — their opinions carry a good deal of 
weight with the public. Furthermore, we know from union elections 
that prominent actors are always more famous within their unions 
than actors who are not prominent. 

In other words, continual and preferred employment to such per- 
sons give them prestige not only in public view but inside the industry. 

Therefore, we regard such persons as worthy of condemnation and 
censure, pursuing the definition, the one definition of blacklisting given 
by the report. We know of no instance in which a person has been 
blacklisted in the industry for union activity as blacklisting is defined 
in the Federal and various State labor laws. 

Mr. Arens. Has anyone, to your knowledge, been precluded from 
employment in the entertainment industry because of his political 
beliefs or political associations? 

Mr. Milton. No, sir. I know specifically of no one denied employ- 
ment because he is a Republican, Democrat, Socialist, Liberal, Farmer- 
Labor, or any other name of a legitimate political organization. But 
I do know of people as they claim denied employment because they are 
associated with the Communist conspiracy. 

There are other definitions of blacklisting and when we get into those 
Ave find that the Fund, frequently without a proper definition of it, 
beyond that one, leads us into a swamp of murkiness. 

The way to end it, and to end both blacklisting by whatever term 
you may wish to call it, is not to destroy the careers of individuals, and 
that is not AWARE's purpose, and we do not think that that should 
be the direct purpose of any organization, public or private, concerned 
with the Communist issue. The way to end the Communist menace is 
for those persons to change by honest conviction within themselves. 

For that reason, last year after this committee's hearings in New 
York, the president of AWARE, Mr. Godfrey Schmidt, appealed over 
television to the 22 recalcitrant witnesses of last August to return 
before the connnittee and tell the truth. We would reiterate that 
appeal, that they return before this committee at the earliest moment 
and rehabilitate themselves by an action growing out of their own 

82833— 56— pt. 2 4 


convictions that what they have been doing is wrong, morally wrong, 
and wrong from the point of view of national security, bad for their 
own careers, and bad for their unions and bad for the industry that 
they claim to love. 

We think, further, that were this committee to direct an inquiry 
precisely at what the Fund calls blacklisting, not very clearly, and at 
the entire process of job denial for Communist affiliation, they would 
provide an opportunity to all people who believe they have been 
blacklisted to come before this committee and tell the truth. 

The Chairman. You might be interested in knowing that we will 
presently call some of the people this report charges have been black- 
listed, and ask them where and when they have been blacklisted. 

Mr. Milton. I am delighted to hear it, sir. 

The Chairman. And I think subpenas are out for some of them now. 

Mr. Milton. We would hope, and AWARE would hope, that that 
inquiry would include not only persons who have been named in sworn 
testimony as Communists, and not only those who have appeared before 
the committee and taken a constitutional immunity, but also those with 
substantial and significant front records. 

Mr. Arens. On the basis of your extensive background and experi- 
ence in fighting the Communist penetration in the entertainment in- 
dustry, and your keen observations of this subject matter, I would like 
to ask you now whether or not in your judgment as a representative of 
the great organization, AWARE, you and your organization feel that 
the Committee on Un-American Activities presently engages in book 
burning, in censorship, or in thought control in going into this subject 
of so-called blacklisting ? 

Mr. MiLTON. I think certainly not. This committee provides a won- 
derful forum in which people may explain themselves. There is no 
form of pressure that I am aware of. Thought control of which the 
committee has been accused, is a Communist jargon term intended to 
discredit any expression of opinion about communism. The same 
goes for calling it censorship. It is not an attempt at censorship to 
investigate the origins or the nature of any element in a controversy 
over communism. 

AWARE believes and urges and hopes and does everything it can to 
increase the amount of public discussion of the issue before govern- 
mental committees, and there is no better forum for this issue, because 
while a private organization may produce such evidence and such 
views as will throw light where there ought to be light, it remains that 
it cannot by nature be as convincing as that which is done under oath 
before the Congress of the United States, representing the people of 
the United States. 

The Chairman. It is very significant to note that the work of this 
committee, of course, is under the close observation of the entire Con- 
gress of the United States. In the last action taken on the appropria- 
tion bill for this committee, there was one vote against it. The year 
before there were no votes against it. So those persons who make the 
charges that they do, are overlooking the fact that a pretty tough board 
of censors has been covering the work of this committee. 

Mr. MiLTON. Yes, sir, we have noted that many times, with great 


Mr. Jackson. I hope that remark does not appear in print that the 
opposition in Congress to the committee is increasing 100 percent year 
by year. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Milton, do you have any observations to make with 
reference to that part of the report which is the study appearing in 
volume II by Dr. Marie Jahoda ? 

Mr. Milton. Yes, sir, Mr. Arens, I have, and in general nature they 
parallel the comments in our prepared statement which bear on the 
Cogley part of the report, to wit, the use of the faceless informer, the 
unidentified contributor, and of course, we all know what the faceless 
informer is and they may too, in the Fund for the Republic, and yet 
as our statement shows, 10 percent of the book is devoted to faceless 

Now, specifically in the Jahoda part of the report, page 240, a TV 
actor on a top level, not otherwise identified, is quoted as saying, "If 
you pay, you can get cleared." An unidentified speaker and beliind the 
cover of anonymity makes a charge which sounds like extortion. I 
think in that case the Fund should have gone, or that actor should 
certainly have gone to the district attorney and made it clear what he 
means by paying for clearance, and whom he paid, and when and how 
much, and what was the result. 

I think it is apropos to ask whether or not the report investigated 
the truth of that statement before it printed it. That raises a question 
which comes up again and again in the report as to whether or not a 
researcher has a responsibility as to quoting from ignorance. Again 
and again persons are quoted, obviously who do not know what they 
are talking about. 

That does not seem to us to be scholarly research by any standard to 
pick up off-the-cuff remarks from unidentified persons which are slurs 
on otherwise decent citizens and put them down on paper and print 
them and disseminate them as if they were to be taken seriously. There 
is a question of simply scholarly responsibility. We can see how bad 
a job this report is, as a piece of scholarly research if you compare it 
with just any good research work on communism that you can find in 
any library on communism. 

Two come to mind. One is A Century of Conflict, by Stefan Pos- 
sony, and another example is Communism Versus the Negro, by Wil- 
liam A. Nolan. Those are good research jobs and there are many like 
it, and unfortunately, the Fund report cannot be put on the same book- 
shelf with those. 

Now, further, with reference to the Jahoda study, she says on page 
^48, volume II, quoting one man, and not otherwise identified : 

Many were thus labelled — - 

meaning as Communists — 

even thoush they had been cleared by the FBI. 

Here, again, it was quoting from ignorance. Mr. J. Edgar Hoover 
has said over and over and over again on television and during the 
Harry Dexter White controversy that the FBI does not have the 
power to clear anybody, not even for tlie Government. 

It provides the information for other persons to evaluate. 'Wliy 
quote this kind of nonsense, then? On page 251, Miss Jahoda quotes 
in the first paragraph : 



referring to the persons that they interviewed — 

were all aware of the watertight system of control over content before it goes 
on the air, which excludes possibilities of direct subversion. 

That same statement appears also in the earlier portion of the re- 
port. What it tries to say is that it is impossible for subversive ma- 
terial or slander material to get on the air, because every network and 
every script editor and every broadcasting employer reads and edits 
scripts very carefully. It is true they do. I have been writing radio 
since 1942, and I have dealt with these script editors of virtually all of 
the networks and with many other employees in broadcasting. 

I have a lot of respect for their knowledge and their ability and their 
conscientiousness and their integrity, but it takes a trained propa- 
gandist to spot, not only openly subversive material which the Commu- 
nists are hardly stupid enough to try, but the slanted material, the 
presentation in a script of social comment of a hinted-at Communist 
solution of the problem. There have been examples of that which em- 
ployers themselves have caught after protest, but there is no sense 
setting up a general statement that script-content editing is a bulwark 
against slanted material. 

I do not mean to question the integrity or patriotism of the script 
editors. It is simply a matter of training. 

On pages 260, 261, and 262, the Jahoda report comments on several 
plans which have come up within the industry in attempted solutions 
of so-called blacklisting. One was by a professor, I believe, at Cor- 
nell University named Robert Cushman, who suggested a sort of pri- 
vate court and outlined the entire machinery. It was to be operated 
largely by the unions. There was another proposal at one time that 
three clergymen, a Catholic, a Jew, and a Protestant be set up as a 
hearing court, and there have been other plans discussed, all of which 
have not come to anything for a variety of perfectly good reasons. 

Employers will not get together on such things for fear of running 
afoul of the conspiracy laws, and it was generally felt that they do not 
get to the root of the matter, and they cannot, by their nature. The 
Jahoda portion comments on the fact that perhaps this diversity of 
approach to this problem which results from the absence of any insti- 
tutionalization of that kind and that all employers approach it each 
in their own way is a good thing, and with this, AWARE agrees. 

We believe on the one side that a person who associates himself 
with the Communist movement is responsible for his own acts, and 
most particularly in this country, under our Constitution. 

By the same reasoning, an employer should be responsible for his 
own judgments and to take praise or blame as they may come out. 
So, it is just as well that we have no fixed machinery to which every- 
one is attached by agreement, sort of a greased chute down which the 
little pigs would go on the way to slaughter, or on the way to rescue 
as it might be. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Milton, may we clear the record here on 1 or 2 
points so that there will be no possible misunderstanding? Is there 
in your judgment a Communist fraction within the Actors' Equity 
Association ? 

My. Milton. On the basis of the names I read off, and on the basis 
of the evidence before this committee last August 1955, I would say 


Mr. Arens. How extensive, in your judgment, is the Communist 
operation in the entertainment industry and television and in radio, 
in which you have a specialty ? 

Mr. Milton. In number of Communists, the actual number of Com- 
munists was estimated before this committee yesterday, and I cannot 
improve on that estimate. I would only point out that actual number 
of Communists in any given industry has always been small by choice 
of the Communists. 

Mr. Arens. How about the influence or the impact? 

Mr. Milton. I am coming to that. The number of fellow travelers 
has been estimated by Mr. J. Edgar Hoover at 10 per Communist, as 
it were, but the influence shows itself chiefly in that the Communists 
have been able to exert leverage on those who describe themselves as 
liberals. I mean no derogation of those who describe themselves as 
liberals whatsoever, but the fact remains that this is a gi'eat leverage 
against efforts of so-called hard anti-Communists. 

Hard anticommunism in any field has always aroused the opposi- 
tion of the liberal element or what in the report is described as the 
great middle mass which he says is anti-Communist and I think we 
need not quarrel with that definition except to point out that it is anti- 
communism which is most often manifested by acting against anti- 

Mr. Arens. How effective has this so-called blacklisting been in 
the radio and television industry in precluding Communists and those 
in Communist activities from employment in the industry ? 

Mr. Milton. I would say that on the record as most recently ob- 
servable in broadcasting, that the identified Communist does not 
appear, the fifth-amendment witness finds employment almost im- 
possible to obtain, and I am speaking now of the actor, but some Com- 
munist writers and fifth-amendment witnesses have been able to go 
on writing behind frontm.en as recounted in the report. That is 
quite true and once the Kadio Writers Guild in one of its membership 
bulletins stated that was going on about 3 years ago. 

That could not proceed very far without the connivance of some- 
body in the employer's office. The person with a substantial front rec- 
ord may obtain employment some places and not others. The persons 
with lesser front records fall in the same sort of gray area. As the 
public discussions of this issue continue, more and more of the fronters 
are having attention directed to them which we believe is a healthy 
situation in that it may bring them to realize that knowingly or un- 
knowingly, they got caught on the wrong side of the street. 

We would hope that that public discussion would induce them to 
take action to repudiate what they have done. 

Mr. Arens. Thank you very much, Mr. Milton. That would con- 
clude the staff interrogation of this witness. 

The Chairman. Are there any questions? 

Mr. Doyle. I have a few questions. 

In your judgment, is the Communist menace increasing or decreas- 
ing in the entertainment field with which you claim to be familiar? 

Mr. Milton. I would say it is substantially the same as it has been, 
although its emphasis may have shifted. 

Mr. Doyle. Do I understand then that the work of this committee 
and the Senate committee and all of the private agencies of which 
you are representative of one, has been of no substantial effect? 


Mr. Milton. By no means. The open manifestations of the Com- 
munist Party have been decreased, I would say, in many places, and 
that could only have been brought about by the work of bodies such 
as this committee. The party has elsewhere gone underground. 

Mr. Doyle. I notice that you use the word "open," and my question 
which I asked a minute ago was directed to whether or not the total 
Communist conspiracy had been increased or decreased and I under- 
stood you to say it was about the same. 

Mr. Milton. With the qualification that the emphasis has shifted 
from the open activities. There are fewer fronts, for instance, be- 
cause people are learning that it is dangerous to associate themselves 
with fronts, but very often the same influences are exerted. 

Mr. DoYLE. I made this note here and I am just seeking informa- 
tion and I am not going to get into the area of these books because I 
have not read them. You stated a minute ago that "persons with sub- 
stantial front records can get some employment." I wrote that down. 

Mr. Milton. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Doyle. I think that was your exact wording? 

Mr. Milton. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Doyle. Does that mean that in the entertainment field, the 
employers knowing of their substantial Communist-front records are 
now employing people with substantial Communist-front records? 

Mr. Milton. Yes, sir. In the New York Times of Thursday, July 
12, there was a report from Albany that the court of appeals had 
upheld the dismissal of a libel action by an a.ctor, Joe Julian, against 
Red Channels. Now, Joe Julian was cited in the book Red Channels 
in 1950 with the record of his Communist Party affiliations, although 
he was not identified as a Communist. 

He sued for libel in New York City Supreme Court and after he 
put in his case, further trial was ended and the case was dismissed 
and the defendant did not even have to be heard in the opinion of 
Supreme Court Justice Irving Saypol. That verdict was appealed 
by Julian, and yesterday the court of appeals upheld the dismissal, 

I was going to prove my point that here is Mr. Julian who has not 
repudiated the front record as given 6 years ago, and only 2 weeks 
ago I believe he appeared on one of the major television shows. 

Mr. Doyle. May I ask you this question, again looking for infor- 
mation, because I am frank to say it is quite shocking to me that you 
as a claimed expert give the opinion that the load of Communists 
and Communist activity, while it is not as open as it was, is sub- 
stantially the same as it was a few years ago. 

Mr. Milton. With the shift in emphasis that I said. 

Mr. Doyle. With the shift not being so open about it. 

Mr. Milton. This would not be possible in my opinion without 
the leverage that is exerted among those who take the "liberal posi- 
tion" as they use the term, which is to say that they prefer broad 
methods of education to end the Communist conspiracy rather than 
the name, date, and place exposure of the individual Communist or 
f ronter as the case may be. 

Mr. Doyle. By the term "leverage on the liberals," do I understand 
that the liberals, however you refer to by that term are using a lever- 
age against communism? 

Mr. Milton. No; I mean that the Communists are able to arouse 
or raise the issue of an invasion of civil rights, and many people take 


this claim seriously, and that by exposing a Communist or a Commu- 
nist fronter you are invading that person's civil riglits. There are 
many persons Avho believe that claim. I do not. But they do. 

Mr. Doyle. May I ask this then : I am not sure that I understood 
your answer. I understood you to say that AWARE believes, that is 
your organization, that a person with a Communist record should not 
be employed? 

Mr. Milton. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Doyle. What about the Communists who claim or are claimed 
by some of the witnesses who appeared before us in the last 2 or 
3 days, that there have been about 100 Conununists rehabilitated? 
Should not they be employed? 

Mr. Milton. Oh, certainly, and I only speak of the persons with 
significant and unrepudiated records of association. 

]\lr. Doyle. Then you would go along with the other witnesses 
that a Communist who claims to be a rehabilitated one, and to all 
intents and purposes has rehabilitated, should be again employed 
in the entertainment field ? 

JNIr. Milton. Absolutely, and I believe I said earlier, sir, that we 
think the best solution is not the destruction of the careers of these 
persons, but that they themselves cut off connections with the Commu- 
nist apparatus, and thus rehabilitate themselves. 

Mr. Kearney. You mean if the rehabilitation on the part of the 
individual is a sincere one? 

Mr. Milton. That is assumed ; yes. 

Mr. Doyle. May I ask one more question ? I do not know that you 
heard it yesterday, and I was not here all of the time due to another 
committee meeting, but there has been testimony that at least there 
were phone messages, and so forth, back and forth between individuals 
interested in rehabilitating Communists. 

Have you been called by any person to cooperate in the rehabilita- 
tion of Communists ? Does your area of activity enter into that field ? 

Mr. Milton. No, sir ; AWARE does not participate in that activity. 

The Chairman. Are there any questions, Mr. Velde ? 

Mr. Velde. I have just one quastion and probably it is outside the 
realm of this particular investigation. I have enjoyed listening to 
you testify and I have noted the logic you have used, and I know that 
you are a very well informed man. My question is this : Would you 
care to make any comments on the so-called "everything is made for 
love" polic}^ of the Soviet Government at the present time? Do you 
think it represents their honest policy or is it just a change in the 
Communist Party line ? 

Mr. Milton. I do not qualify myself as an expert on foreign policy 
or on the particular policies of the Kremlin, but I would take the 
position that until there are deeds evidencing a change, there has been 
no change. I see no deeds evidencing a change. 

May I, ]Mr. Arens, add one or two words dealing with the nature 
of AWARE, that may put some of my remarks in a proper perspective 
here ? 

AWARE, Inc., is an organization of persons both in and outside of 
the field of entertainment-communications and the fine arts. We con- 
fine ourselves to that area. We perform no services, paid or unpaid, 
direct or indirect, for any union or employer. We issue membership 


bulletins and occasionally we issue one beyond the membership, com- 
menting on evidences of Communist influence in the entertainment 

I would just at the end, repeat our hope to the committee that it will 
provide an opportunity for persons who believe themselves to have 
been blacklisted, to appear before the committee and AWAKE is ready 
to help them by forwarding their names, if it learns of any, to the 
conmiittee. And, also, reiterate the appeal to those who have at any 
time in the entertainment-communications field, taken any constitu- 
tional refuge before this committee to return before this committee of 
their own accord and tell the truth. 

The Chairman. I would like to say that we have extended an open 
invitation over a period of years to persons who feel that they have 
been injured in anywise by testimony adduced before this committee. 
We have actually invited 41 people to come to this committee, because 
of the serious accusations made against them and not one single person 
has availed himself of the opportunity to set the record straight. 

Mr. ScHERER. Because the record is straight. 

The CiiAiRiMAN. Because the record is straight, I might add. 

Are there any questions ? 

Mr. Jackson. How long has AWARE been publishing? 

Mr. Milton. We are an organization and not a publication. It was 
in December of 1953, when we had our initial press conference in New 
York City in the Hotel Groton. 

Mr. Jackson. Could you tell me in round figures how many people 
during the course of publications had their alleged Communist or pur- 
ported Communist- front activities documented in AWARE ? 

Mr. Milton. By AWARE, you mean? 

Mr. Jackson. Yes. 

Mr. MiLTON. Let me make a rough guess, sir. Roughly, 33. 

Mr. Jackson. Did any legal action grow out of any of those ? 

Mr. Milton. Yes, sir, one suit for libel has been filed against us by 
John Henry Faulk, a CBS disk jockey, and a second vice president of 
New York local, AFTRA. We cited in our publication 16, which 
was issued February 10, 1956 — two months after his election as second 
vice president — we cited seven reported occasions of his association 
with Communist fronts or caucuses. We did not call him a Com- 
munist and in fact, specifically stated in the bulletin that we were not 
calling that group a Communist group. Thereafter, Mr. Faulk sued 
for libel and we have replied and we believe that we have the docu- 
mentary evidence supporting our allegations, and he is not a Com- 
munist, but a person with Communist- front affiliations, and that we 
have put on the public record. 

Mr. Jackson. I think in any discussion of so-called blacklisting, we 
can break this down into three general categories. I asked this for 
your affirmation or any suggestion you may have. First of all, we 
have those persons in the entertainment field who, for one reason or 
another, have been brought before various agencies or committees of 
Government and have cooperated to the extent that they have told of 
their own activities and of the activities of others. 

Secondly, we have those who have been subpenaed and who have 
refused to cooperate and refused to discuss any of the allegations. 

Then, we have the third group, and I think this is the group prob- 
ably which is more in the spotlight in this report and that is a group 


against whom certain charges have been made, but who have not, to 
this time, been siibpenaed or been given any opportunity to appear 
in any phice except the FBI perhaps, of which we would have no 
knowledge because of the nature of the FBI's operations. 

However, we have those three groups, the cooperative, the noncoop- 
erative, and those about whom there is this gray area because they 
have not appeared. 

That third group is the group about which I am more concerned 
that the otlier two. The other two are fairly clear cut. 

What would your suggestion be as to what should be done in the area 
of the third group in order to clarify the atmosphere with respect to 
their charges that they have been blacklisted? 

Mr. Milton. That was directed to that group, that I made the 
statement before, that if this committee would provide a forum to 
hear those persons even in the absence of any evidence that they are 
or were members of the Communist Party. 

Mr. Jackson". That bears out a suggestion I made the other day, 
and the chairman has just said, and it is very true, that when testimony 
is developed in an open session of this committee, the person or the 
individuals who are there named for the first time are notified by 
the committee of the fact, and the time and place of the hearing and 
the allegations made and they are invited to come forward and 
make any statement they care to make. 

They have not seen fit to do so. However, to this time, this invita- 
tion has not been extended beyond those who were here named, and 
I would suggest again that if we can get the identities of many of these 
anonymous people who have made claims to the investigators or com- 
pilers of this report to have them come before the committee and I 
would say with a process of subpena, rather than invitation, in order 
to assure their presence here, to determine in what manner and by 
whom and under what circumstances they were blacklisted. 

I think that we should certainly do that. 

The Chairman. I would think in that connection it would be much 
more convenient for us to ask the authors of this report to extend the 
invitation on our behalf. They know who they are and they can say 
that we are perfectly willing and anxious to be of assistance in re- 
moving whatever injustice has been done, and we authorize Mr. Cogley 
to extend an invitation to each of these persons and we will be very 
happy to hear them. 

Mr. Milton. The point I would just touch on once again is that 
many persons claim to be blacklisted who have not been charged with 
Communist Party membership. That is here or anywhere else, but 
have the records, public records of association with the Communist- 
front apparatus. 

Now, it may turn out after the most exhaustive investigation that 
they are or were not members of the party, and yet encounter resist- 
ance to employment because of their front record. 

Mr. Jackson. We have a very practical problem in that connection. 
If the committee undertakes to call before it and subpena before it 
everyone who has a record of 10 or more Communist- front affiliations, 
the committee can do nothing else for the next 50 years than to hear 
that group. Quite rightfully, I think the committee has confined its 
operations in recent years to calling those who have been identified as 
members of the Communist Party. 


That is the reason why we have not been able to go into the extensive 
and often provocative records of many hundreds of individuals. 

Mr. Milton. Of course, I think that is widely understood, sir, and 
the point is now that this general line of inquiry, because of the Fund's 
report, has taken a slightly different turn. 

Mr. Jackson. I think this puts an entirely different aspect on it and 
for my part, I would like to bring in some of these people and find 
out whether or not they have any grounds for their statement that 
they were blacklisted. 

The Chairman. How can we bring them in ? We do not know who 
they are. The man who makes the allegation knows, and we do not. 

Mr. Jackson. I would certainly require him to lift the cloak of 
anonymity on them. I would not have him extend any invitation on 
behalf of the committee. I think that is a function of the committee. 

Mr. Kearney. Your idea is to bring the individual before this com- 
mittee and let him point them out ? 

Mr. Jackson. If Mr. X says he has been blacklisted let us find 
out who Mr. X is and what his record is and whether he has been a 
member of the Communist Party, and find those things out and put 
them on the record. So that these statements which are made, and 
we do not know whether they may be one of these composite things 
pulled out of thin air, and let us find out from the individual con- 
cerned if he has been blacklisted and if he has been blacklisted as 
blacklisting is interpreted in this book, find out why he was black- 

Mr. Doyle. May I suggest this, right along that line, that if there 
is a Mr. X, using that for the purpose of this observation 

The Chairman. No; quoting from the book. 

Mr. Doyle. If Mr. X claims in the book, or if it is related in the 
book that Mr. X claims he was blacklisted, assiuning that we may not 
be able to get the information otherwise, let us give Mr. X an invitation 
to come to this committee. 

The Chairman. All right, then, I will designate you as a subcom- 
mittee of one to serve him with a subpena. 

Mr. Jackson. I dare say, Mr. X is probably not very much inter- 
ested in sitting down in that chair and discussing the record which 
brought about his blacklisting. 

Mr. ScHERER. That is obvious from the questions asked by our 
counsel yesterday of some of the witnesses. He pointed out that the 
Fund for the Republic in this report did not disclose the fact that 
many of the individuals mentioned in that report had been identified 
before this, and other other committees, as Communists. The publica- 
tion is silent. 

The Chairman. You are overlooking one thing more. Mr. Cogley, 
under oath, refused to tell us who Mr. X was. 

Mr. Scherer. That is true. I had passed but I just have one ques- 
tion, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Milton, do you have any opinion as to why 
the Fund for the Republic made the so-called investigation into the 
subject of blacklisting? 

Mr. Milton. I have to characterize my opinion as pure speculation. 

Mr. Scherer. I first asked you if you had such an opinion, and if 
you have no opinion, you can say "No." You are an expert. My 
colleague said, a so-called expert. I think you are an expert. 


Mr, INIiLTON. Thank you. 

Mr. SciiKRER. I want to know first, whether you have an opinion 
as to why the Fund for the Republic engaged in this investigation 
into blacklisting. I have an idea, and I wanted to see whether or 
no yours confirmed mine. 

Mr. Doyle. Is not that so highly speculative? Assuming that he 
is an expert, unless he knows why the Fund or why Mr. Cogley made 
this report, I do not think it is adding anything to the substantial 
value of this hearing. 

Mr. ScHEEER. Committees always ask experts for their opinions. 
Even in court we ask an expert's opinion. 

Mr. DoTLE. He has stated it will be speculative. We want sub- 
stantial stuff, and not that kind of thing. 

The Chairmax. Let us have your opinion. 

Mr. Milton. The Fund for the liepublic has dedicated itself on its 
own statements to investigating the influences of communism and 
possible invasions and infringements of civil rights, so-called. Part 
of that area of inquiry is the operation of those principles in the field 
of entertainment-communications. Certainly, by the first, by the cries 
of the Communists in the entertainment-communications, and later by 
non- Communists who echo the cry, the Fund deemed that civil rights 
or civil liberties had been and were being invaded in the entertainment- 

Unfortunately for this purpose, for the service of truth, this report, 
I think, gives no clear picture whatsoever, whether it is favorable to 
the hard anti-Communist or favorable to the non-Communist, or favor- 
able to the Connnunists. It is simply not accurate at all. But that, 
I believe, as I said, was the purpose, to investigate an area in which 
the Fund believed that civil rights were endangered, infringed, or at 
least quarreled over. 

Mr. Doyle. I think, Mr. Chairman, in view of that answer, that 
we are bound to give the Fund representative, whoever it might be, 
the opportunity to come forward in their behalf. 

The CiiAiRMAX. I would like to tell you that the representatives 
have been told in writing and orally that they will be given an oppor- 
tunity if they see fit to present testimony. I personally told one of the 
directors of the Fund, I personally told their lawyer, and Mr. Arens 
told their lawyer and we wrote them a letter, so that there can be no 
question but what that opportunity will be given. By repeatedly 
suggesting that they be given the oj^portunity, the very clear intima- 
tion is being made that they will not have the opportunity. I repeat 
with all of the force of my command, that if it ever becomes material 
to the issue, they will be extended an invitation to present testimony. 

Mr. Kearney. I was going to ask Mr. Milton if he agrees with me 
that following your thought you expressed just a few minutes ago, 
that as far as some of the writers on that report are concerned, their 
feelings also might be indicated by their intense dislike of this 

Mr. Milton. I could not speak on that of my own knowledge. I met 
two of the report investigators and we did not discuss the House 
Committee on Un-American Activities. 

May I revert for a moment to our previous subject of why the 
report was done, and it says on page roman numeral vn of the volume 


II: "At the time this study was launched, such blacklisting was a 
subject of vigorous public controversy, involving civil liberties issues 
of a serious kind." So they have said why they did it, and I tried to- 
give a fair restatement of that reason. 

Mr. Moulder. Mr. Cogley was asked that question and he testified 
on that question for several minutes the day before yesterday, as I 

Mr. ScHERER. Of course, it is possible that they may state one 
reason, and actually have another objective. I think from the evidence 
that has been developed during these hearings, that their objective 
may be somewhat different than their stated purpose. I may have 
something to say about that at the conclusion of the testimony and 
after we hear the Fund for the Kepublic representatives. 

The Chairman. We are not investigating the Fund for the Re- 
public at all. We are investigating alleged blacklisting, and it just 
happens that in the course of our inquiries there cropped up — what 
do you describe that as being ? 

Mr. Milton. A report. 

Mr. ScHERER. I might call it a white paper. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further ? 

Mr. Arens. No further interrogation of this witness, and we have 
two other witnesses, who are ready to appear this morning. 

The Chairman. The committee will stand in recess for 5 minutes. 

(Brief recess.) 

(Statement submitted for AWARE, Inc., by Paul R. Milton, chair- 
man, information committee :) 

AWARE, Inc. 

(An organization to combat the Communist conspiracy in entertainment- 
communications, and the fine arts) 

New York City, 7 July 1956. 

To the House Committee on Un-American Activities: 

(About Report on Blacklisting, Part 2, Radio-Television, Fund for the Re- 
public, by John Cogley and Marie Jahoda) 

AWARE, Inc., is an interreligious, interracial, politically nonpartisan organi- 
zation of professionals and nonprofessionals, incorporated under the laws of 
New York State. 

In commenting on the Report on Blacklisting, it is proposed to limit our re- 
marks to matters of fact as much as we can. Also included are comments on 
definitions, on omissions, etc. 

We begin by drawing attention to a failure to define. The terms "rightwing" 
and "leftwing" are often used in the report without definition and hence have 
only such meaning as the report attached to them in the secrecy of its writers' 
minds. The same absence of scholarly responsibility is to be seen in other 
passages. For instance, on page 46 : 

The report, while freely identifying anti-Communists throughout, often re- 
treats into anonymity when referring to others. For example : "More than 
one anti-Communist producer has said that he would not hire him because of 
this fact" (that actor Vinton Hay worth had allegedly become "controversial" 
because of his connection with AWARE, Inc.) . 

It seems fair to ask : what "faceless-informer" producers made this irrespon- 
sible, bv^cause not attributed, statement and to whom? On what evidence are 
they characterized as "anti-Communist"? 

Page 47 : "In February, the show used Lois .Tacoby, a writer who was later 
to follow [Irve] Tunick out of Television Authority when a West Coast function- 
ary of that organization invoked the Fifth Amendment." 

The foregoing paragraph suffers from the omission of detail necessary to a 
properly researched study of the Communist issue in unions. 


The facts, briefly, were as follows, all fully reported in the trade and general 
press : Fr<»ni VXA) onward, radio, television, screen, and dramatic writers 
fought among themselves over television jurisdiction : Should it lie with an 
existing union or some new oneV One attempt to organize a new jurisdiction 
originated in Hollywood, the Television Writers of America, independent. (This, 
incidentally, is what the report's above paragraph is actually talking about, not 
Television Authority, which was the inteiim form and name while the radio 
actors' union became the American Federation of Radio and Television Artists — 

Presently the new TWA won an NLRB election among television writers, 
giving it partial jurisdiction — in the face of warnings of Communist taint in its 
AVest Coast leadership ; one such warning was a nationally syndicated column by 
Victor Riesel ; another was a later sunimai-y of TWA's troubles inserted in the 
Congressional Record by Senator Butler, of Maryland. The apprehension was 
based on the Communist-front record reported in connection with TWA's first 
president, Richard Powell (not the actor), and the background of the executive 
secretary, Joan LaCour. 

Many New York writers joined TWA anyway, confident they could handle 
the Con-munist issue if it shar])ened. Their hopes were dashed, however, when 
Joan LaCour, charged with Party membership before HCUA in Hollywood, 
took the Fifth Amendment. When TWA's West Coast board did not discharge 
her, most of the Eastern ofl5cers and directors headed by Irve Tunick left the 
organization. Later it called a futile strike and soon afterward faded out 

The TWA episode was a classic example of the destructiveness of Communism 
upon unionism. There were few so-called "liard" anti-Communists involved ; 
most described themselves as "liberals," of the kind frequently p'aced by the 
report in later pages in the "middle" between the extremes of Communism and 
"hard" anti-Communism. Yet the "liberals" took a "hard" anti-Communist 
position ; they resigned virtually in a body and in effect ended whatever chance 
the ttedu'ling uni(m might otherwise have had in the television field. 

Full research of this ei)isode mipht have provided an important lesson for those 
who believe that a sound union can tolerate Communism. It is a shame it was 
omitted from the report. 

Page 47, last paragraph: 

"On the other hand, there are shows where the emplo.vment record indicates 
a constant use of people associated with the left wing. In 1950-51, 'Danger' 
used performers like Lee Grant, Morris Carnovsky, Alan Manson, Lou Polan, 
John Randolph, Elliott Sullivan and others who have been accused of being 
antagonistic to the right wing, as well as Peter Lyon." 

Here is an interesting example of the report's frequent resort to murky 
terms — left wing, right wing, as well as the suppression of properly identifying 

In 1950-51, perhaps more suspicion than fact attached to the names mentioned. 
But the report was researched and written in 1955-56 and the names might have 
been idf^ntified. for the reader's benefit, as follows : 

Lee Grant, public record of association with the Communist-front apparatus, 
partially pulili.shed in AWARE Publication 12. of December 27, 1954. 

Morris Carnovsky, Alan Manson, Lou Polan, John Randolph, and Elliott 
Sullivan have been identified as Communists before HCUA, some in August 

Peter Lyon was named a "hard-core Communist" by the Senate Internal Se- 
curity Subconunittee in 1952 and in his own testimony employed the Fifth 
Amendment over 20 times in response to questions about Communist Party 
member.ship and connections. 

Yet all the report says about them is that they "have been accused of being 
antagonistic to the right wing." 

Page 56 : A similar example of the suppression of identifying data : the 
phrase "* * * Facts About Blacklist, a newsletter published by a group of 
blacklisted writers. * * ♦ " 

This is a strangely incomplete description of the two editors of Facts About 
Blacklist. One was Sam Moore, long writer of the radio program The Great 
Gildersleeve, past National President of the Radio Writers Guild as well as 
a frequent council and committeeman — who has been named a Communist 
befoie HCUA more than 7 times and who, in his own HCITA testimony in 1951, 
refused to admit or repudiate a Communist Party card bearing the name Sara 


Moore, and who resorted to the Fifth Amendment in answer to all questions 
about ids relations with the Communist Party. 

The other editor of Facts About Blacklist was the writer Walter Bernstein^ 
with a significant and unrepudiated Communist-front record. 

Facts About Blacklist, which appeared twice, was printed by Advance Print- 
ing Co., union label 264, well-known as the printshop favored by Communist 
fronts such as American Committee for Protection of Foreign Born, Civil 
Rights Congress, Committee to Secure Justice for Morton Sobell in the Rosen- 
berg Case, Theater Rally to Secure Clemency for the Rosenbergs, Emergency 
Civil Rights Committee, Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee, etc., etc. 

Yet the report describes Facts About Blacklist merely as "a newsletter pub- 
lished by a group of blacklisted writers." 

Page 69, second paragraph : "It [an action of CBS] was founded on the no- 
tion that communism was totally a conspiracy and not 'political' at all." 

This is one of the very few times in the report that the Communist Party USA 
is conceded to be part of a conspiracy. Even so, the report dismisses it as a 
mere "notion," ignoring the findings of the Supreme Court of the United States 
(for example, American Communications v. Douds), the Subversive Activities 
Control Board, the House Committee on Un-American Activities, the Senate 
Internal Security Subcommittee, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, not to- 
mention authoritative writings by Lenin, who commanded conspiratorial meth- 
ods ; and J. Peters in The Communist Party — A Manual of Organization. 

The report is not obliged to agree with the "conspiracy" estimate of the CPUSA, 
but a scholarly approach would at least have set forth why the term "political"' 
is used where "Communist" would have been clearer. The term "political" 
is used as a euphemism for "Communist" over 40 times in the first section of the 

Page 76: The Voice of Freedom Committee provides another example of the 
suppression of significant identifying data. The Voice of Freedom Commit- 
tee, about which certain facts are correctly stated, showed interest always 
and only in Communist matte-s and persons. Further, it has been cited sub- 
versive by the Attorney General of the United States, which the report does not 

Page 79: Clifford J. Durr, then a Federal Communications Commissioner, is 
not identified as a later president of the National Lawyers Guild, described by 
HCUA as "the legal bulwark of the Communist Party" and soon to be heard by 
the Subversive Activities Control Board as an organization cited subversive by 
the Attorney General. 

Page 80, in commenting on William S. Gailmor, Roderick B. Holmgren, Lisa 
Sergio, Johannes Steel and J. Raymond Walsh, radio commentators, the report 
again suppresses significant identifying data. 

Gailmor has been named a Communist in sworn testimony and has been the 
fund-raising speaker at many Communist-front meetings. 

Roderick B. Holmgren, whose bewildered report of what befell him after 
appearing in Red Channels is on pages 82-83 of the report, was a one-time Mid- 
west vice president of the now defunct Radio Writers Guild, was later identified 
as a Communist employed by the Communist-dominated Mine-Mill-Smelter Work- 
ers Union (ejected from the CIO) and, while testifying before the Senate Internal 
Security Subcommittee, took the Fifth Amendment when shown a Communist 
Party card bearing the same name as his. 

Johannes Steel, described in the report, on Steel's say-so, as "an Eisenhower' 
Republican foimerly a Roosevelt Democrat," drew this public comment from. 
Frederick Woltman, New York World Telegram and Sun, on June 25, 1956 : 

"* * * Johannes Steel, one of radio's chief pro-Soviet propagandists of the 
1940's. This writer [Woltman] in 1946 described him as 'an all-out defender of 
Stalin's policies, with a special bent for Soviet worship.' Steel never objected. 
And evidently the Fund's researchers didn't care." 

Page 82 : In stating that Arthur Gaeth "formerly broadcast over ABC for the 
United Electrical Workers Union," the repoi-t suppresses the fact that UE: 
was ejected from the CIO as a Communist-dominated union in 1947 and that 
several of its oflScers have been named as Communists in sworn testimony. That 
would not prove that Gaeth was a Communist, but it might have given the 
reader a hint of Gaeth's general aoproach. 

I'age 02 : "In some cases the 'clearance men' have sold their services as Dub- 
lic-relations consultants and speech writers to the artists going through a 
'clearance.' " 


It is AWARE's conviction that "clearance" and "self-clearance" shonld be un- 
marred by the passage of money. The report ought to name the "clearance men" 
rei erred to above. 

Page 107, next to last paragraph: "Pete Seeger of the Weavers was listed in 
lied Channels." 

The report appears to suffer from shyness about the word Communist, which 
is remarkable in a book about Communism. Seeger whs more tlian simply "listed 
in Red Channels." He has been named a Communist in sworn testimony before 
a congressional committee ; the Weavers group is a favorite at CP front gatli- 

Page 117 : "As an ex-Communist ami paid CJovernment witness, Matusow 
had been instrumental in getting 13 Communist Party leaders convicted for 
Smith Act violations." 

The implication here is that Matusow was the decisive witness against the J 3. 
But in fact, a court ruled later that the convictians stood without Matusow's tes- 
timony, which was partial and corroborative, not basic. 

Page 121, footnote: "These are not to be taken as literal lists." 

Cf. page 16.5, quote of faceless informer Bart : "I (the reporter) asked him if, 
when he decides to take an actor as a client, he checks the name against any of 
the blacklists." 

If there are no literal lists, how could "Bart" check them? A quibble? But 
murkiness in use of terms is a regrettable characteristic of the report and the 
examples acd up. 

Page 128, speaking of the situation at CBS, second paragraph ends: "If he (a 
performer) would come bearing credentials, or imijlicit agreement, from AWARE, 
Inc., Counterattack, the American Legion, or George Sokolsky, so much the 

Spokesmen for AWARE, Inc., told the Report's interviewers that AWARE, 
Inc., does not consider itself a clearing agency, does not issue "rebirtli certificates" 
or "clearance" papers or letters of any kind. Nor does it do indirectly — over the 
phone, by lifted eyebrow or smoke si'.aial — what its policy forbids it to do 

Since the report does not mention, does not possess and has never seen any 
"clearance" paper issued by AWARE, Inc., wliat is the basis for the inclusion of 
AWARE in the quoted paragrai)h? 

Page 129, first and second paragraphs : "In the spring of 195.5, the NBC net- 
work, wanted to clear a prominent performer for a top dramatic show, asked 
the actor to get two letters of endorsement, one from an otiicer of the Anti-Defa- 
mation League, the other from Godfrey P. Schmidt, President of AWARE, 
Inc. * * * 

"At one time the letter from the Anti-Defamation League official would have 
turned the trick, but in this case it took two endorsements. And of the two 
(as the actor found out), AWARE's was harder to get." 

In fact, the actor was Albert Dekker ; the program was Television Playhouse 
sponsored by Goodyear Tire & Rubber. AWARE, Inc., gave no endorsement 
whatever, though Mr. Schmidt did, as an individual, on his own stationery, as 
fairly noted on page 133, last paragraph. 

More interesting in the quoted paragraphs : AWARE, Inc., is equated with 
the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith as an influence in entertainment- 
communications. But the report index lists only three incidental references to 
the Anti-Defamation League, while AWAKE, Inc., bulKs almost as large as 
CBS, Counterattack, and the American Legion, and slightly larger than the 
House Committee on Un-American Activities. 

AWARE, Inc., is not informed about the nature of the reported influence 
and activities of the Anti-Defamation League witli respect to "clearance" jiro- 
cedures ; perhaps the industry and the general public are not informed either. 
The report has denied its readers the benefit of a comparison between AWARE's 
approach to the Communist issue, which it does not like, and the ADL's. The 
omission is noticeable. 

Let it be noted, however, that AWARE; Inc., in no sense seeks to engage in 
rivalry for influence with any organizations except Communist organizations. 

Page 134, first paragraph : "In its support of political screening, AWARE 
operates according to this logic : Communism is a conspiracy ; therefore Com- 
munists and all those who collaborate with them, knowingly, or not, are con- 

Correction : Exactly on the opposite page, the report quotes from AWARE 
itself in contradiction. The selection is from The Road Buck (self-clearance). 


which suggests certain actions that may be taken in self-clearance. The report 
quotes : 

"2. Recognition that, whatever the suhjecVs intentions at the time, his 
name, efforts, money or other support gave aid and comfort to the Communist 

The italicized phrase clearly contradicts the report's prior summary of 
AWAREs logic. 

Page 131: The Alliance is described as "a coalition of rightwing patriotic 

In fact. The Alliance, of which Mr. Archibald B. Roosevelt is President, is an 
alliance only of individuals. The report evidently confuses The Alliance with 
The American Coalition, which is a Nationwide coalition of patriotic societies. 
As to being "rightwing," why the distinction? Can the report name a coalition 
of "leftwing" patriotic societies? 

Page 131, second paragraph : "In February 19.55, AWARE sponsored a forum 
for young people * * * frankly rightwing." 

The purpose of the forum was to explore the educational sources of the 
crypto Communism which AWARE believes infects some people in entertainment- 
communications ; it was the second such forum, there has since been a third, and 
next year there will be a fourth. Whatever the forum speakers were, AWARE, 
Inc., takes no position on any political or sociological matters ; only on Com- 

The same paragraph continues : "To many anti-Communists in the industry, 
AWARE is barely differentiated from other rightwing political groups (even 
though from time to time it speaks as if its patriotic interests transcend partisan 
issues) and they want no part of it." 

This paragraph raises questions that should have been answered in the same 
paragraph. What anti-Communists feel that way? In what way is AWARE 
"rightwing," considering that the report never defines the term? Or is "right- 
wing" supposed to refer to "hard" anti-Communism as opposed to temporizing 
methods? Why the phrase "as if its patriotic interests transcend partisan 
issues"? Why the gratuitous "as if," when many persons anonymously quoted 
elsewhere in the report seem to have gained credence for their irresponsible 
statements without difficulty? And is Communism only a "partisan issue"? 
AWARE confesses it cannot follow the reasoning for the murk. 

The same quoted paragraph continues : "If they want to support McCarthy 
and his crowd, that's their business," said one actor, "but why should my 
patriotism be questioned because I disagree with them?" 

Again the report, apparently always quick to denounce the anti-Communist 
activist, does not scruple to use an ignorant faceless informer against anti- 
Communist activists. AWARE, Inc. has taken no position on Senator McCarthy 
because he has no connection with AWARE's field of interest — entertainment- 
communications (the Government Operations Committee investigation of the 
Voice of America took place prior to AWARE, Inc. ) . 

The report should name its faceless informer, "an actor," who in tuxm should 
state when and where his patriotism was questioned by AWARE, Inc. 

Pago 133, second paragraph : "AWARE, though it urges universal political 
screening * * *." 

Here again the murky use of "political" when the correct phrase would be 
"screening for Communist affiliation." AWARE does not urge screening, uni- 
versal or local, for Democratic, Republican, Liberal, Farmer-Labor, etc., 

Page 1-33, third paragraph : "AWARE has not published any public 'lists,' but 
its bulletins have cited the past political associations of radio-TV workers, a la 
Red Channels." 

AWARE's publication policy was explained to Report interviewers : 

AWARE issues an irregular bulletin to its members ; only a few such have 
contained data on Communist or Communist-front individuals and in some 2 
years, only four such btilletins have been issued beyond the membership under 
the heading: "News Supplement to Membership Bulletin," followed by its 
sequence number. These four were mailed to members, organizations, and in- 
terested individuals, some considered friendly, some not. None was mailed to 
any list of employers or advertising agencies. 

Of the publicly distributed publications. No. 12 commented on an AFTRA 
election closed 9 days before, named some 16 defeated candidates and touched 
on their connections with the Communist-front apparatus. 


No. 13 cited the names and records of eight persons, named as Communists 
in sworn testimony, who had heen among those agitating in AFTRA for the 
"condemnation" of AWARE, Inc. 

No. 16 commented on a later AFTRA election, citing the reported front- 
apparatus connections of two AFTRA electees. 

No. 18 was an analysis of the activities of Playwright Arthur Miller in 
connection with Communist-front groups, and his loss of a writing assignment 
from the New York City Youth Board, prior to his recent testimony before this 

In all, AWARE has named 33 i>ersons in connection with the Communist Party 
or front groups. 

Page 154, discussing AWARE publication 12, quotes from it : "Happily, AFTRA 
is one of the few unions in which flatly declared anti-communism and anti- 
totalitarianism have won many clear victories." 

The report comments : "The first statement, that AFTRA is 'one of the few 
unions' in which anti-communism is dominant, was itself tell-tale. Given 
the complete defeat of the Communists in the AFL (where they never had a 
base) and in the CIO (where their unions were expelled), it could only 
strengthen the char^re that AWARE was anti-union." 

AWARE, which confines itself to the entertainment-communications, was ob- 
viously not talking about unions outside that area. Within that area, the state- 
ment about AFTRA made by AWARE remains true. It is also clearly true of 
Screen Actors Guild, lATSE West, and a few others. In other unions, the 
Communist issue remains in unmentioned tension. Before calling AWARE's 
statement of fact "anti-union," did the report analyze the situations in the more 
than a dozen other unions in entertainment-communications? 

Page 156, second paragraph, the report reminds the reader that among those 
AFTRAns opposing AWARE were 11 who "invoked either the First or Fifth 
Amendment at the House Un-American Activities Committee hearing at Foley 
Square in August 1955." 

Here again is the report's repeated reluctance to refer to Communism : What 
did the 11 invoke constitutional privilege about? The record shows they invoked 
it in refusing to answer questions about Communist Party membership. 

Same page, next paragraph, the report quotes from a letter .sent to AFTRA 
members in May 1955, and attributes it to AWARE. The fact is AWARE did 
not send that letter and had no responsibility for it ; it was prepared and issued 
by a number of AFTRAns who signed it, as the document itself shows. 

Page 158, at the top, the report ends a discussion of "blacklisting" in AFTRA 
with comments on the "condemnation" of AWARE, Inc., wliich took place in 
July 1955, in the New York local. Why does the report omit that within 3 
weeks, AFTRA's national membership adopted a rule that any member there- 
after refusing to testify before a congressional committee about Communism 
would be subject to suspension? 

Pages 163 to 191 are devoted to summaries of conversations with persons identi- 
fied only by fictitious initials or nicknames. This section of 28 out of 220 pages 
in the part of volume II attributed to Mr. John Cogley raises a question about the 
responsibility of researchers conducting surveys. 

These interviews are, because anonymous, irresponsible. The subjects cannot 
be independently interviewed. There is no indication that the statements made 
by the "faceless informers" were checked. In a few cases, the disguises of nick- 
names or initials have already been penetrated and the "facts" given by the 
"faceless informers" found to be so incomplete as to be misleading. In other 
instances, persons are quoted who have but the murkiest idea of what the Com- 
munist issue is. 

Thus the question raised by this section is : Has a document claiming accept- 
ance as worthwhile research the right to quote from ignorance and irresponsi- 

In one respect, AWARE concedes that this section makes a point : It is that 
these interviews reflect, with minor exceptions, a stunning lack of understanding 
of what the Communist conspiracy is, of its purposes and methods, on the part 
of what are supposed to be typical persons in entertainment-communications. 

Page 42 : "Pitzele charged, among other things, that [Merle] Miller had ig- 
nored sources of information on the subject of blacklisting of anti-Communists 
[in particular, that he liad not consulted Morton Wishengrad, a linowledgeable 
radio writer], * * ♦." 

82833— 56— pt. 2 5 


Comment: Merle Miller, novelist, had been commissioned in 1950 by the 
American Civil Liberties Union to do a book-form survey of so-called blacklisting 
in broadcasting. With one or more associates, he carried out interviews. He 
did, in fact, consult Mr. Wishengrad, but failed to consult certain others men- 
tioned by Mr. Wishengrad. The fact of Miller's interview with Mr. Wishengrad 
and his failure to explore the writing situation further was covered by Merlyn 
S. Pitzele in his New Leader Magazine review of The Judges and the Judged 
which, among other things, exposed the faulty research methods used. Later, 
Louis Berg in Commentary Magazine reported that the American Civil Liberties 
Union had, in a Board action, virtually agreed with Mr. Pitzele ; it did not, how- 
ever, withdraw the book. 

Page 147, third paragraph: "Among those who sought to make the [Radio 
Writers] Guild into a professional association were a number of the people who 
were later to form AWARE, Inc." 

This is a curiously telescoped and inaccurate statement. 

First, an argument in the Radio Writers Guild about professional-society- 
versus-union seems to have taken place in the late 19.30's. By 1950, it had been 
long dead; only one person revived it: Hector Chevigny in an RWG-election 
campaign letter to RWG members in 1950. No statement about it ever was made 
by We the Undersigned, RWG anti-Communist Caucus ; only a few of We the 
Undersigned had even belonged to RWG in the late 1930's. 

Second, when AWARE, Inc., was formed and announced (December 1953) 
the Radio Writers Guild was moribund. Moreover, the report does not know 
who formed AWARE but the statement may be made here that no champion 
of a "professional society" RWG was involved. 

Page 148 : Speaking of RWG : "The result was an 'anti-Communist' ideology 
largely based on the proposition that there was only one kind of anti-commu- 
nism, that represented by the right wing. Exceptions were made (Morton 
Wishengrad, a liberal anti-Communist writer, is acceptable to AWARE, Inc.)." 

AWARE, Inc., seems to be the "King Charles' head" of the report ; here again 
AWARE is dragged backward in time. RWG and We the Undersigned were 
dead when AWARE, Inc., came to life. To say today — 3 years later — that Mr. 
Wishengrad is "acceptable" to AWARE, Inc., implies that he has been somehow 
"considered" by that organization. Nothing like that ever happened. The only 
conceivable basis for the report's gratuitous linking of AWARE, Inc., and Mr. 
Wishengrad is that during an interview about RWG by Mr. Blackman, Report 
interviewer, the latter a.sked an AWARE Board member about Mr. AVishengrad, 
the answer was that Mr. Wishengrad had been a respected, informed, and im- 
portant member of We the Undersigned. As AWARE, Inc., was not under dis- 
cussion, nothing could have suggested any connection between it and Mr. Wishen- 

Page 149 : "It was this simplification (into two opposed factions) which got the 
McCarran Committee into trouble on the very day it released its report on the 
Radio Writers Guild. One of the central issues before the Guild at that time 
[emphasis added] was a highly publicized resolution submitted by Welbourn 
Kelley to the Regular Council Meeting, Eastern Region, of the Radio Writers 
Guild. On July 29, 1950, Kelley had proposed that the Guild offer its services to 
support America's role in the Korean war. * * *" 

There is some error in dates here ; the correct sequence of events is — 

1. Kelley's Korean anti-Communist resolution (s) came, as stated, in July 

2. The testimony comprising the McCarran Committee Report was taken in 
Washington and New York between April 27, 1951, and April 1, 1952, and 
published by the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee on August 27, 1952 — 
2 years after the Kelley resolutions. By mid-1952 they had little more than 
historical interest. 

Page 151 : Here the report treats of the "trouble" into which the "McCarran" 
[Senate Internal Security] Subcommittee got over Mr. Welbourn Kelley. This 
passage quotes from a letter made public in September 1952 by Mr. Kelley to 
the effect that when testifying in executive session about RWG, he had been 
instructed by Committee Counsel Richard Arens to call his RWG opponents 
"pro-Communists" and not "leftwingers." Mr. Kelley expressed concern at the 
harm that would be done to his RWG opponents. 

As far as it goes, the report's account of the Kelley letter is accurate; the 
same cannot be said about its completeness, for Committee Counsel Arens replied 
to Mr. Kelley in a widely published letter, stating that he had merely asked Mr. 
Kelley not to use the term "leftwinger" for fear it might be taken to refer to 


radicals or leftists, so-called, who were by no means pro-Communist; would 
Mr. Kelley limit his remarks to those he regarded as pro-Communist, and use 
that term for clarity? Omission of the Arens letter prevents the reader from 
making up his own mind on the basis of complete evidence. 

Page 150, second paragraph : "Another radio writer who voted against Kelley 
[on the Korean resolutions] has notarized statements from leaders of AWARE, 
Inc., attesting that they have no knowledge he is 'pro-Communist'." 

King Charles' head again; AWARE, Inc., is dragged into something it had 
nothing to do with. (Parenthetically, no radio writer or anybody else has state- 
ments, notarized or not, from leaders of AWARE, Inc., that he is or is not pro- 
Conmiunist. ) 

The facts behind the report's oddly telescoped sentence were supplied, in 
document form, to Mr. Saul Blaekman, Report interviewer. 

The "writer who voted against Kelley" was, presumably. Hector Chevigny, an 
iutluential RWG member who had been several times a Guild councilman, AVest 
and East, and who in 1952 was the administration candidate for national presi- 
dent. In a We the Undersigned election campaign bulletin, in 1952, 13 RWG 
members were listed who had been identified as Communists before congres- 
sional committees: Pauline Hopkins, Sam Moore, Jack Robinson, Reuben Ship, 
Gene Stone, Louis Scofield, Carl Abrams, Harmon Alexander, Abe Burrows, 
Mary Robinson, Studs Terkel, Millard Lampell, Peter Lyon. (Today it should 
1)6 noted that of the foregoing, Abe Burrows thereafter testified before HCUA, 
generally admitting and regretting past Communist Party membership ; Reuben 
Ship has been deported to Canada, where he wrote the radio play. The Inquisitor, 
for the Canadian Broadcasting System.) 

The same We the Undersigned 1952 election bulletin also charged certain 
RWG members, not Communists, with having run on slates with some or all of 
the 13; among the non-Communists so charged were Mr. Chevigny and Philo 
Higley. Both considered that they had, by innuendo, been called Communists 
and brought libel actions against 30 or so supporters of We the Undersigned. 

Neither action went to court. Both were withdrawn when 13 of the defendants 
named (the others having dropped away for various reasons: separate agree- 
ments, nonservice, etc.) provided the plaintiffs with affidavits stating that they 
had not called either man a Communist and had no knowledge of such connection. 
Here is the key paragraph, which is correctly given in the report : 

"The statements of our opposition to Mr. Chevigny's election made in the 
said bulletin were not intended to imply that we had any knowledge of any fact 
which would lead to the belief that Mr. Chevigny was a Communist or a member 
of the Communist Party or directly or indirectly connected with the Communist 
Party or that he was, when the bulletins were issued, or that he is now a member 
of any Communist front or action .Lcroup or a member of any Communist con- 
spiracy Jftid we do not have any such knowledge." (The aflBdavit given Higley was 
almost identical.) 

The Chevigny affidavit, later of the two, was dated 12 February 1954. On 18 
March 1955, the relevant papers were supplied to a Report interviewer, at his 
request ; with them went a letter from which the following paragraphs are now 
quoted : 

"It has steadily been our (We the Undersigned) position that we did not 
refer to Mr. Chevigny or any of his companions in that group as Communists. 
Our statement hinged only on their activities in the Radio Writers Guild with 
reference to the imputed Communists named. We did not have any evidence 
that Mr. Chevigny * * * had been a Communist. If we had, it's obvious that 
he would have been bracketed with the imputed Communists and not separately. 
Therefore we had no objection whatever to stating, in the final affidavit, that we 
had no reason to regard Mr. Chevigny as a Communist. However, it will be 
noted from a reading of the enclosed affidavit that our original statement — of 
mutual support between imputed Communists and the group of officials and 
then-candidates, is not referi*ed to and was not withdrawn." 

The letter was signed as an individual by Paul R. Milton, formerly active in 
We the Undersigned. The supporters of We the Undersigned (by early 1954 a 
group held together only by unwelcome partnership as defendants in a lawsuit) 
who signed the affidavit given to Mr. Chevigny were : Vera Oldham, Doris Hal- 
man, Knowles Entrikin, House Jameson, Joseph Mindel, Roy L. Deets, Ann 
Dixon, Jim McMenemy, Gene L. Farinet, Ruth Adams Knight, Paul R. Milton, 
Stanley Niss, Nora Stirling. 

A'ow look again at the Report quotation on page 150: "Another radio writer who 
voted against Kelley has notarized statements from leaders of AWARE, Inc. 


[emphasis added], attesting that they have no knowledge he is pro-Communist." 
Only one of the above-mentioned 13 persons may be described as a "leader" of 
AWARE, Inc., a person who is now 1 among 15 AWARE Directors (Milton) ; 11 
of the 13 are not even members of AWARE. Thus the Report statement is 
grossly inaccurate. 

Comments on part 2 of volume II : "Anti-Communism and Employment Policies 
in Radio and Television" 

This section, executed on a separate grant from the Fund for the Republic, 
was directed by Marie Jahoda of the Research Center for Human Relations, 
New York University. 

It is, in effect, a study of "morale" in entertainment-communications. Also, 
in effect, by its use of opinions from persons unidentified, it is a vehicle for the 
conveyance of unverifiable views and "facts". True, any market survey of cus- 
tomer-preferences is no more than that, but in market surveys the questions 
involve no morality and no treasonable conspiracy. In a survey like this, 
anonymity becomes a cover for irresponsibility. 

Though this section is better than the first in scholary manner, it still resorts 
to unscholarly cliches of the Communist and anti-anti-Communist running fight 
against anti-Communists. For example, the use of the term "political" where 
"Communism" or its appropriate variant is called for ; the word "political" is 
so used 14 times. 

Again, page 223 : Miss Jahoda quotes from a book of her own ;••*** self- 
appointed individuals and groups * * *" referring to citizen-anti-Communists. 
"Self-appointed" is a catch-term implying that citizen-anti-Communists are act- 
ing extravagantly. But of course they are self-appointed, as is any other 
activist in our society. What about the ASPCA, the Boy Scouts, the American 
Civil Liberties Union, the American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Fund 
for the Republic, etc.; to what place shall we all go to get ourselves appointed? 

The third paragraph, same page : "* * * they publicly call attention to the 
records of individuals who deviate from their standards of acceptable behavior." 

"Who deviate from their standards of acceptable behavior" is the key phrase. 
Why not say plainly : "Who object to the Communist taint in such records"? 

Page 224, second paragraph, discusses motives attributed to anti-Communist 
activists, some praiseworthy, and then continues : "And some persons suggest 
that even more naked self-interest — in terms of wishes for personal power or 
financial gain — plays a role in the motivation of many private organizations and 
individuals who have set themselves up as judges over other people's beliefs and 

Another snide dig unsupported by an independently verifiable fact. And again, 
a phrase such as "set themselves up as judges" — as if that were repreh^sible in a 
society founded on the conviction of freedom of expression coupled with in- 
dividual responsibility for individual acts. 

Page 240, quoting "a TV actor on a top level" : "If you pay you can get cleared." 

This remark emphasizes the dangers of anonymous quotation. The speaker 
is unidentified, yet behind cover he makes a charge implying criminal extortion. 

Did he take his information to the proper legal authorities, the district at- 
torney of New York County, for instance? Does the Report staff know on what 
information the remark was based? Did the Report staff require supporting 
facts from the "TV actor"? If the remark was not checked, why not? Here 
again the question of quoting from ignorance intrudes itself. 

Page 248, quoting "one man," not otherwise identified: "Many were thus 
labeled even though they had been cleared by the FBI." 

Once again — why quote from ignorance? J. Edgar Hoover, director of the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation, has stated many times that the Bureau has 
no power to "clear" anyone, not even Federal employees under investigation. 
Why does the report print as if true a statement that is false? A corrective 
footnote might have been inserted. Pages 2G0-262 : On these pages the second 
section of volume II comments on the various plans which have been put for- 
ward within the entertainment-communications field to institutionalize standards 
of employment and procedure where the Communist issue is involved, and which 
all failed of adoption for a variety of commonsense reasons. 

AWARE agrees with a conclusion of the Jahoda section that in general the 
treatment of the Communist issue in entertainment-communications would 
benefit from more openness and less secrecy. 



It is AWARE's opinion that the report suffers fatally from its murkiness of 
language, its quotations from poorly informed "faceless informers," its ap- 
parent reluctance to deal with Communism as a conspiracy and its apparently 
underlying conviction that anyone held responsible for his Communist actions 
is somehow an innocent victim. 

Throughout the report, those facts which are correct were known before. 
Other things presented as facts lose their standing because of inaccuracy and 
the frequent suppression of significant data. 

The result is a document which, whatever the earnestness and good inten- 
tions of its sponsors, contributes nothing to the better understanding of one 
aspect of a crisis which confronts not only the whole civilized world, but every 
individual in it. 

The Chairman. The committee will be in order. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Chairman, the next witness is Mr. Godfrey P. 
Schmidt. Would you kindly raise your right hand. 

The Chairman. Mr. Schmidt, 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. Schmidt. I do. 

The Chairman. Thank you. 


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

Mr. Schmidt. My name is Godfrey P. Schmidt, S-c-h-m-i-d-t. I 
live at 41 Montgomery Place in New Rochelle, N. Y. I am an at- 
torney, and I have my own office at 12 East 41st Street, New York 
City, I am president of AWARE, Inc. Also I lecture on constitu- 
tional law, sometimes on labor law and jurisprudence at Fordham 
University Law School. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Schmidt, give us just a brief sketch of your per- 
sonal background, if you please, your education and anything of 
particular significance in your activities in your life. 

Mr. Schmidt. I was educated at Fordham University College and 
Law School. During my training at Fordham Law School I took 
great interest in the study of communism and the general line of Com- 
munist philosophy. That interest was instilled in me by a speech 
made by Father Edmund Walsh, who was president of Georgetown 
University, a great expert in this field, as you gentlemen know. 

I gave a series of lectures and courses on the subject of communism 
and the Communist conspiracy during the period, I would say, be- 
ginning from 1930 onward. I always reserved at least 4 hours of my 
courses on jurisprudence to a discussion of the general line of Com- 
munist philosophy. 

I was selected by Governor Lehman to conduct the Communist 
penetration investigation of the New York State Labor Department, 
and I conducted that investigation for a period of some 9 months, be- 
ginning in 1939 or 1940 — I have forgotten the exact date — and since 
that time I have constantly given lectures and talks on the subject 
of communism. 

I was interested in the theater and communism from the time I went 
into private practice in 1944 when I was retained by Frank Fay, who 
was then under charges at Actors Equity for having called some fel- 


low actors Keds. I defended Frank Fay successfully in the sense that 
I prevented them from doing what they planned to do ; namely, to oust 
him from his profession by taking away his union membership. 

Mr. Velde. Wliat kind of an action was that, Mr. Schmidt ? 

Mr. Schmidt. That was an intraunion proceeding. He was brought 
up on charges before the Actors Equity Council. He was not allowed 
to have attorneys present, but I was in an adjoining room and when 
he had any difficulties he could question me. I also prepared for him 
the documentation, the bill of particulars, and I sat down with mem- 
bers of Actors Equity who were conducting this investigation, so- 
called, and told them that I would commence suit against them if they 
didn't base their decision on substantial evidence. 

Mr. Arens. Yesterday for some period, and today, your associate in 
AWARE, Mr. Paul Milton, testified. Yesterday he made reference to 
the organization AWARE and gave a little of its origins and its func- 
tions. Unfortunately, at that time some of the members of the com- 
mittee were not present. I would like to ask you now in the presence of 
the members who were not here yesterday if you would take a moment 
to explain to the members what is AWARE, a word about its origin, 
its activities and functions. 

Mr. Schmidt. AWARE is an organization of Americans whose 
purpose it is to fight Communist influence in the field of entertainment 
communications. I should say about half of its membership is taken 
from the professions, from the various acting theatrical professions, 
and the other half are ordinary citizens of various professions and 
avocations and who are interested in the subject of communism, espe- 
cially communism in the field of entertainment communications. It 
is nonsectarian. It is nonpolitical. It has no orthodoxy in the field 
of religion or politics. It welcomes any person of good will who feels, 
as we do, that communism is the most unmitigated political, social, and 
philosophical evil of our time, the one that has more endangered Amer- 
ican civil liberties and the American concept of freedom and the dig- 
nity of the human person than any jDrevious heresy in all history. 

Mr. Arens. Tell us, if you please, in summary form, of the function 
of AWARE. 

Mr. Schmidt. AWARE relies primarily on its right to protest, on 
the right of free speech and free press. Its purpose is to lay the facts 
before those who will have to make decisions of one kind or another. 

Mr. Arens. By what vehicle does it operate ? 

Mr. Schmidt. By publishing bulletins from time to time, by con- 
ducting forums, by offering speakers to its membership, and so on. 

Mr. Arens. What are the sources of information of AWARE ? 

Mr. Schmidt, The sources of information are documentation of 
the work of a committee like this one and similar committees of Con- 
gress, various research sources that are available. We don't believe, 
with the Fund for the Republic report, that it is not possible to objec- 
tively ascertain some of the infiltrations of the Communist conspiracy 
in our country. We don't think it is an easy job, but if we felt that it 
was always a question of AWARE standards or their standards, but 
never objective standards, we wouldn't be in this. We think that it 
takes a vast amount of intellectual and moral effort to isolate the right 
standards and to apply them, but we do believe that it is a worthwhile 
task, a task that is demanded by the exigencies of our time, and a task 


that can be competently handled both by Government officials, like the 
distinguished members of this committee, and by private persons of 
good Avill. 

Mr. Akens. Mr. Schmidt, what is "blacklisting" ? 

Mr. Schmidt. Right here I think you have the source of much of 
the confusion that appears in the Fund for the Republic report because, 
as I understand that report, you have a variety of definitions and the 
attack is made in a diffuse fashion precisely because the attack is not 
always on the same target. It seems to me that from time to time they 
mean blacklisting as a form of rash judgment which is either calumny 
or detraction. 

At another time — here is one of the most absurd ones in the book, 
on page 181 volume II : 

Blacklistiug, according to W. Z., * * * is really an attack on New Deal values. 

Then the next page, 182 : 

The motives of the pro-blacklisting faction * * * are union-busting, anti-New 
Dealism, and reaction in general. In certain cases, these motives are linked 
with racism — anti-Semitism, and hostility toward the Negro performer * * *. 

It seems to me no serious study made by pretense at scholarship and 
decent research would quote this kind of definition as worthy of serious 

The Chairman. Isn't that close to the Communist line ? 

Mr. Schmidt. As I understand the Communist line, it is the Com- 
munist line. 

Mr. Arens. What is your appraisal of the objectivity of the report 
on blacklisting of the Fund for the Republic ? 

Mr. Schmidt. The Fund for the Republic report, as I read it and 
appraise it, is nothing but a partisan and political tract against people 
whom they identify with tags and slogans while they assert that people 
like myself have no competence to use contrary tags and slogans. It is 
guilty of all sorts of suppression of relevant facts, and it makes that 
suppression on the pretense "this is my way of writing." It seems to me 
that before you undertake a study of this kind there are certain require- 
ments, certain objective exigencies for a study of this kind. You can't 
excuse the forgetfulness or neglect of those standards by simply say- 
ing, "this is my method of writing." 

Mr. Arens. May I interrupt you right there, Mr. Schmidt, to ask 
you, in your judgment as devout anti-Communist and as one who has 
had extensive experience in this field, is it a legitimate concern of a 
congressional committee that a tax-exempt foundation with vast re- 
soui'ces should be making these allegations to which you have been 

Mr. Schmidt. I think, from the point of view of our Constitution, 
it is exactly what the Founding Fathers wanted a congressional com- 
mittee to do. You take away congressional committees, and I say to 
you, gentlemen, no newspaper, no private agency, has the power to 
investigate or the courage to investigate, especially in these days when 
we have somewhat encouraged a kind of "Caesarized" idea of the power 
of the executive department and when we have tolerated, it seems to 
me, a kind of interpretation of the Constitution that is surely but 
slowly chipping away States' rights. 


It seems to me that the only hope for uncovering some of the truth 
that must be known in this kind of picture comes from congressional 
committees like yours. 

I haven't finished, if I may be pennitted to continue, my appraisal 
of this report. 

In the first place, this failure to define and this use of the word, which 
is in itself a form of denigration, handicaps the book. They have five 
different definitions quoted from other sources and the one that should 
be most objective from Webster's Dictionary is not fully quoted, and 
there is no indication of an omission. On page 27, pages 52, 53, 121, 
181, 182, and 237 are other people's definitions. 

That fairly leads to what is my definition. What do I say "black- 
listing" is, because I don't care what you call a thing, I want to know 
what is the reality behind the word. Otherwise debating this becomes 
a futile verbal battle. ^Vliat is it that AWAEE does that is called by 
these people blacklisting? 

I say we are publishing, for a good motive and for a sufficiently 
grave reason, truthful statements which potentially or actually damage 
someone by imputing to that someone some unrepudiated and until 
now hidden fault. 

Let me justify that definition by taking it apart because I think it 
is the heart of this problem. How can you write a learned treatise 
on something that you have never even defined ? Of course, there is a 
dogmatic assumption here which is the dogmatic assumption behind 
the Times editorial this morning; that is, that this is a thoroughly 
un-American art of blacklisting in the entertainment field. 

Blacklisting, gentlemen, is not something new under the sun. If 
you read the Nichomachean Ethics of Aristotle, you read a treatise on 
detraction and calumny. What is the difference in the great Aris- 
totelian tradition which was picked up even by men like St. Augustine 
and St. Thomas Aquinas. St. Thomas has this magnificently set forth 
in his tract on detraction and calumny. Wliat do they define detrac- 
tion to be? The unjustified telling of some hidden fault. That is 
detraction. Calumny is the telling of a hidden fault when the telling 
is a lie — in other words, what we would call libel and slander. That 
is calumny. 

I submit that we in AWARE are against detraction and slander. We 
are against a great many of the fundamental evils that they only tan- 
gentially refer to here. But this is not what we do. We do not indulge 
in slander or libel or detraction or calumny or tale-bearing or back- 
biting or derision. What is it we have done ? 

We have published 18 bulletins up to now, and it is our bulletins 
that have earned for us the reputation that we are blacklisters. These 
bulletins I am sure have been made available to this committee and, 
if they haven't been, I will see that they are. We have published 18 
bulletins, and in 4 of them we did blacklisting in the sense that I 
defined and which I will explain in a minute. 

In the first instance we did it as an editorial comment on an election 
in AFTRA. We commented 2 weeks after the election on the fact 
that the slate that won was defiantly and intelligently anti-Communist 
and the slate that lost comprised a large number of people with sig- 
nificant repudiated front records. 

Now we were intruding in union affairs as if there were some immu- 
nization from criticism that would come from people with real or 
alleged talent. We have no right to criticize a slate. We criticize 


the slates put up by real political parties like Democrats and Republi- 
cans. If we have that constitutional right, and thank God we have, 
I see no reason why we should hesitate if we feel we do it reasonably, 
and we do, to criticize a slate in a particular union. 

That was the first time. 

The next two times we defended ourselves against an attack. The 
attack was mounted because of that first editorial comment. We de- 
fended ourselves against attack by these people, and we pointed out 
that the most vociferous attackers were precisely the people with 
unrepudiated front associations. 

It seems to me that this takes care of the detraction part because 
detraction is only the unjustified telling. 

Publishing : That means using free speech. That means using free 
press. That means using the American right to protest. 

For a good motive. We are not actuated by malice. We hate no 
man. We would live to welcome them back. Our primary purpose 
is to reveal the Communist conspiracy. That is why we published 
The Eoad Back and I took a literal translation from the Greek New 
Testament, the Acts of the Apostles, that they should have a change 
of heart and mind performing deeds fitting this change, as the fore- 
word of this important document that we publish, because we are not 
interested in attacking people. We are much more interested in 
getting them to our side, revealing to them the error of their ways 
when they lend their names in some form to communism. 

Gentlemen, it seems to me that it is a matter of ordinary human 
psychology that when 2 people collaborate to save a man, the 2 people 
deserve credit and merit. If two people lend their name, their pres- 
tige, and their talent to some unworthy cause, to some form of collabo- 
ration with communism as a focus of unmitigated evil, whether they 
intend it or not is beside the point, this is something we have a right 
to comment on because, gentlemen, it is the effect that is important 
here as much as the intent. There is a vast moral difference between 
a baby who sets a house on fire and an arsonist, but the effect, gentle- 
men, is the same. A lot of people in our day go around with the bland 
assumption that they can join any kind of nefarious group that collab- 
rates with communism and come out, simply because of the prestige 
of their name for their talents, without any criticism. Yet they know 
very well, gentlemen, that if they joined a Nazi front, if they asso- 
ciated themselves with some form of anti-Semitism, they would be 
attacked from one end of this country to the other, and rightly, be- 
cause a man holds his reputation in his hand — every one of us. We 
can hold it on high or we can throw it away. It is our deliberate con- 
duct that does it. We don't run sniveling to some union to rescue 
us from our own stupidity. If we are wrong we ought to do what 
every person who is wrong does. 

In the long history of human achievement the great people have 
been the men like St. Augustine or St. Francis of Assisi, who admitted 
that their earlier lives were wrong and they knew how to take care of 
it. I hear nothing but talk that these people don't know how to clear 
themselves. With a little intelligence and a little imagination they 
easily would know how, it seems to me, because people who were 
dirty far more, men like Louis Budenz or Betty Bentley, have been 
cleared. So these people who lend themselves, it seems to me, have an 
obligation. I am not saying that w^e are the judges. 

82833—56 — ^pt. 2 6 


Mr. Arens. I would like to ask you a question at this point, Mr. 
Schmidt. As I construe certain of the passages of the Fund for the 
Kepublic report, there are a number of indictments brought against 
you and against AWARE. I should like to invite your attention to 
those indictments. One of the first indictments which I construe the 
Fund for the Republic report makes is that you identify, you and 
AWARE, identify as Communists those people who oppose AWARE. 
What is your observation with respect to that indictment which is 
brought in the report? 

Mr. ScioiiDT. That is an indictment which appears in this Fund 
for the Republic report which is absolute falsification. Nothing that 
I or anybody in AWARE has ever said, none of our publications, can 
be used to justify that slander or that libel. We have said that neu- 
tralism is out of place when you are confronted with such a menacing 
obscenity of mind and spirit and soul as communism. We don't think 
that you could be neutral here any more than you could be neutral if 
you were standing on a street corner and saw a hit-and-run driver 
knock down a small child. It is conceivable that you could say, "Tliis 
is not my child. This is not my affair. I won't be involved. I won't 
be an informer. I will be neutral." It is conceivable, I say, but I think 
it is indecent. 

j\Ir. Arens. I have still another indictment which I construe from 
the report was brought against your organization ; namely, that your 
organization has no competent standards of judgment. What is your 
observation on that indictment? Do you concur with me that that 
indictment is brought? 

Mr. Schmidt. Yes; that indictment is brought, and it comes with 
particularly poor grace, it seems to me, from the Fund for the Re- 
public people because they make more delicate distinctions, distinctions 
with much less tangible nuances than we have ever tried to make. 
They make it apparently with the dogmatic assumption that they are 
practically infallible, because here on page 144, volume II, they talk 
about pro-Comniunists. On pages 144 and 145 they talk about the 
Communist faction. They say that one fact is beyond dispute, that 
there was a conscious organized caucus of the Communist Party in 
the entertainment field pushing the Connnunist Party line in the talent 
unions. There was. When did it stop, Mr. Cogley ? 

Mr. Arens. What are the competent standards of judgment? 

Mr. Schmidt. I could go on and show you so many distinctions that 
they make with great abandon and facility, but when we say a man 
belongs to a front or he has lent his aid and support to a front, we have 
no standards. I submit we have standards and I submit that this is 
one of the reasons why this report is so valueless, because they have 
forgotten the basic problems that lie at the heart of this subject. 

I would like to take that before I deal particularly with the special 
question, because my answer to this presupposes the other. 

I say that they have neglected in handling this problem — as scholars 
would, they have neglected such things as what is the Communist con- 
spiracy, its nature, its instruments, its methods? 

Mr. Sciierer. Do you think that neglect w^as intentional? 

Mr. Schmidt. I assume that adults who confront themselves with 
a task of writing a two-volume treatise on blacklisting are iiiot that 
daft, that they would forget. I am sure it must have been intentional. 


Here are some of the basic philosophical problems that they have 
completely iieo-lected, apart from the Communist conspiracy, its in- 
struments and its methods. They have talked derisively about some 
people's standards for detecting Communist inhltration. sometimes 
leaving a subjectivist impression that nobody in this world will ever 
be competent. At other times adopting a kind of collectivist theory 
that only government has the right to do it, much as to say that gov- 
ernment is so important that it must only be left to Congress, i am 
sure that no Member of Congress, seriously thinking about it, wants 
government left only to Congress. 

On the day when it does we have lost our country. When the 
people of our country don't manifest an intelligent interest, because 
after all you get out of the ballot box only what you put into it, 
if you put stupidity and ignorance into it that is what you are going 
to take out of it. It is a duty on people who believe in government of 
the people, by the people, and for the people to interest themselves in 
these things and in intelligent fashion. 

They have neglected the standards for collaboration. Not only 
have tliey neglected it — listen to this: They have in this particular 
passage of the report, on page 97, volume II, they have stated this : 

* * * but "collaborator" remains a word open to the several meanings. Is 
signing a Communist-sponsored petition "collaboration"? 

Just imagine asking. That is like Pilate asking "What is 
truth?" and not staying for an answer. They asked this question 
and they go on to the next sentence : 

It could be clearly so, if that was the intention of the signer. 

I refer to what Congressman Scherer just said. There is a dif- 
ference sonietimes between the nature of the act and the intention 
of the doer of the act. The nature of the act has an efficiency and 
finality of its own quite apart from the intention of the doer. If I 
go to a medicine chest with the intention of getting a pill to allay 
my headache and by accident take poison, I am going to die because 
the nature of the act contradicts my purpose. This is one beautiful 
illustration of how the nature of what you do contradicts your in- 
tention. I think men are held or should be held to tlie normal conse- 
quences of their actions and their decisions. They have neglected 
in this a whole treatment of what are the standards for immutability, 
what are the standards for collaboration, what are the standards for 
scandal ? This is exactly the thing we are inveighing against. We are 
inveighing against the spectacle of people who are supposed to be 
adults, who as adults join Communists fronts or participate in activi- 
ties of Communist fronts and apparently it is all right for them 
to do it, but when Godfrey Schmidt says they did it, it suddenly be- 
comes all wrong. This is particularly important when you are deal- 
ing with the Communist conspiracy because you are not having in 
the Conmiunist conspiracy the kind of thing that we as Americans 
are used to. 

In America we are used to joining organizations and saying flat- 
footedly, "I am a member of AWARE and I am proud of it." I 
wouldn't deny it anyway. But the Communist is not that kind of 
fellow. He denies it. He is part and parcel of a movement that 
denies it. He follows Imowingly or unknowingly by lending his aid 
and collaboration, the dictum of Lenin in 11)21 when he said the 


bourgeoisie have lied about us. "They tell us that we have no system 
of ethics or morality. We have a very scientific and simple morality, 
much superior to the hypocrisy of the West," and it comes to this: 
Whatever advances the dictatorship of the proletariat is right and 
"whatever hinders it is wrong. 

This is the thing we are getting at. 

Mr. Arens. You have leveled a number of criticisms here at this 
report, and I believe you said a few minutes ago that it is worthless. 
Do you feel that it has any negative impact upon the fight against 
communism, that a great organization with millions of dollars and 
great publicity attached to its efforts should come out with a report 
of the nature which you have characterized. 

(Representative Kearney left the hearing room.) 

Mr. Schmidt. I don't think it could fail to have the negative impact 
of encouraging the kind of people who, first of all, justify all forms 
of joining Communist-front organizations. I am sure that the Com- 
munist Party high command would be delighted to have every week 
a document like this come out, because this fronts for a line that it 
seems to me has been increasing. 

I would not have answered. Congressman Doyle, the question that 
you presented in exactly the same way because I think you have to 
make a distinction. I think that in one respect communism and Com- 
munist-f rontism has increased. I think in another respect it has gone 
backward. It has gone backward largely b-ecause of the activities 
of people like yourselves and the small help that small organizations 
like ours render. But it has gone forward in this respect : They have 
successfully foisted on an unsuspecting people a theory of civil liber- 
ties that in effect makes the first 10 amendments a suicide pact. It 
seems to me they have — well, I don't know of any better illustration 
of it, gentlemen, than this book that Zechariah Chafee just published, 
The Blessings of Liberty. He regards the whole Communist con- 
spiracy in this country, the whole thought of it, as a tempest in a 

Mr. MoTJLDER. You referred to joining Communist-front organiza- 
tions and that they should be condemned for it even though they might 
do so ignorantly. Is that the way I understand your theory ? 

Mr. Schmidt. No ; if you listened carefully to my definition, I said 
for a sufficiently grave reason. Sufficiently grave reason, as I said, 
involves collaboration. This is exactly what this study fails to do, 
develop a theory of collaboration. What is collaboration ? If a i)er- 
son holds the door open to a thief or an arsonist without knowing it, he 
has objectively collaborated, materially, but not formally. He didn't 
intend that. I wouldn't blame him. But it seems to me that it is 
a little late in the day for adults to lend their names to strings of 
Communist fronts, and fail to repudiate them and then say we did 
it in ignorance. 

(Representative Doyle left the hearing room.) 

Mr. Moulder. They may fail to repudiate it, but do you know of 
cases where people joined organizations which at the time were not 
actually Communist-front organizations but later on became domi- 
nated by Communist influence ? 

Mr. Schmidt. Yes ; that is right. Judge Pecora is an example in 
New York. He joined the Lawyers Guild. It was Communist-domi- 


nated, but he was intelligent enough to perceive it after a while, and 
he resigned with great eclat. Nobody would ever think of calling 
Judge Ferdinand Pecora a Communist or a f ronter. 

Mr. Moulder, That is my point. 

Mr. Schmidt. I say to you that it was the failure, it seems to me, 
of this report to elaborate on standards of imputability and collabora- 
tion, on the meaning of the ethical standards behind detraction and 
calumny that makes this a political tract and nothing short of a politi- 
cal tract, rather than a serious research job. 

Let me give you one example. In the back of the book here in the 
Jahoda study is an illustration of some of the most inept type of 
statistical survey I have ever seen. She says on page 238, volume II, 
about the middle : 

When asked what would happen to a person in the industry who is not a Com- 
munist now but who attended Communist Party meetings for a short time 15 
years ago and was now named in a magazine as a Communist sympathizer, he 
answered, "He would probably lose his job." 

It seems to me, gentlemen, that some questions are so stupidly framed 
that a man who attempts to answer them in their inchoate form de- 
nominates himself a fool for trying to answer. You couldn't possibly 
answer that question intelligently, because you would have to ask one 
further question, at least. You say he attended Communist Party 
meetings 15 years ago? l^Tiat has he done in between ? Has he kept 
on defending the Communists in Communist Party caucuses within 

Let's skip that. "Within unions, whether he is a Communist Party 
member or not, within unions has he stood up and defended the party 
line? Has he been guilty of nothing but anti- anticommunism ? It 
is not my standard. It is a question of an objective standard. I 
should have thought that a study like this would have tried at least to 
isolate some objective standards. They didn't even try. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Schmidt, I would like to invite your attention to 
language in the report pertaining to the hearings of the House Com- 
mittee on Un-American Activities, appearing on page 211, volume II: 

In August 1955 the House Committee on Un-American Activities held hearings 
on communism in the Broadway theater. Twenty-three witnesses were called 
and 22 of them turned out to be "unfriendly," invoking the First, Fourth, Fifth, 
Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. 
In Hollywood or on Madison Avenue, actors that "unfriendly" could expect not 
to work again until such time as they "cleared" themselves. But the Broadway 
performers wlio refused to cooperate 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 have any observation to make, on the basis of your extensive 
background and experience with the Communist conspiracy, with 
reference to that approach to people who were identified as Commu- 
nist members before the House committee ? 

Mr. ScioiiDT. I think I could do nothing better in answer to that 
question, Mr. Arens, than to refer to page 151 of the report itself. 
On page 151, volume II, of the report it says : 

Many of the election slates put forward in the talent unions by the anti- 
blacklisting group were easy targets for their opponents because there was 


equivocation on the issue of communism. The majority of those who protested 
blacklisting were anti-Communists. 

I would agree with that. I am quite sure that the majority of the 
people in the talent unions who voted against AWAEE were anti- 
Communist. But now listen to this pearl of wisdom : 

Yet somehow they believed it necessary to include Communists or well-known 
fellow travelers on their slates so as not to violate civil liberties. 

Where did you ever hear such an inept and absurd theory of civil 
liberties that you violate American civil liberties in a private group 
when you fail to put Communists on the slate or fellow travelers on 
the slate? 

It seems to me there is your answer. If the Fund for the Republic 
thought that this was an important opinion, if they reported it 
without immediately excoriating as a silly interpolation they were 
capable of writing the part that you just read to me. 

Mr. Arens. May I ask you a question that I think perhaps might 
be going through the minds of a number of people, "So what V What 
difference does it make if the Fund for the Republic did issue this 
report with these statements? Of what significance is it? Is it a 
legitimate concern of this committee ? 

Mr. Schmidt. I think it is a legitimate concern of this committee 
because of the dogmatic assumption, express and often implied 
throughout this and throughout much of the newspaper comment that 
walks in where angels fear to tread, because they are saying we are 
guilty of un-American practices. You are interested in un-American 
practices. I would welcome an investigation of AWARE any time, 
any place. You can have any paper we have. You can have any 
witness we have. We are not afraid to stand before any people and 
show you that we are not guilty of un-American activities. 

Mr. ScHERER. Isn't it generally recognized among you experts on 
this subject that the top brass of the Fund for the Republic assert, 
either directly or indirectly, that it is the activities of this committee 
that have resulted in this odious thing they term "blacklisting" ? 

Mr. Schmidt. Sure. I don't think there is any doubt about it. I 
get that. 

Mr. ScHERER. Let me ask you another question following that. You 
said at the beginning of your testimony if this committee was abol- 
ished, all other anti- Communist groups would hesitate to go forward 
in their fight against the Communist conspiracy. 

You said that in substance. 

Mr. Schmidt. No; I wouldn't say that I said they would hesitate. 
AWARE and people like us wouldn't hesitate ho matter what a com- 
mittee did or failed to do, but we could not be as effective as you people. 
We don't have the power to speak. 

Mr. ScHERER. You would not be effective ? You could not go for- 
ward effectively ? 

Mr. Schmidt. That is right. The newspapers write all sorts of 
articles about this, but what has any newspaper done or what has 
it contributed to really isolate the issues in this matter and to settle 
them ? 

Mr. Scherer. So to stop an anti-Communist group like yours and 
individuals like you from being effective it would be necessary first 


to discredit this committee or stop the activity of this committee; 
wouldn't it ? 

Mr. Schmidt. I have no doubt about that, sir. It seems to me 
that every bit of tlie silly propaganda to the effect that this country 
is ridden with fear and propaganda because of congressional com- 
mittees — that book by Zechariah Chafee that I spoke of is full of 
that sort of thing. I tell you this 

Mr. ScHERER. What we have agreed on just now may explain the 
type of report that the Fund for the Republic has put forth in this 
instance on blacklisting ? 

Mr. Schmidt. Oh, I think it does, because I think that men like 
E. N. Griswold, for example — and I have debated with Griswold on 
television — men like Griswold stand for an interpretation of civil 
liberties that I think is absolutely wrong and unconstitutional, I 
wouldn't want to be shut up by any legislation. I would want to 
continue the debate. But I am not going to let him shut me up by say- 
ing in papers or in books that I am un-American. I can stand before 
him and any audience in the world I think and defend my point of 

The Chairman. There wasn't a handful of lawyers at that meeting 
in Philadelphia of the American Bar who did not conclude that he 
was just simply not telling the truth in what he said about the fifth 

Mr. Schmidt. I must say I read his book on The Fifth Amendment 
Today. I heard him give that argument when he debated me on the 
Edward R. Murrow show, and I have no respect for that kind of 
lack of logic. I say that there is a new gambit, it seems to me, that 
is coming to the fore. Maybe you haven't heard it. But I have met 
it. They say to fellows like mj^self : "What about this question of being 
an informer? You pretend to be Christians. You pretend to like 
the Sermon on the Mount. Turn the other cheek. Wliere is your 
Christian charity ? You are hurting people out of malice." And all 
that sort of thing. 

I say this in answer to that : The same divine Author who gave us 
the Sermon on the Mount on the last day of His public ministry stood 
in the Temple courts and seven times uttered the most terrible de- 
nunciations in the whole Bible. "Woe to you, scribes, Pharisees, 
hypocrites." He was telling that there was a plot of murder afoot. 
He was informing. So Pie gave us an example of how we have to 
act when we are confronted with a terrible crime. 

Mr. ScHERER. Getting back now to the questions that I asked you 
just a few minutes ago with reference to the feeling of the hierarchy 
of the Fund for the Republic, namely, that this committee is respon- 
sible for this odious thing that they have called blacklisting through- 
out this country, do you have any idea or opinion now as to why the 
Fund for the Republic produced that report or engaged in such an 
investigation ? 

Mr. Schmidt. I think they produced that report to carry out and 
to apply a strange theory of simple liberties, a theory of civil liberties 
that in effect says that we must tolerate every kind of subversion be- 
cause {a) you really can't tell, there are no standards for subversion, 
and in the competition with free ideas error will eventually be blotted 
out and truth will triumph. I say to you that they don't even believe 


that themselves because they constantly attack people like myself who 
are using civil liberties who propagate our views as un-American, as 

If they really believed in the competition of the other ideas, why 
not debate this as we would always want it debated. That is to say, 
go to the essentials. You don't originate this problem. We didn't 
originate this problem. Communism originated this problem. When 
you were confronted with a conspiracy of the nature of communism 
which debauches the mind and the soul of man in more ways and has 
more victims than ever before in history — 900 million victims already 
and there wasn't a country they took over that they took over by 
majority vote. There isn't a country they have taken over where 
they permit the slightest vestige of civil liberties. I say this is the 
cause for the reaction that says we want to publish for a good and 
sufficient reason and out of a good motive, a truthful statement about 
those who collaborate, whether they intentionally do it or not. It is 
very simple for them to get off that hook, it seems to me. Let them 
disown it. This is what we would want. 

Gentlemen, why do they attack only our kind of blacklisting? 
Aren't they aware that every trade union in this country when it goes 
off on a strike or has a blacklist of its own or an unfair list is putting 
economic pressure on someone who doesn't agree with them? 

The Chairman. What about the Government of the United States, 
the Civil Service Commission blacklist ? 

Mr. Schmidt. Exactly. What about Dun & Bradstreet? Dun & 
Bradstreet gets a call for an investigation for a fee. Wliat about 
every newspaper ? Hasn't it happened that newspapers have damaged 
reputations ? Are we going to say to the newspapers you fold up be- 
cause sometimes you did it by error, and you had to make a retraction 
and you never could really make that retraction. 

It seems to me, a kind that in effect says let Government speak alone, 
but no private citizen may talk on this subject. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. Chairman, we have another witness. I don't know 
whether Mr. Schmidt has concluded his point, sir. 

Mr. Schmidt. This is the kind of subject you could go on and on, 
like Tennyson's brook, but I don't want to wear out my welcome. 

The Chairman. I assure you that you won't as far as I am con- 

Any questions, Mr. Velde ? 

Mr. Velde. Mr. Schmidt, of course, I have enjoyed your testimony 
and I know you are very able. I think you said the only way that we 
could handle this situation is through publicity. Do you think there 
is an area of legislation that we could recommend ? 

Mr. Schmidt. No. I have given that a lot of thought, and I would 
oppose legislation on this particular subject. I think that this is one 
of those subjects of public debate that should be allowed the arena of 
public debate. I was amazed by the climax of this second volume, 
the mountains were in labor and came forth with a ridiculous mouse 
because the most obvious thing in the world is apparently the conclu- 
sion to which they come. 

However, a public debate might be initiated to air the facts as well as the 

I think if you start legislation you will inevitably regiment opinion. 
You will start to create a kind of dictatorship within this field. I 


think there are cases where an employer has the right to discharge 
people without specifying a reason. I think that this notion that you 
can't discharge someone without giving him a hearing is a rather 
ridiculous thing. In the first place, these people didn't give us hear- 
ings. They prate condemnation after condemnation against us but 
they never gave us a hearing. But they say when we criticize someone 
else for justified reasons we must give hearings. I don't agree with 
that for a number of reasons. In the first place, if that were true no 
newspaper should publish its frank and critical appraisal without 
giving a hearing, which I would deplore. In the second place, you 
couldn't write histor}' on that theory because you can't give Nero and 
Caligula a hearing today but we don't need a hearing to prove that 
they were wrong or to prove that Hitler was wrong. It seems to me 
that this is an area that is legitimately within the compass of free 
speech and free press. But I do think that the function that your 
committee can serve is to give these people who always will come 'to- 
morrow, who are never here today, these phantoms who keep saying, 
"If we only had a forum to which we could present our case, then we 
would floor them" — I want to see some of those people. 

]Mr. Moulder. Mr. Schmidt, is your organization a self-supporting 
organization ? 

Mr. Schmidt. It is self-supporting in the sense that it lives on its 
initiation fees and dues. It sometimes gets gratuities from people, 
donations, but it is not tax-exempt. We always tell people that they 
don't get any deduction on their income tax for giving us money. I 
don't know of any case where we ever got in excess of $200 from a 
particular person. 

Mr. Arens. But your organization is attacked by a tax-exempt 

Mr. Schmidt. I gather so. 

Mr. Velde. Do you think it should be ? 

Mr. Schmidt. The thing that amuses me about this is that little 
organizations like us, with a treasury that is rich if it has $2,000 at 
one time is now feared by an organization which has $15 million at 
its command. 

Mr. Moulder. The point I was making is that your organization 
is supported from subscriptions and from memberships ? 

jMr. Schmidt. That is right. We have no endowments. 

Mr. Velde. Mr. Schmidt, do you think the Fund for the Republic 
is a type of organization that should be tax-exempt ? 

Mr. Schmidt. I suppose that is not my judgment to say, but I do 
have an opinion on it. 

JMr. Velde. Mr. Chairman, I don't know whether we are getting out 
of line here, but I would like to have his opinion. 

The CiiAiRMAisr. I do not think he is qualified in that field. Any 
questions, Mr. Willis ? 

Mr. Willis. I would like to ask one question. I always had in 
mind that when the expression was used that a person had been black- 
listed, that connotes an unjust accusation. 

]\Ir. Schmidt. I would say so. You have to consider history. 

Mr. Willis. Wliat worries me is that the way the word "blacklist" 
is used in this report it has variations in it. 


Mr. Schmidt. That is right. You see. Congressman, if you go back 
in the history of the world it really originated in the field of labor 

Mr. Willis. Wliat is the origin of it ? 

Mr. Schmidt. It originated in the area of labor relations. 

The Chairman. Have you overlooked World War I, the so-called 

Mr. Schmidt. Yes, but the labor-relations angle antedated World 
War I by many years, you see. You had blacklisting in the repre- 
hensible practice of some employers though who denied the right of 
free association to employees and made them unemployable by actually 
handing to one another a list of the so-called troublemakers. We do 
not indulge in blacklisting in that sense. Ever since that connotation 
the word "blacklisting" has had a kind of slur inherent in it, a built-in 
slur, in other words. We don't do blacklisting in that sense. I say 
to you that when the Anti-Defamation League does what it has a thor- 
ough right to do, isolate anti-Semites and publish the fact that they 
are anti-Semites, I am for them. I am glad they do it. But is it any 
easier to find an anti-Semite than a Communist? They don't give 
hearings, either. They can issue responsible appraisals of a person's 
anti-Semitism. I think we can do it without hearing, too. I think 
when you have the spectacle of documentation on a man with 20 or 30 
significant front affiliations you don't have to go far during that 
period that he has never repudiated it. 

The Chairman. Of course I am enough of a logician to see exactly 
what happened in this tract. They start with the conclusion, there is 
blacklisting. Then they built a syllogism around backward. This is 
done for the deliberate purpose of deceiving the people, in my opinion. 

Mr. Schmidt. Whether they deliberately do it or whether they are 
infatuated with a wild and strange series of conclusions about what 
the first amendment grants, I wouldn't say. I am even willing to grant 
to them perfect sincerity in their way. After all, gentlemen, the fact 
that a man is sincere as a Nazi doesn't mean that we don't fight him. 

The Chairman. Any other questions ? 

Mr. ScHERER. I don't quite agree with your conclusion. I go back 
to the thing that I was driving at a little while ago. I think the group 
that sponsors the Fund for the Republic is trying to show that this 
committee basically is responsible for what they call blacklisting. 

Mr. Schmidt. I think I agreed, with that before. I don't think that 
you can remove that as one of the motivations here because it prac- 
tically says so in many pages. 

When they come to discussing AWAEE, for example, and what I 
have done, j^'ou can see time and a^ain they completely misrepresented 
what I have said. For instance, on page 154, volume II, they quote me 
as saying or quote my organization as saying : 

Happily, AFTRA is one of the few unions in which flatly declared anti- 
commuuism and antitotalitarianism have won many clear victories. 

That is the quotation. 
Here is the comment : 

The first statement, that AFTRA is "one of the few unions" in which anti- 
communism is dominant, was itself telltale. 


We didn't say anything like that. We didn't say it was one of the 
few unions that was controlled by anti-Communists. We said it was 
one of the few unions where tliere were flatly declared statements of 
anticommunism. Again I say to you AFTRA or Actors Equity Asso- 
ciation have beautiful statements that they are against communism and 
nazism. They even have a national rule that says that they are sup- 
posed to expel or that they can expel people who take the fifth amend- 
ment when they come before your committee. But I say to you what 
have they done on the basis of this ? It is easy enough to make speeches 
in abstract against communism, but communism can't be fought merely 
in the abstract because communism is a kind of contagion that is car- 
ried by people. If you throw the searchlight of revelation on the 
people they run for cover because they are only used to the underside 
of things where things are hidden. 

The Chairman. The committee will stand in recess until 2 o'clock 
this afternoon. The witness is excused with the thanks of this com- 

(W^iereupon, at 12: 10 p. m., July 13, 1956, the committee was re- 
cessed, to reconvene at 2 p. m. the same day.) 


(Members of the committee present: Representatives Walter and 

The Chairman. The committee will be in order. 

Mr. McNamara, will you raise your right hand, please. Do you 
swear the testimony you are about to give this committee will be the 
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? 

Mr. McNamara. I do. 

Mr. Arens. Mr, Chairman, would you pardon an interruption before 
Mr. McNamara's testimony. Mr. Riesel, who is one of the persons 
alleged by the Fund for the Republic report to be one of these so-called 
clearance men, was contacted by your staff with reference to a possible 
appearance before the committee. As the chairman and I believe 
everyone knows, Mr. Riesel has been suffering from blindness because 
of a horrible incident that occurred, and he said he would be unable to 
come but he sent down a very brief statement which he said he would 
like to have inserted in the record. I respectfully suggest that it be 
inserted in the record at this point. 

The Chairman. All right. •• 

(Mr. Riesel's statement follows :) 


I have never participated in any "clearance ring" dealing with persons in the 
entertainment industry. 

I have never met with persons in the entertainment field to help "clear" them- 

I have never issued "aflBdavits" on behalf of such persons seeking to "clear" 

I have never made any entertainment figure "controversial" and then partici- 
pated in any efforts to "clear" such controversial figures. 

I resent the fact that the Fund for the Republic, Inc., never called me and never 
queried me about the statements they have published which refer to me. As a 
newspaperman I am appalled at the fact that they violated a basic concept of the 
profession and failed to check their story with the persons allegedly involved. 


Mr. Hutcliins and the directors of the Fund for the Republic shrewdly dis- 
claimed all responsibility for the "facts" in Mr. Cogley's book on the entertain- 
ment industry. So do I. 

The Chairman. Unfortunately, for the purpose of this hearing, the 
whip has just requested all Members to be on the floor of the House. 


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

Mr. McNam ARA. I am Francis J. McNamara. My residence is 5601 
Glenwood Koad, Bethesda, Md. I am presently employed as the 
director of the American Sovereignty Campaign of the Veterans of 
Foreign Wars. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. McNamara, would you give us a thumbnail sketch 
of your personal background, your education, and the employments 
in which you have engaged ? 

Mr. McNamara. I attended St. Johns College in Brooklyn and re- 
ceived a B. A. degree there in 1938, and an M. A. from Niagara Univer- 
sity in 1939. I was in military service from early 1941 until 1946. Sub- 
sequent to that time I served in China with the United Nations Relief 
and Rehabilitation Administration for a year. In 1948 1 went to work 
for Counterattack. I worked in its research office for approximately 
2 years and became editor of the newsletter in 1950. I remained in 
that position through April of 1954, when I came to Washington to 
take up my present work with the Veterans of Foreign Wars. 

Mr. Arens. Would you kindly give us a word about Counterattack ? 
What is Counterattack and what does it do ? 

Mr. McNamara. Counterattack is a weekly newsletter devoted to 
exposing and opposing Communist activity. It was established in 
the spring of 1947 and is still being published. 

I might mention the fact that the men who established the news- 
letter all had formerly been associated with the Federal Bureau of 

Mr. Arens. Mr. McNamara, while you were with Counterattack, 
were you ever approached by a representative of the Fund for the 
Republic in connection with its investigation of matters covered by 
the report on so-called blacklisting ? 

Mr. McNamara. Not while I was with Counterattack, but I was 
approached after coining here to Washington. I don't recall the exact 
date. It might have been 8 or 10 months ago, or a year ago. Mr. 
Edward Engberg, who identified himself as a research associate of the 
Fund, called me and asked if he could come in to see me. I happened 
to be busy at the time and said not before the following week. He 
said he had to go back to New York the following day and asked if he 
could just talk to me for a few minutes and become acquainted before 
leaving, and then get in touch with me again later on. I agreed to that, 
and he came in to see me. He told me that because of the fact that I had 
been editor of Counterattack they were interested in interviewing me 
in connection with this study. He asked me if I would be willing to 
cooperate. I laid down one condition — that anything they asked me 
would be in writing and all my replies would be in writing. 

Mr. Arens. Wliy did you say that ? Wliy did you make that con- 
dition ? 


Mr. McNamara. I explained to Mr. Engberg that I had nothing 
against him personally but I had, in effect, been burned on several oc- 
casions before by reporters and writers who came in to me and said 
that they wanted to write an objective study or account of this prob- 
lem. I was interviewed and then, in the work they published on 
the basis of the interview, they distorted facts, misquoted, and so on. 
I was simply interested in protecting myself and having it all on the 
record in black and white. 

Mr. Arens, Then what happened after you laid down as a condi- 
tion of the interview that the questions and answers all be in writing? 

Mr. McNamara. Mr. Engberg seemed to assent to that. Tliis was 
a brief introductory interview, that is all. He had to leave for New 
York, and he said that he would be in touch with me again when he 
came down to Washington. He never did get in touch with me again, 
and I was never interviewed in connection with this study. 

Mr. Arens. By any person? 

Mr. McNamara. No one at all. This seems strange to me in view 
of the fact that the Fund report relies so extensively on anonymous 
sources and I was willing to be quoted. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. McNamara, I invite your attention to volume II of 
the Fund for the Kepublic report on so-called blacklisting, in which in 
the early part of the report a number of allusions are made to Counter- 
attack. Specifically I invite your attention to the second full para- 
graph beginning on page 4, in which there are listed a number of state- 
ments pertaining to Counterattack, and ask you if you have any obser- 
vations with respect to those statements. 

Mr. McNamara. I believe you are referring to this statement on 
page 4 : 

Counterattack sometimes seems compelled to condemn activities that many 
Americans feel are the normal manifestations of free political debate. 

Then he lists these items : 

A petition to gain clemency for the Rosenbergs, or have the Supreme Court 
decide on the constitutional issues in the Hollywood Ten case. * * * 

I flatly deny that Counterattack has ever done anything like this, and 
I charge that this is a false accusation. It is false because it sup- 
presses an essential fact. Neither 1 nor anyone associated with Coun- 
terattack ever opposed a simple petition to gain clemency for the 
Rosenbergs. What we opposed was support of or the signing of a peti- 
tion that was Communist-organized, Communist-inspired, and de- 
signed to promote the Communist Party line. The same is true of the 
brief submitted to the Supreme Court in the case of the Hollywood 

I can go on down this list of items he mentions. "A protest 

Mr. Arens. Excuse me. I think you jumped one or two instances 
of censorship. Has Counterattack ever attacked anyone because of a 
feeling of censorship? 

Mr. McNamara. No. 

Mr. Arens. The next item is a "steady concern for civil liberties." 
Has Counterattack to your knowledge ever attacked anyone or vilified 
anyone because that person had a steady concern for civil liberties? 

Mr. McNamara. The answer to that is "no," and I might add this : 
As a matter of fact, Counterattack has repeatedly stressed the fact that 


in all anti-Communist activities great concern must be given to civil 
liberties, that on no occasion is there justification for violating them, 

Mr. Arens. The next listing here against Counterattack on page 4 
of the Cogley report is against Counterattack for attacking people 
because they want to study blacklisting. Have you ever attacked 
anyone because they wanted to study blacklisting? 

Mr. McNamara. That, too, is a false statement. 

Mr. Arens. Have you ever attacked anyone, the next indictment 
against your organization is, because they want to study Government 
security measures? 

Mr. McNamara. That, too, is false. 

Mr. Arens. Have you ever attacked anyone on the basis of this 
next indictment, to quote from the report, because they protest atomic 
warfare ? 

Mr. McNamara. As stated there, no. I use those words because we 
did criticize people who did sign or support the Communist line. 
Communist-inspired statements opposing atomic warfare. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. McNamara, are there other charges in this report, 
to which you would like to direct the committee's attention, of in- 
stances in which you would take issue with Mr. Cogley? 

Mr. McNamara. Yes, there are quite a few. I don't intend to try 
to cover all of them, but I think a few of the key items could be 
considered here. 

First of all, on page 1, paragraph 3, volume 11. He describes Red 
Channels, a book published by Counterattack in the spring of 1950. 
The general description is accurate. In addition to saying lied Chan- 
nels identified various people with certain Communist fronts, in re- 
ferring to these fronts he says : 

They included organizations identified as subversive by the Attorney General, 
the House Committee on Un-American Activities, the California Un-American 
Activities Committee, and other official and private sources. Among the private 
sources were the authors of Red Channels themselves. 

Then follows the same sort of criticism on page 7, paragraphs 2 
and 3. He goes into the question of the problem of identifying Com- 
munist organizations. He mentions the fact that in its issue of De- 
cember 19, 1947, Counterattack named 34 fronts not included by the 
AG, the Attorney General, which "ought to have been." A few months 
later it gave its readers a list of 192 fronts, 1 19 of which, it pointed out, 
did not appear on the Attorney General's list. 

Again, on page 11, there is a similar implication that Counterattack, 
without good justification, was branding organizations as Communist 
or subversive. I refer to the end of paragraph 2 on page 11. After 
quoting a Counterattack article, he states : 

It went on to cite the Committee for the First Amendment as a "front," and ad- 
vised its readers to write their Congressmen in support of the House probe. 

That is referring to this committee's investigation of Hollywood 
in 1947. 

Again, on page 27, a similar implication is made. He is speaking of 
an organization called the Voice of Freedom Committee and a rally it 
held. At the end of the last full paragraph on page 27 there is this 
parenthetical statement : 

This rally was also cited in Red Channels as a Communist undertaking. 


The general tenor of all these references, as I read it, is to cast doubt 
on the accuracy of these citations by Counterattack. I challenge Mr. 
Cogley, now, if he can, to prove that Counterattack has ever named 
any organization as Communist without justification. 

During the period that I was editor of the newsletter I named many 
organizations as Communist. To give one example, about a month ago 
this committee held hearings on the Save Our Sons Committee, which 
was actually engaged in one of the dirtiest Communist operations ever 
performed in this country. That committee was organized at the end 
of October 1!)52, and in the issue of December 12, 1952 — before it was 
2 months old — I stated that that organization was a Communist front. 
I stand by that statement today. Within a week o'f the time it was 
formed, I named the American Peace Crusade as a Communist front 
in the issue of February 9, 1951. I stand by that accusation today 
and I point out that both this committee and the Attorney General 
have cited the American Peace Crusade. 

The same applies to the Peace Information Center, the Labor Youth 
League, the American Veterans for Peace, the Union of New York 
Veterans, and many other organizations which I stated were Commu- 
nist. I can say Avithout any question that various committees, the 
Attorney General, have in nearly all cases upheld what I have said. 

I think if Mr. Cogley can disprove any claim made by Counterattack 
he should come forward and do it and not try to give the impression 
by sly implication that we have been making unwarranted charges. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. McNamara, does Counterattack engage in black- 

Mr. McNamara. The answer to that question is "No." I would, if 
I might, prefer to put off the answer to that question until I have 
covered a few more of the key points here. 

Mr. Arens. Go right ahead. I didn't mean to anticipate you. 

Mr. McNamara. These are points where they go off the beam. I 
think this is an important point, the question of whether or not a 
private individual or organization can name an organization as a 
Communist front with justification and accuracy. 

First of all, some years ago this committee published a Guide to 
Subversive Organizations and Publications. On page 5 of the preface 
to this guide the committee gives a number of criteria which the aver- 
age individual can use to judge and determine whether or not an organ- 
ization is Communist. On pages 6 and 7 it also lists 14 criteria laid 
down by J. Edgar Ploover, Director of the FBI. It is interesting to 
note here that Hoover's exact words in giving these criteria were : 

There are easy test.s to establisli the real character of such organizations. 

In other w-ords, this is not an extremely difficult thing to do. 

I have here a reprint of an article which appeared in the New York 
World-Telegram, Thursday, January 29, 1948, about 2 months after 
the Attorney General issued and made public the first subversive list. 
This was written by Frederick Woltman. The headline, "Many Top 
Fronts of Commies Left Out of United States List." 

He pointed out that more than 70 groups w^ere missing from this 
first roster. This was an accurate listing. Here is a case where a 
responsible reporter, a man who had won a Pulitzer prize for his work 
in this field, with the a]:)proval of the Scripps-Howard papers, had 
taken it upon himself to name organizations as Communist, and I say 


this today : "^Vliat he gave at that time still stands as true. He could 
have been sued by the key officials of any one of these organizations. 
He was not. 

I would like to point out the fact that when the Emergency Civil 
Liberties Committee held its first rally in January 1953 in New York 
City, the American Committee for Cultural Freedom, an organiza- 
tion o'f liberal, anti-Communist intellectuals, issued a public charge 
that this organization was Communist. It called on a number of 
professors and clergymen to disassociate themselves from this affair. 
Its charge in reference to the ECLC has since been upheld by the 
Senate Internal Security Subcommittee. It was an accurate charge. 
It was a fair charge. 

I think that in doing this the American Committee for Cultural 
Freedom was performing a valuable and patriotic service, just as 
Counterattack was doing when it named organizations as Communist 
as soon as they were formed. It was alerting people to a Communist 
fraud, doing what it could to see that the American people would not 
be sucked into these groups or used by them to aid communism. 

On page 7 Mr. Cogley says that the whole issue here was — 

whether the American public would accept a private group, however, knowl- 
edgeable, fair, careful or scrupulous it might be, which compiled its own list 
of subversive organizations and then put the considerable public pressure at 
its disposal to force anyone associated with the organization at any time to 
"explain" his association or suffer the consequences. 

That issue, I think, has been settled. It has been settled by the 
American Committee for Cultural Freedom and the fact that the 
public has accepted Counterattack, the American Legion, the Scripps- 
Howard publications, and other papers which have named organiza- 
tions as Communist and called upon certain people to explain their 
associations with them. There has been no outcry or rebellion against 
this on the part of the American people. 

Another point : On page 2 Mr. Cogley makes the following state- 
ment, referring to Counterattack : 

Its underlying thesis — that Communists were "infiltrating" the radio-TV field 
and should be removed — became something of a doctrine in the industry. 

Then on page 19, in the last paragraph, there is this statement, re- 
ferring to the stated purpose for which Ked Channels was published ; 
he says : 

The first purpose begs two questions : Did the Communists have a "plan of 
infiltration"? The word "infiltration" is vague at best — 

and so forth. 

In other words, in these two quotations he is raising doubt as to the 
accuracy of Counterattack's position that there was Communist in- 
filtration in the broadcasting industry. 

When J. Edgar Hogver testified before the House Appropriations 
Committee in 1947 he made the following statement : 

The party — 

referring to the Communist Party — 

has departed from depending upon the printed word as it medium of propaganda 
and has taken to the air. Its members and sympathizers have not only infill 
trated the airways but they are now persistently seeking radio channels. 


Again, in 1950, he made the following statement before the same 
committee : 

Many Communist fellow travelers and stooges have been able to secure posi- 
tions enabling them to actually control personnel and production. 

And he was here talking about radio and TV programs. 

He also stated the Communist Party was setting up schools to teach 
writing, acting, and directing in radio-TV work. 

In the American Legion Magazine, December 1950, Louis Budenz 
wrote an article in which he revealed that in 1943 the Communist 
Party set up a special commission to direct infiltration of the broad- 
casting field. He pointed out that Alexander Trachtenberg, V. J. 
Jerome, A. A. Heller, Joe Brodsky, and himself were members of this 

As a matter of fact, Cogley takes cognizance of this on page 143, 
volume II, when he states — this is the opening paragraph : 

In the fall of 1952 a partial transcript of testimony given before the Senate 
Internal Subcommittee was made public. 

He quotes a statement from it referring to this Communist Party 
commission set up in 1943. 

In other words, he was aware, evidently, of the article by Budenz. 
He certainly should have been aware of J. Edgar Hoover's testimony. 
But he chooses to give the impression that it is an open question still 
of whether or not the Commies have ever tried to infiltrate broad- 

I think that the American public will accept the testimony of J. 
Edgar Hoover and the word of Louis Budenz rather than the implica- 
tions of Mr. Cogley on this point. 

On page 5, volume II, in the second paragraph, referring to Counter- 
attack, he makes this statement : 

If, for instance, actor T has been cited as belonging to organization P which 
has been cited by the California Tenney Committee as subversive, Counterattack 
does not take a great chance when it states the fact. It sometimes bappens 
that act(»r T actually did vot belong to organization P, or it sometimes bappens 
that organization P was not actually subversive in any meaningful sense despite 
the Tenney committee — but Counterattack has fulfilled its obligation, it feels, 
when it reports what the Tenney committee had to say about organization P 
and actor T. 

He says here it sometimes happens that actor T does not belong. 
Again, inasmuch as that is a completely unsupported statement, I 
think it is an unfair allegation and I flatly deny it. I challenge him 
to produce one instance in which Counterattack did this, stated in 
effect that a certain individual belonged to an organization when he 
didn't, or where we accepted a Tenney committee citation of an organi- 
zation as a front when the organization was not a front at all. 

I might point out in this respect that on one occasion Counterattack 
disagreed with the citation of a certain organization by the Tenney 
committee. We challenged its listing of one group, the National Insti- 
tute of Arts and Letters. We felt that it did not fill the definition of a 
front. But at no time in Counterattack itself or in Red Channels did 
we connect anyone with an organization that had been incorrectly 
accused of being a Communist front by the Tenney committee or by 
any other committee. 

82833— 56— pt 2 7 


He repeats the same charge in the following paragraph. I think I 
have answered that. 

One point which Mr. Cogley raises in his report and which I think 
is very important is the one, on pages 7 and 8 of volmne II. 

This question goes to the matter of the accuracy and the reliability 
of sources used not only by Counterattack, but by this committee and 
many other organizations fighting communism in this country, namely, 
the reliability of the Daily Worker and the letterheads of Communist 
fronts as indications of Communist activity on the part of various 

He refers to a story published in Counterattack under the headline 
"Red Front Uses Phony Sponsor List." In this story Counterattack 
brought out the fact that after investigating or looking into a letter- 
head of the Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee and writing to 
some of the people named as sponsors on that letterhead, it received 
letters of denial and letters stating that the individuals concerned had 
called upon the Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee years' before to 
drop their names. I think the fact that Counterattack did this is a 
tribute to Counterattack. This article was published after I left the 
organization, but I happened to be the one who saw this letterhead, 
who went over the names very carefully, and recognized the names of 
individuals who I knew, because of my close study, had not been 
associated with Communist fronts for quite a period of years and who 
in some cases had taken public anti-Communist stands, 

I wrote to the people named here. Yehudi Menuhin, Pierre Mon- 
teux, the conductor; Hazel Scott and her husband; Representative 
Adam Clayton Powell ; the composer Leonard Bernstein ; Bartley C. 
Crum, and so on. 

I pointed out that I had this list, that I felt that what the Joint 
Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee was doing was just using today a 
letterhead that was many years old. I thought if this was true, it 
was something that should be exposed. All the replies didn't come 
in until after I left the organization, and that is when the story was 

I think this story is something that was good to write, and it re- 
flects the integrity of Counterattack, the carefulness with which it 
looked into things before it made any charges. 

He, however, uses it as a vehicle for attacking the reliability of in- 
formation used by Counterattack. 

"This is a phony letterhead," he implies. "How can you believe 
anything that Counterattack prints when it relies on letterheads?" 

I would like to make a few observations on that. 

There is a similar criticism on page 19, volume II : 

It should be remembered that nearly all of the official documents cited by 
the professional anti-Communists are tabulations of names made by the Com- 
munists themselves. No hearings have been held to determine whether or 
not the use of these names was authorized. 

I would just like to point out that there is no reason for the Daily 
Worker, when it reports today that at a rally two evenings ago in 
Madison Square Garden or some place like that, so and so got up 
and made a speech and when it quotes what he said — there is no 
reason for it to lie, to falsify, to say that a man spoke at this 
rally or appeared at it when he never did. You see, it is absolutely 
necessary for the success of the conspiracy that the Daily Worker 


have a certain integrity. If it engaged in wholesale falsehoods the 
party members themselves would lose faith in the Daily Worker, and 
the Daily Worker is the medimn through which the party must get 
its directives to iis members. So, although the Communists have 
no morality themselves or devotion to high principles and so on, they 
must of necessity maintain a certain integrity in the news and in the 
facts published in the Daily Worker. This applies not only when 
they are giving an account of the rally held some days before, but 
when they are naming people who have signed a Communist brief or 
statement or were supporting a Communist front, giving their names 
as sponsors. 

The Chairman. Incidentally, did you know that the Daily Worker 
is printing this report in a series of articles? 

Mr. JMcXamara. Yes; praising the Fund for the Republic report. 
Yesterday and the day before I know that David Piatt devoted his 
whole column to plugging this report. 

The Chairman. This is the third day. 

Mr. JNIcNamara. The same thing applies to Communist-front let- 
terheads. If Communist fronts adopted the practice of just pull- 
ing names out of hats and putting them on their letterheads without 
permission, the value of these letterheads would soon be lost. The 
party members themselves would lose confidence in them. There 
would eventually be protests. People would learn that these let- 
terheads were all phonies, that they have no meaning, and therefore 
they would get no response. This of course would defeat the very 
purpose of these organizations. Their value lies in the fact that the 
people whose names are on their literature actually do support them. 

Ii, as some people have repeatedly claimed, the Communist Party 
merely pulls its sponsors' names out of a hat and puts them on its front 
letterheads without permission then we are faced with this question : 
Wliy is it that names like that of Bing Crosby and other people who 
are top stars in the entertainment field and have great pulling power — 
why is it that we have never seen their names on a single Communist 
front or on several Communist fronts ? 

Mr. Kearney. You can go beyond the name of Bing Crosby. You 
can take George Murphy and Aclolphe Menjou and hundreds of others 
out there of which that is true. 

Mr. McNamara. That is true. I have given only one example. 
There are numbers of them, not only in Hollywood but in all fields, 
athletics, business, and so forth. I, of course, have never been in the 
party myself or in a front, in an executive position or any other, but I 
have tried in talking with people who are former Communists to find 
out whether the party ever made it a practice to falsify a letterhead and 
a name, and I have been assured that to the best of the knowledge of 
these people who were once Communists and who worked in fronts, 
that tliat was not the practice. The party in setting up a letterhead 
never just took a name out of a hat. It either wrote to the individual 
or called him on the telephone before putting the name down, with 
this exception : If they tried to reach Paul Robeson, for example, and 
he was out of town they would slap his name on, or someone else like 
him who was a Communist and who they knew without any question 
would support any front. 

Mr. Kearney. May I interrupt? Then, according to the testimony 
of witnesses we have had here who have been asked directly the ques- 


tion as to whether or not they gave permission for the use of their 
names on letterheads, they either begged the question or said they knew 
nothing about it. 

In other words, they were not exactly telling the truth ; were they ? 

Mr. McNamara. Well, you have to judge each case. If a man had 
been in 6 or 8 fronts and then he denied that he had ever given his name 
to another, I would be inclined to doubt his word. There is another 
possibility. A man could honestly forget that he had given his name 
to a front. If 10 years from now I was asked if I had attended this, 
that, or the other function of the VFW I could very well forget some 
because it is routine for me to go to many VFW functions, being in 
the organization. 

Mr. Keakney. I could go along with you on that one. 

Mr. McNamara. IVlien a person was a tried and true fellow traveler, 
going on one front after another, it is very possible that he could forget 
the fact that he had been to a certain Communist-front rally or agreed 
to sponsor a certain front. So he can honestly get up before a com- 
mittee and say, "I don't remember that I ever gave my name." It was 
the routine, habitual thing for him to do. It had no special 

I do not claim that no Communist front ever, under any circum- 
stances, put the name of an individual or two on its letterhead without 
permission. It may have happened. The point I want to make is this : 
Granted, for the sake of argument, that on 1 or 2 occasions a front has 
put a person's name on a letterhead without permission, you still 
cannot justifiably claim that because of these 1 or 2 rare exceptions 
to the rule, a basic reliable research technique should be done away 
with. These are rare exceptions. It is not the usual thing at all. To 
say that just because it has happened on 1 or 2 occasions you must 
never refer to a Communist-front letterhead or the Daily Worker as 
a reliable source of information is ridiculous. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. McNamara, in the course of these hearings on this 
subject there have been various definitions of blacklisting. Would 
you kindly tell us whether or not by any definition of blacklisting 
Counterattack has been engaged in that odious practice ? 

Mr. McNamara. We have been repeatedly accused of that, not only 
by Mr. Cogley but others, but we have not been engaged in blacklist- 
ing as such. The cry of blacklisting was raised by the Communist 
Party as soon as Counterattack and others went into the entertain- 
ment field — even before the publication of Eed Channels — and told the 
unpleasant truth about certain people who were making big money in 
radio-TV, and that truth led to their being dismissed or fired. 

This raising of the cry of "blacklist" is part of the semantic war- 
fare the Communists have waged against all their enemies in this 
country for years. It is standard technique for Communists to 
seize words with pleasant, good, and noble connotations and attach 
those words to their agencies — "democracy," "peace," "people's democ- 
racy," "constitutional rights," and so on. 

Then, on the other hand, they take words with evil or nasty con- 
notations and pin them on their enemies — "Fascist," "reactionary," 
"Wall Street imperialists," "witch hunters," and so on. "Blacklist." 
This, too, is an example. The word has an unpleasant connotation. 
If they can pin it on people who are fighting Communists, then they 


■create the impression that everyone associated with the attempt to 
prevent Communist infihration of the broadcasting industry is tainted, 
undemocratic. This is a form of guilt by word or name association. 
I would like to note that on page 237 of volume II of the Jahoda 
study, which is a supplement to Mr, Cogley's report, near the top of 
the page there is a subsection, Views on "Blacklisting," in which it 
states : 

"Blacklisting" is an nsly term. So ugly that it is freely used throughout radio 
and television only by those who condemn wholeheartedly the variety of practices 
and policies associated with the term. 

Mr. Arens. Have you ever tried through Counterattack, as indi- 
cated in the foreword to this opus, to cause people to be disassociated 
from their jobs because they might be controversial? 

Mr. McNamara. That all de])ends on what you mean by contro- 
versial. We have never said this : That So and So should be dropped 
because he is controversial. We have said So and So has been identi- 
fied as a member of the Communist Party. So and So has been asso- 
ciated over a period of years with, it may be 5, 6, or a dozen — whatever 
it is — Communist-front organizations, and until he gives a satisfactory 
explanation of these associations he should not be employed in the 

Mr. Arens. Have you ever attacked people and tried to get them 
removed from their jobs because of their political opinions or political 

Mr. McNamara. The answer to that is "No.'] 

I would like to refer to another point raised in this report, the ques- 
tion of politics. This is page 2 of volume II, the last paragraph : 

Most significant, the acceptance of Red Channels meant that the radio-TV 
industry oflBcially adopted the political point of view espoused by Counterattack. 

Then he goes on, again referring to Counterattack's political evalua- 
tions. This is in the very opening of the book. That is a smear state- 
ment for the simple reason that Counterattack never espoused any 
political viewpoint. I was editor under a Democratic and under a 
Kepublican administration, and under both, on some occasions I praised 
individual Democrats and Republicans and the administration for 
certain actions they took about communism, and in other instances I 
was critical. But the people who owned Counterattack were of varied 
political beliefs. They did not represent any one party and at no 
time did Counterattack promote a political viewpoint in the usual 
sense of that word. 

By the time you have finished reading this volume you see that Mr. 
Cogley refers repeatedly to the Communist Party as a legitimate po- 
litical party or implies that that is what it is. So it may be possible 
that here he is referring to Counterattack's views on communism. I 
would just like to point out that that is a very unusual interpretation 
of the word "political." 

Mr. Arens. Have you read this report with some degree of care? 

Mr. McNamara. Yes; I have, most parts of it. 

Mr. Arens. On the basis of your background and experience would 
you care to characterize whether or not this report is a literary or 
educational enterprise or presentation ? 

Mr. McNamara. I wouldn't call it educational. What I would say 
of this report is that it is an attempt to sell a particular viewpoint by 


distortion, by slanted writing, by the suppression of certain key facts 
in some cases, and the inchision of immaterial, irrelevant matters in 

If I may, I would just like to go back to this question of blacklisting 
and Mr. Cogley's views of it. He has said before this committee that 
denying employment to a Communist Party member, a fellow traveler, 
one who employs the fifth amendment, or even a waiter because he was 
unfortunate enough to have a very homely face — so homely it would 
scare the clientele of a restaurant — that that is blacklisting. He said 
that "irrespective of the reason," and those are his exact words, firing 
people or denying them employment is "blacklisting." He said 
that blacklisting "may be justified, unjustified, wrong, or right," but 
he refused to commit himself on whether it was right or wrong to 
blacklist party members, and so forth. 

I say that this is a ridiculous definition of blacklisting, but it fits 
in, of course, very well with the way the Communist Party uses the 
term. If his definition of blacklisting is correct, then blacklisting is 
generally used everywhere in the United States and the whole world ; 
it is the policy of every business corporation or association, every group 
that employs people — and who can accept such a definition ? Accord- 
ing to his definition, the Air Corps would be blacklisting a man be- 
cause, we will say, he was 6 foot 5 and weighed 250 pounds and he 
wanted to be a fighter pilot. He just doesn't have the physical quali- 
fications. He can't fit in the plane. But if they denied him the 
"right," as the Fund would say or Mr. Cogley would say, to be a fighter 
pilot, they would be "blacklisting" him. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. McNamara, may I interpose this question : On the 
basis of your extensive background and experience in the fight against 
communism and your association with those of like caliber, would you 
care to express before this committee whether or not a person who is a 
professed Marxist is ideologically equipped to make an objective study 
of this subject of so-called blacklisting? 

Mr. McNamara. I would say "No." And normally, if a foundation 
employed a person with a pronounced bias one way or the other to 
work on an objective study it would be criticized. The professed 
Marxist would naturally be interested in defending and helping other 

Mr. Arens. Do you know that Mr. Michael Harrington who is or 
was the chief assistant to Mr. Cogley in the preparation of this report 
publicly described himself in publications of recent vintage as a 
Marxist ? 

Mr. McNamara. I am aware of that. 

Mr. Arens. Do you feel that a person who is a professed Marxist 
as of this date and as of the time of preparation of this report is 
ideologically equipped to discern the facts on Communist penetration 
and upon so-called blacklisting? 

Mr. McNamara. I do not. He would naturally be biased in favor 
of Communists or Marxists. 

Mr. Arens. What distinction, would you make ideologically between 
a Communist and a Marxist? 

Mr. McNamara. On some occasions you do have a man who is an 
ideological Marxist who is not a Communist Party member. It may 
be, for example, that he was more or less revolted by some of the 


things Stalin did, because of the atrocities, and so on, and he refused 
to affiliate himself formally with the Communist Party. 

Mr. Arens. But his basic concepts are the same as those of a 
Communist ? 

Mr. McNamara. Yes. That man hopes that the Soviet Union will 
reform itself, will purify its communism according to his ideas, and 
therefore he would never want to see the Soviet Union destroyed be- 
cause he sees it as the one hope of bringing to the world his funda- 
mental Marxist beliefs. He will try perhaps to influence or change 
some of the things that are done. Today such people undoubtedly are 
rejoicing at the repudiation of Stalin which is going on but at the 
same time if it came to a showdown between the two forces, the anti- 
Connnunist and the Marxists in the world, I think the ideological 
Marxist would naturally be strongly tempted to go with the other 
side, with the side of the Soviet Union. 

Mr. Arens. If you were engaged as the expert that you are in 
communism to make a study of employment practices relating to Com- 
munists and fellow travelers, would you enlist as your chief assistant a 
person who is and was a professed Marxist? 

Mr. McNamara. No, I would not. 

Mr. Arens. Who in his writings says, "We Marxists" ? 

Mr. McNamara. No, I would not. 

Mr. Arens. Why wouldn't you? 

Mr. McNamara. Because I do not believe that such a man would 
be able to look at the situation objectively. He would naturally be 
opposed to the elimination of Marxists — whether they were Stalinists 
or not — from the radio-TV industry and other positions of influence. 

Mr. Ivearney. May I ask this question: As far as blacklisting is 
concerned, so-called blacklisting, couldn't they very well charge the 
Federal Government on form 57 with blacklisting when you have to 
swear to an affidavit that you don't belong to a party that is dedicated 
to the overthrow of this Government by force and violence ? 

Mr. McNamara. They could and they do. That is the danger, I 
think, in the Cogley report, that it gives a definition, so far as it goes 
in that respect 

Mr. Kearney. Pardon me for interrupting. What I am getting at 
is that they could very well accuse the United States Government of 

Mr. McNamara. They do. They also accuse this committee of being 
a blacklisting committee. 

Mr. Kearney. We have been accused of many things. 

Mr. McNamara. I realize that. The Cogley definition, so far as 
it exists and is fairly definable, helps the party in this respect. I 
would like to mention on the question of blacklisting this point, too : 
That your better business bureaus, the retail credit agency, Dun & 
Bradstreet, and so on, "blacklist" all types of people every day. The 
"victim" doesn't know it. When they give a very low credit rating that 
is, in effect, a blacklist. It destroys a man's financial opportunities. 
It has a tremendous effect on his future and that of his whole family. 
This is extralegal. No hearings are granted. 

I am not saying this to be critical of these organizations. I think 
they have done a tremendous job. They actually have protected thou- 
sands of people from being swindled and making bad deals and invest- 


ments. They have prevented heartbreak and so on. They perform 
a real service. I contend that the people who are engaged in what the 
Fund for the Republic calls blacklisting are doing the same thing. 
They are just making available to the public for its consideration the 
records of certain people — exposing fraudulent goods. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. McNamara, you are appearing here today not only 
because of your prior connection with Counterattack, but also because 
jou are presently associated in very important work with the Veterans 
of Foreign Wars. Do you care to express to this committee the posi- 
tion and attitude of that great veterans' organization with respect to 
trying to keep Communists and those in the Communist web out of the 
■entertainment industry ? 

Mr. McNamara. I can just state the position briefly, and it is this : 
That the Veterans of Foreign Wars has consistently supported the 
•efforts of this and other committees to expose and eliminate Commu- 
nists and fellow travelers from the entertainment industry and that 
it is still supporting that effort and is opposed to the hiring of such 

One of the basic weaknesses in this report — you might call it an 
intellectual weakness — is this : All history indicates that every society 
has a certain minimum code of conduct, and there is ostracism for 
those who break it. In the past many Hollywood stars have lost out 
completely, not because of any subversive affiliation but just because 
they did certain things which violated the code accepted by the Ameri- 
-can people. They were top stars one day, and the next day they were 

The industry, radio-TV, must acknowledge this code. It is a fact 
that it exists. It is legitimate and it is good. It is essential for 
internal order in this country, 'for peace, for all progress that has 
been made in the history of civilization. This code must exist. It has 
always existed. Those who defy it and who do not want to isolate 
themselves from society have only one choice. They must endure the 
censure that society imposes on those who break the code. The Fund 
just won't face this fact. 

I would like to point out here an example of what Cogley would call 
blacklisting. This was done by a union. This is the American Guild 
•of Variety Artists AGVA News of March 1952. On page 6, it features 
a "national unfair list." An introductory paragraph states : 

Artists, employers, and agents are urged not to do business with any person 
■or establishment appearing on the unfair list, nor to appear in any show in 
which a person on the unfair list is appearing. Every violation should be 
reported to AGVA in order that violations of AGVA's rules may be stopped — 

And so on and so forth. 

Then it lists here — there must be several hundred citations of artists, 
agents, spots and attractions, owners and producers. 

I am not opposed to this blacklist. I think it is legitimate. Unions 
are not the only ones who do it. Right-wing groups do it, liberal 
organizations, the National Committee for an Effective Congress, the 
AFL-CIO, and so on. 

My point is that as long as an organization has legitimate interests 
and standards, it is fair for it to engage in such activity to see that those 
standards are upheld. 

The fact that we have to face and which the Fund for the Republic 
won't face, evidently, is that Communists and fellow-travelers have 


violated the standards of the American people. President Truman 
once denounced the Communist leaders as traitors. 

On August 10, 1950, a full page ad was published in the New York 
Times. The ad was signed by many well-known Americans. Bill 
Mauldin, the famous GI cartoonist of World War II ; Actress Made- 
leine Carroll ; former Secretary of War Robert P. Patterson, who was 
known as a liberal ; Irving Berlin, Rube Goldberg, Raymond Massey, 
Howard Lindsay, Russell Crouse, Milton Caniff, and 15 other people. 
This is what this ad said in part : 

The war is on. The chips are down. Those among us who defend Russia 
or communism are enemies of freedom and "traitors to * * * the United States." 

This is the basic issue here, the basic issue which Cogley studiously 
avoids. The era he covers in this book is largely the era of the 
Korean war. Yet he never brings up this issue. That was the issue. 
Some of the people in Red Channels were people who, even during 
the Korean war, were openly siding with the Communist Party which 
took the side of Moscow. 

The Chairman. Let me show you what the Daily Worker does with 
this report and the testimony concerning the activities of Victor Riesel, 
George Sokolsky, and Frederick Woltman, with respect to advising 
people how to relieve themselves of an unpleasant situation that they 
place themselves in. This editorial in the Daily Worker today says : 

AVTARE has a "clearance" program all its own. It has published a guide on 
the subject called The Road Back. It discusses how the truly repentant can be 
recognized. The book lists 12 suggested steps in the process of rehabilitation. 

This is what the Daily Worker says about these steps : 

They are 12 steps in the making of an informer. 

This is the way a twist has been placed in order to discredit the con- 
structive work done by some fine Americans and American organi- 

Mr. Kearney. I am sure the chairman didn't expect to get any truth 
out of the Daily Worker. 

The Chairman. I didn't expect to get any truth, but every day I 
learn something by reading it. 

Mr. McNamara. The question of civil liberties has featured very 
prominently in all the discussion of blacklisting in this book. All 
through it you get the impression that Counterattack and Red Chan- 
nels and I, inasmuch as I was editor of Counterattack for 4i/^ years, 
have no respect for civil liberties and of course in that respect no 
regard for people. 

I would like to point out that Prof. A. O. Love joy, the founder of 
the American Association of University Professors, in 1949 made the 
following statement : 

[The! conception of freedom is not one which implies the legitimacy and in- 
evitability of its own suicide. * * * what it implies is that there is one kind 
of freedom which is inadmissible — the freedom to destroy freedom. 

In other words, no American has the right and he is not exercising 
freedom, he is abusing it, when he supports the Communist Party 
and its fronts. 

The issue is as simple as that. Wliat has astonished me more or less 
is that in all this discussion which is going on there is so much con- 
cern for the alleged civil liberties of Communists and fellow travelers 


and none for the liberties of the great mass of the American people, 
the overwhelming majority of the 165 million people in this country, 
who are anti-Communists, and I am referring to their right to pro- 
tect themselves, their families and their country against this conspir- 
acy to destroy their basic rights and the form of government on which 
those rights rest. 

They have a right to defend themselves not only against the hard 
core of the conspiracy, but all its agents, knowing or unknowing, by 
taking positive action against everyone who threatens their way of 
life, their very existence and the well-being of their families. They 
have a right to refrain from supporting anyone who serves this con- 
spiracy, either because he is a conscious instrument or because he is 
such a sloppy, indifferent citizen that he or she cannot be bothered 
to check and find out whether or not what he is doing is a violation 
of his fundamental duties as a citizen; namely, aiding the destruction 
of all tliat is worthwhile and which this Nation represents, 

I will go further and say that when a citizen knows these conditions 
exist — the infiltration by a conspiracy, and so forth — he has an obliga- 
tion and a duty to take action against it, to do everything he possibly 
can, and when he remains indifferent and does nothing he is in a sense 
actually guilty of betraying his heritage and the cause of freedom. 

Mr. Kearney. If I may interrupt there, in the years that I have 
been on this committee I have come to the conclusion that the only 
ones who are supposed to have any civil rights or civil liberties in 
this country are not the vast majority of the American people but the 
liard core of the Communist conspiracy. 

Mr. McNamara. That is what it amounts to. I think this isn't 
accidental. It has been developed. I honestly think that the Fund 
for the Republic if it had gone into the facts — it is supposed to be 
interested in civil liberties^ — could have done a lot of good. If, instead 
of using sly innuendoes and slanted writing to imply that people who 
are active in so-called blacklisting are reprehensible it would actu- 
ally praise these people, the networks and advertising agencies and 
•other organizations and individuals who, the best they could, were 
fighting Communist infiltration of the broadcasting industry, it would 
not be used as a propaganda device by the Communist Party in its 
■effort to destroy this country, and they would have been performing 
a real service. Unfortunately they have done just the opposite. 

I think this inordinate interest in the rights of Communists is due in 
part to the fact that in the fall of 1952 Stalin issued a directive to 
Communists in all parts of the Western World to "raise higher the 
banner of bourgeois civil liberties." That was 4 years ago. They 
have had 4 years to work and agitate along this line. Last August 
at a meeting of top Communist Party brass in New York, Claude 
Lightfoot, who has been convicted under the Smith Act, called upon 
all members of the party and fellow travelers to conduct a "national 
crusade" — those were his words — a "national crusade" to stop all effec- 
tive anti-Communist action under the slogan "the struggle to preserve 
the Bill of Rights." 

As usual, the party hasn't had great success with this theme among 
the American people as a whole. There has been no grassroots out- 
cry that because communism is being fought, everyone's civil liberties 


are beinc; destroyed. But as usual, too, there is a minority, a relatively 
small group of people, usually self-proclaimed liberals, who have fallen 
for this line. I don't believe they are doing it wittingly. They are 
raising this big fuss. They have been atfected by this propaganda. 

The Chairman. They do not do it wittingly, but they think it is 
clever. It satisfies some sort of inferiority complex to sit around and 
criticize people who have gotten into the position that they aspire to 
attain but never can and never do. That is the answer. 

Mr. Abens. Have you any other comments to make, Mr. McNamara ? 

Mr. McNamara. I just happened to think of this: Some time ago 
I was referring to the Fund's attack on the reliability of the informa- 
tion used by Counterattack, this committee, and others who fight 
communism, namely, the Daily Worker, the front letterheads, and so 
on. In Counterattack issue of March 2, 1051, I stated that the Na- 
tional Council of the Arts, Sciences, and Professions, a Communist 
front, was willing to give performers in the radio-TV field a lying 
letter to the effect that they had never been associated with the 
NCASP, even if they had been. 

This, I believe, was part of the Commies' plan, or attempt, if it 
could, to cast doubt on the trustworthiness of letterheads of Com- 
munist-front organizations and therefore the reliability of this com- 
mittee in certain of its reports, of Counterattack, and Ked Channels. 
I stated this : 

Those who have been affiliated with the National Council of Arts, Sciences, 
and Professions (XCASP), for example, can get in touch with J. JULIUS 
JOSEPH at Council's hqs. in N. Y. City. (JOSEPH was named by ELIZABETH 
BENTLEY as a member of CP and of Washington espionage ring * * * she 
said he, while in OSS, cooperated in getting information from Govt, files for 
Soviet agents.) 

"Knuckling down to reaction won't help matters," JOSEPH may say (as he 
already has) to convey a gentle reprimand when a request for clearance is made. 
But, if the caller persists, JOSEPH will agree to supply a letter stating that the 
NCASP used his or her name in its literature and press releases without obtaining 
permission to do so. 

I think this illustrates the extent to which the Communist Party 
has gone in its efforts to discredit the sources of information used by 
Counterattack, Red Channels, and others in fighting communism. 

On the whole issue of blacklisting I think some of these exhibits, 
which show how extensively the Communists agitated about "black- 
listing," may set this Fund for the Republic report in its proper 

This is a copy of the approved version of V. J. Jerome's speech to 
the loth National Convention of the Communist Party in December 
1950, published by New Century Publishers, a Communist publishing 
house. The title is "Grasp the Weapon of Culture." This speech 
was one of the counts which was included in Jerome's indictment when 
he was charged under the Smith Act with conspiring to teaoh the 
overthrow of this Government by force and violence. On page 16, 
column 2, first full paragraph of the approved version of the speech 
at the party convention he says this. This is 6 months after Red 
Channels was published : 

Against the Fascist blacklist and censorship campaign spearheaded by Red 
Channels and Counterattack, there is gathering resentment which can be or- 
ganized into a storm of protest — 

and so on. 


This man is one of the key people in the Communist Party as far 
as activities in the cultural field is concerned. 

Here is another example of the conspiracy's "antiblacklist" cam- 
paign. I have referred to the National Council of Arts, Sciences, and 
Professions, a (Jommunist front. In the fall of 1951, following 
Jerome's orders, this organization staged a series of rallies 
against the "blacklist." This is a flyer announcing one of those 
rallies : 

"Stop the Blacklist," "How Counterattack Gets People Fired," and 
so on, reproductions of various headlines. The American Labor Party 
and other Communist fronts cooperated. 

Here is another copy of the same flyer from this committee with a 
little attachment stapled to it : 

Monitor Musts #1. VOF has pledged full support of its monitors for 
this meeting — 

the same rally. 

VOF is the Voice of Freedom Committee. Wlien J. Edgar 
Hoover testified before the Appropriations Committee in 1950 he re- 
ferred to this organization indirectly. He didn't name it. But in 
speaking of Communist attempts to move in on radio and TV he said 
that one front boasted of the fact that it had thousands of monitors 
all over the country who write letters of protest, and so on, to sponsors 
to kill anti-Communist commentators and speakers. Tliis little note 
is signed by Stella Holt, who urges all members of the Voice of Free- 
dom Committee, which the Attorney General has cited as subversive, 
to support this NCASP antiblacklist rally. 

I have another interesting exhibit here. The party really went 
all out to sell this blacklist idea and to kill off those who were engaged 
in trying to stop and clear up the infiltration of the industry. Here 
is a flyer advertising a rally which was held on April 4, 1951, Wednes- 
day, at the Hotel Sutton in New York. A rally to CRACK THE 
BACK OF COUNTERATTACK, sponsored by the advertising divi- 
sion, as I recall, of the National Council of Arts, Sciences, and Profes- 
sions. That ad asks : 

What important art studio was put out of business within 1 week after it was 
BLACKLISTED by Counterattack? 

This is a reference to a truthful story Counterattack published some 
months before this about an art studio in New York owned and riddled 
by Communists which had valuable contracts with many Govern- 
ment agencies and was making big money. All I did was write the 
truth about the organization. Within a few weeks it had lost all these 
contracts and was out of business. The party charges that Counter- 
attack blacklisted the organization. It did no such thing. It told 
the truth. 

Mr. Arens. Did that epithet "blacklisting," which is used by the 
Communist Party antedate the Fund for the Republic's report on 

Mr. McNamara. Yes. All this antedates the Fund for the Re- 
public. It is very interesting to me that nowhere in this report-sunless 
I have missed some important things, and I don't think I have — is there 
any reference to the concerted campaign which the Communist Party 
waged on this issue of blacklisting, its efforts to destroy everyone who 
was engaged in this work of exposing and ending the infiltration of the 
broadcasting industry. 


Mr. Arens. Is the term "blacklisting" as applied to the efforts of 
the anti-Communists to expose Communists in the entertainment in- 
dustry a term which has been for some time in common use by the 
Communist conspiracy ? 

Mr. McNamara. Yes. I couldn't pin it down to a month or any- 
thing like that, but I would say in the late forties when identified Com- 
munists began to be dropped by the movie, radio, and the TV in- 
dustry, then this blacklist cry began. It was raised by the Communists 
and really whipped up. 

Just one more comment in line with these rallies to end the black- 
list that the National Council of Arts, Sciences, and Professions staged. 
This is an exhibit from the Hollywood Reporter, November 13, 1950. 
The Arts, Sciences, and Professions Council in Hollywood, the Holly- 
wood branch of the NCASP, had held an antiblacklist rally out there. 
In reply to this rally this full-page ad appeared in the Hollywood 
Reporter : 

HOLLYWOOD REPUDIATES the Arts, Sciences, and Professions Council. * * * 
The Motion Picture Industry Council emphatically denies that this organiza- 
tion or this meeting in any way represents Hollywood — 

referring to this rally against blacklisting — 

The motion-picture industry resents being identified with or judged by this or 
any group which fastens on this industry only to misrepresent and injure it. 

It is signed by the Motion Picture Industry Council and its affiliated 
groups: Association of Motion Picture Producers, Hollywood AFL 
Film Council, Independent Motion Picture Producers Association, 
Independent Office Workers, Screen Actors Guild, Screen Directors 
Guild, Screen Producers Guild, Screen Writers Guild, Society of 
Independent Motion Picture Producers, Society of Motion Picture 
Art Directors. 

In other words, Hollywood as a whole, all the basic elements in 
the industry, have flatly repudiated this Communist effort to play 
this whole thing up as blacklisting and to say that it must be destroyed 
and eliminated. I think in doing so they were responding to the 
wishes and the desires of the American people. 

The radio-TV industry in New York, where it is centered, is doing 
the same thing in its efforts to clear up and prevent any further 
Communist infiltration in that field. 

The Chairman. What the Communists are trying to do is to create 
the impression that exposure and blacklist are synonymous; isn't 
that it? 

Mr. McNamara. Yes. As a matter of fact, the Fund for the Re- 
public or Cogley report aids that basic Communist aim because when 
you have finished reading this book you get the impression, the strong 
impression, the impact of the whole book, that no one can do anything 
against communism without being a blacklister, without being kind 
of nasty and dirty. 

What is the lesson? Therefore, no one should do anything about 
communism? Sit back, do nothing, give the Communists free rein. 
You might say that is the fimdamental lesson that this book teaches. 

I would like to make 1 or 2 comments on the book, the intellectual 
level of the book. Just one example. I refer to page 144, volume II. 
Some things in this book are actually fantastic. He is describing 
conservatives here. These are his exact words. 


Mr. Kearney. When you say "he," whom do you mean ? 

Mr. McNamara. I am referring to Mr. Cogley, the author of the 
report. He is referring to conservatives and defining them. This is a 
parenthetical statement in the second paragraph, page 144 : 

"Anti-Communist but not right-wing." This is the definition of a 
conservative ! Maybe I am crazy, but I have always heard conserva- 
tives referred to as right-wing people. He says a conservative is not 
a right-winger. What is a conservative ? A left-winger ? A person 
who says he is a middle-of-the-roader — is he a conservative? This 
defies common usage in the American language. 

One other example of just how low he actually goes sometimes to 
discredit Counterattack. On page 80, volume II, the chapter in which 
he is referring to various commentators who have been tied up with 
Communist fronts : 

Of the 10 radio newsmen listed in Red Channels, only Robert St. John, William- 
L. Shirer, and Howard K. Smith, were network commentators of national 

Then at the end of that sentence there is an asterisk denoting 
a footnote. The footnote is this : 

Winston Burdett, CBS newsman who testified in the summer of 1955 that he 
had once served briefly as a Soviet agent, was not listed. 

Counterattack never made any claim that it knew every man in 
this Nation or any other place who had ever served as a Soviet agent, 
and this ridiculous footnote is introduced in the book for no reason 
except to try to discredit Counterattack and claim it knew nothing. 
How would anyone reasonably expect Counterattack to know in 1950; 
that Winston Burdett sometime in the past had been a secret agent 
of the Soviet Union ^ Ridiculous, but I think a good indication of 
the little tricks that Cogley uses throughout this book to attack anti- 
Communists, to make them look bad. There is a terrific contrast be- 
tween the treatment he gives people who are fighting communism, 
and the Communists themselves. 

He will devote a whole chapter to Mr. Laurence A. Johnson, for- 
instance, to Mr. Vincent Hartnett, to Jack Wren, and others, digging; 
up every little item of gossip, rumor he can against them. The chap- 
ter on Mr. Johnson is just loaded with anonymous quotations of 
things people are alleged to liave said about Johnson. Yet when he 
gets to discussing the actual Communists and fellow travelers who 
allegedly have been blacklisted he gives the minimum of evidence 
and often all he will say is that they were listed in Red Channels. 
If they have been identified by a dozen witnesses as party members, 
if they have taken the fifth amendment, no mention is made of that. 
All this is concealed. He suppresses as much vital information as 
he possibly can about the commies and fellow travelers and just loads 
the other side with nasty remarks, innuendoes, digging up every little 
item he can when writing about those who are fighting communism. 

Mr. Arens. What will be the impact, for good or evil, of this report 
by this very powerful and well-financed Fund in the fight against 
communism in the United States ? 

Mr. McNamara. That all depends, of course, en its reception. If 
it is widely distributed and read and if people accept what it teaches — ^ 
and it is possible that they might because this is so worded that vital 


information is suppressed — then it will greatly aid the Communist 
Party. It can have no other effect. In effect, it pleads the party line, 
the party cause, in the question of radio and TV, the whole entertain- 
ment industry. 

Mr. Arens Mr. McNamara, is there another point you want to make 
before the committee ? 

Mr. McNamara. No ; I think I have completed my statement. 

Mr. Kearney. Mr. Arens, how widely distributed or read are these 
reports ? 

Mr. McNamara. The Fund for the Kepublic report? I do not know 
just what distribution the Fund intends in the case of this report. I 
understand that it will be sold for $1.25. Tliere is no telling just what 
distribution it will ultimately receive. 

The Chairman. If it doesn't sell, they will give it away. They 
will see that it is distributed. 

Mr. McNamara. They have done that in the past. 

The Chairman. That is right. 

Mr. McNamara. They have distributed free copies of various things 
they have promoted. Usually in the case of books it is no more than 
a thousand copies. But the thing is, it goes to key people, people in 
the best position to influence public opinion. 

If you can influence those people in the wrong way, then, of course, 
through them you can influence thousands and thousands of others. 

The Chairman. Like this Griswold's slanted book and discussion of 
the fifth amendment. It went to every United States district attorney 
and every judge in the ITnited States. It was accidental, of course, 
but that was the distribution, free distribution. 

Mr. Arens. Mr. McNamara, I think this is a fair question to you as 
a person who is an expert in the field of fighting communism. Is this 
report an objective, scholarly, educational report, or is it, on the other 
hand, of the propaganda variety ? 

Mr. McNamara. I would say it is definitely propaganda. I think I 
said before that it is not an objective study. There is not a full pre- 
sentation of all sides. Certain vital facts are suppressed. It is slanted 
writing, innuendo, hints, and so forth, to sell a definite point of view. 
It is not objective. 

If I may, just one more point. The attempt to discredit Red Chan- 
nels. If he had been interested at all in giving the full facts he would 
have pointed out — for instance, he repeatedly claims that Red Chan-, 
nels is the bible of Madison Avenue, that it was so used that no one in it 
could get any work at all, and so forth. In the September 13, 1950, 
.issue of Counterattack the following statement appeared: 

Red Channels was not meant to be used as a "blacklist" in the industry. 

In other words. Counterattack carefully pointed out that it never 
meant the book to be used as an automatic blacklist, that no one named 
in that book was ever to be used. As a matter of fact, a paragraph or 
two later, this statement : 

Counterattack knows of many instances in recent months where Red Channels 
listees have appeared on radio and TV programs. 

This statement was made in rebuttal of the claim of some news- 
papers that Red Channels had become the bible of Madison Avenue 
and that it was a complete and thorough blacklist. Counterattack; 


never protested the appearance of many of the persons referred to 
above whose Communist-front records were documented in Red 

Mr. Arens. May I ask this question at this point : Is Counterattack 
a tax-exempt organization ? 

iJMr. McNamara. No, it is not. 

The Chairman. Any questions ? 

Mr. KIearney. No. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Kearney. I appreciate very much the testimony you have given, 
Mr. McNamara. It contrasts to some of the other testimony we have 

The Chairman. Yes. It is very refreshing to receive the testimony 
of those who have no axes to grind. 

Mr. Arens. We have no other witnesses for today, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. The hearing is adjourned subject to call of the 

(Whereupon, at 3 : 35 p. m., Friday, July 13, 1956, the committee was 
recessed subject to call of the Chair.) 



3 9999 05706 3248 




»-W yiiAl ft 4 


4^»t(rh$#vvj ^il*? 

i%*4 / 

f<o5^^oJc» P^^ 





A^^HftwA fV 1- 


lA fl^ u 


vWnsfo^ (i^j» 


Vov)^ S^»t<^V. 1 


'" r;.i<;ir.; 

■ :-,'.-:r.":'.';i",Ji"l. 

.i- •;/:^:-'i';w ;!Jr-^J;F;^li!i^■